When Patriotism Meets Conservatism

Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, May 3, 2013

Lessons from South Africa.

Arthur Kemp, Victory or Violence: The Story of the AWB of South Africa, Ostara Publications, (Third Edition, 2012), $24.95, 227 pp.


If anyone should have seen it coming, it was the Afrikaners. The White Tribe of Africa watched neighboring countries fall one by one into the nightmare of black government, mass violence, and poverty. South Africans saw around them even in their own country the immutable nature of Africans. And yet, in 1992 the Afrikaners voted to commit suicide as a people. Why didn’t they fight back? Why didn’t they make a stand?

In fact, they did—or at least some of them did. The Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (AWB—Afrikaner Resistance Movement) carried on a remarkably sophisticated and widespread campaign of violent resistance to black rule. At its height, the AWB was supported by a relatively large percentage of the white population and had working relationships with influential political and military figures. The group was well armed, well trained, and gifted with a charismatic leader, Eugene Terre’Blanche.


Perhaps more importantly, the group had a clear political objective: the creation of a Volkstaat for the Boer nation, where the “Volk” could practice self-determination without ruling over non-whites. While some may joke that “an Afrikaner would rather be murdered in his bed than have to make it,” the AWB was well aware of the dangers of cheap non-white labor, white supremacy (as opposed to white self-government), and deracinated capitalism. Far from being a reactionary defender of apartheid, the AWB was a revolutionary movement dedicated to building a new Boer Republic.

Why did it fail? The AWB was not defeated by the African National Congress (ANC) nor by the world community. It was defeated by white conservatives—fellow Afrikaners who saw the AWB as a greater threat to their way of life than even the ANC. In retrospect, some may argue that the radical aesthetics and extreme rhetoric of the AWB pushed moderate conservatives into the arms of the ANC, and so led to the destruction of South Africa as a First World nation. However, a closer examination shows that conservatives and even some nationalists truly believed their own wishful thinking.

Conservatives never had the courage of their convictions. The rise and fall of the AWB is proof of the difference between conservatism and patriotism, and a painful lesson that patriots may have to defend their country against its own leadership.

Part of the problem was that Afrikaners could not decide whether they were “South Africans” or “Boers,” or what “their country” really was. As a result they lost both South Africa and the dream of a Boer Republic, and Afrikaners are now a despised minority in someone else’s country. The AWB saw what was coming, but their people would not listen.

The following account draws heavily on Arthur Kemp’s third edition of his compelling history of the AWB, Victory or Violence. Mr. Kemp, who was born in Rhodesia and worked as a journalist and political activist in South Africa, lived through and took part in many of the events he describes. He has a unique perspective from which all nationalists can learn a great deal.

Arthur Kemp

Arthur Kemp

Racial patriotism vs. conservatism—the rise of the AWB

The beginnings of the AWB derive from a common theme in South African history: the divide between reformist conservatives and nationalist hardliners. The dominant political party in South African history is the National Party, which saw itself as the political expression of the Afrikaner people, and established apartheid under Prime Minister H. F. Verwoerd. Terre’Blanche would later refer to Verwoerd in a famous speech as the “architect of the Republic,” and traced the decline of the state from his murder. (page 35) However, by 1969, the National Party was compromising on policies of racial segregation, and this led to the formation of the Herstigte Nasionale Party (HNP—the “Refounded National Party”). The new political party was crushed in elections, however, and relegated to the margins of society. In 1973, seven of its members started the AWB in Terre’Blanche’s garage. The AWB would be an extra-parliamentary pressure group that would focus on public relations and culture, not elections.

For years, the group had a small membership and almost no public profile. Its first public action consisted of ripping up the pro-integration petitions of liberal actors at a theater. However, it truly captured the public imagination in 1979 when members tarred and feathered a liberal professor, Floors van Jaarsveld, who had been heaping scorn on the Afrikaner holiday of the “Day of the Vow.”

The Day of the Vow commemorated the promise by the Voortrekkers to pledge themselves to God if He would defend them against a Zulu attack. After the Afrikaner victory at the Battle of Blood River, the Day became a foundation of their identity, and a symbol of their conception of themselves as a “chosen people.” AWB activists received light sentences for their action against the professor—Terre’Blance was fined 600 rand (less than $100)—because the judge concluded that the Day of the Vow was “sacred” to him. Terre’Blanche and his comrades were cheered on the front steps of the courthouse by supporters flying the “four color flag” of the Transvaal Republic.


This dual strategy of defending the faith, traditions, and sacred symbols of the Afrikaner “volk” and promoting a separate Boer identity characterized the AWB’s entire history. The first public AWB program, presented in 1979, was explicitly racial, religious, and—critically—anti-Semitic. It condemned the “methods of the anti-Christ, which resides in International Judaism,” and that uses a “denationalized government” to “disinherit” the Afrikaner of “the natural wealth of his land.” (p. 19) It identified its primary goal as “Christian self preservation,” which it considered equivalent to preservation of “the White race.” (18)

The AWB also favored state ownership of natural resources to prevent them from falling into the hands of “volks-alien companies.” Citizenship in a Boer republic would be limited only to those of the “White race who have proven their undivided loyalty to the Republic” and who spoke Afrikaans. (20) Though the AWB set up a political party, the “White People’s State Party,” it was never active, and the AWB maintained ideological opposition to the entire parliamentary system.

Such a program was hardly designed to appeal to the liberal press, which reacted with howls of outrage and charges of Nazism. The AWB’s logo, the “triple 7,” was claimed to be a Christian symbol, but the red, white, and black color scheme was, as Mr. Kemp notes, “obviously taken from National Socialist Germany.” (155)  Nonetheless, the AWB continued to grow, at least partially fueled by its outright co-option of traditional Afrikaner symbols. In 1982, for example, the AWB successfully raised money to build a monument reconfirming the Vow. The monument stands to this day; even the ANC has dismissed calls to destroy it.

In 1984, Terre’Blanche first addressed a mass audience through television, and it caused an enormous sensation. There were armed guards, a torch-lighting, and Terre’Blanche gave a stiff-armed salute. The media were horrified, but Terre’Blanche’s oratory fueled rapid growth. By 1986, when Terre’Blanche spoke at a celebration of 25 years of South African independence, no one doubted that he would overshadow all the other speakers. Indeed, after he spoke, the crowds began to drift away. As the AWB grew, it developed auxiliary units, including a motorcycle division, an armed guard, women’s groups, and charities.

Eugene Terre'blanche

Eugene Terre’blanche

The AWB’s program of cultural activism began to pay real dividends in 1982 with the founding of the Conservative Party (CP), a right-wing challenge to the National Party. The CP and the AWB coordinated their activities to good effect. The AWB began actively disrupting NP meetings, heckling senior political figures from the floor, and thwarting internal NP goals through parliamentary procedures. In response, the NP (no stranger to disruption tactics themselves) sometimes used violence, leading to brawls. The NP also started using boxers and wrestlers to defend their meetings, though these attempts largely failed. Out-organized and outfought at the street level, NP meetings eventually had to be defended by the armed forces against patriotic Afrikaners.

The CP played “good cop” to the AWB’s “bad cop.” The Conservative Party gained strength as the AWB challenged the NP’s ability to organize in nationalist strongholds. For the first time, National Party rule faced a real challenge, and the AWB gained ground in some liberal strongholds as well. Even in leftist Johannesburg, the AWB shocked the media by filling a meeting hall in 1987. In 1988, the 150th anniversary of the Great Trek, Terre’Blanche addressed a crowd of 60,000 people, many of whom, as in 1986, had no interest in hearing anyone else speak. The AWB seemed invincible.

The National Party tried to split this emerging challenge on its right. In 1983, the NP successfully pushed a referendum that allowed Indians and Coloureds into Parliament for the first time; their success owed much to the fact that the CP and the HNP refused to cooperate with each other. NP members seeking moderate reform of apartheid also took over the Afrikaner Broederbond (AB), a powerful secret society that included almost every influential person in the South African government. Thus, institutions that were originally set up to perpetuate Afrikaner rule were instead used to end apartheid.

The NP constantly tried to link the CP to the AWB, and pressured the party to renounce the AWB’s support. In 1987, the NP published a report called “Concealed by Jackboots and Piety,” accusing the AWB of being dominated by “Nazism and Anti-Semitism” and, perhaps more importantly to conservatives, being anti-capitalist and anti-Parliament. When the AWB moved too far, as when an AWB official attended a commemoration of Nazi leader Rudolf Hess, the NP quickly moved to link the AWB to the CP. The CP was thus trapped in a dangerous position. It benefited from the AWB’s agitation, but it was also unwilling to be seen as united with the more radical organization.

Scandal and division

If the AWB rose to prominence on the strength of one man’s oratory, it nearly collapsed because of his personal life. In late 1988, there was a media scandal about an alleged affair between Eugene Terre’Blanche and an English reporter named Jani Allan. This caused enormous public relations damage among the AWB’s strongly Calvinist supporters, but even worse, it led to a full-scale rebellion among AWB leaders. High-ranking members charged Terre’Blanche with alcoholism and immorality. Though Terre’Blanche put down the mutiny, many of the AWB’s most talented organizers left in disgust, never to return. Even the security arm of the AWB, Aquila, severed all ties with the official organization.

Jani Allen today.

Jani Allen today.

Incredibly, most of the AWB’s grassroots supporters stayed loyal, simply refusing to believe the admittedly biased media reports. By mid-1989, Terre’Blanche had sufficiently recovered from the crisis to launch a new strategy of actively seeking political office—a radical departure from everything the AWB had stood for until then. He openly asked the CP to name him as parliamentary candidate for Krugersdorp. Not surprisingly, though the CP had been happy to have him as a tacit ally, it bridled at an open endorsement, and this led to serious fighting within the right wing.

The smaller HNP suddenly reversed its opposition to the AWB and announced an electoral pact, along with smaller right-wing groups. However, even this collapsed within a few weeks, and Terre’Blanche abandoned electoral politics. The 1989 elections saw the CP gain seats—but not enough to stop the National Party, which announced it would move forward with its program of “reform” that would eventually lead to black rule. A final chance to use democracy to stop the sellout of the Boers had failed. Perhaps even worse, the working relationship between the AWB and their respectable allies in the Conservative Party was fatally damaged.

Violent resistance

By the late 1980’s, a bewildering array of lone wolf terrorists, guerrilla organizations, and ad hoc groups linked to the AWB were conducting violent resistance operations to stop the transfer to black rule. Actual and former AWB members played leading roles in most of these actions. In December 1988, a former South African policeman and member of the AWB named Barend Strydom indiscriminately gunned down blacks and Indians in a public square. He surrendered to a white policeman, saying he could not shoot someone of his own race. Though Terre’Blanche disavowed the attacks, he pinned the blame on the government for creating a climate of violence, and Styrdom received supportive visitors from the AWB and affiliated groups during his trial. Incredibly, he was freed as part of a general amnesty only four years later, on the grounds that his crime was politically motivated.

Styrdom was not alone. Former AWB men formed organizations like the “Order of Death” and the “Orde Boerevolk,” the latter based on the fictional “Order” of William Pierce’s apocalyptic The Turner Diaries. Headed by longtime AWB organizer Piet Rudolph, the Orde Boerevolk raided the South African Air Force’s chief armory in April 1990 and issued a fiery call to war for all Afrikaners.

The result was a bombing campaign against a host of anti-Afrikaner targets, including left wing newspapers, ANC-supporting unions, the National Party headquarters buildings, and even individual liberals, and taxi stands used by blacks. A “White Liberation Army” sprung up, as the police frantically began arresting current and former AWB men around the country.

White resistance fighters responded to black attacks on whites. In October 1990, three AWB men ambushed a bus full of blacks, killing six and wounding dozens. The South African security forces reacted overzealously, and Terre’Blanche took the occasion to present testimony that the police were torturing AWB suspects. He also organized rallies to free members who were being held without cause.

In 1991, the AWB came into direct conflict with South African police. Church groups had asked the government to let black squatters back onto state-owned property near the town of Ventersdorp, from which they had been expelled. The authorities permitted the return, and ignored the resulting increase in crime and thefts of livestock. Local farmers and the AWB took matters into their own hands, attacking the squatter camp.

"The Battle of Ventersdorp!"

“The Battle of Ventersdorp!”

The government responded by sending in police to protect the blacks, and the police obeyed the government’s orders to fire on the white farmers.

Battle of Ventersdorp

Confrontation at Ventersdorp.

President F.W. de Klerk announced he would hold a public meeting in the town in August 1991. The local government told him he was not welcome, and the AWB, led by Terre’Blanche himself, made plans for its own meeting. Mr. de Klerk and his NP supporters were forced to hold their meeting at an army hall, while the AWB gathered at the town hall. Terre’Blanche whipped the crowed into a frenzy, and led a march to the NP meeting.

AWB men surrounded the NP hall, while the police desperately tried to keep them away. In the confusion, a taxi driven by a black drove towards the crowd and was rocked by hostile AWB supporters. Then, at the worst possible moment, the power went out. Another black tried to drive through the crowd but hit several people, killing two. Angry AWB men opened fire. The police opened fire on the AWB, and when the gun battle was over, three whites were dead and dozens of blacks and whites were injured.

These deaths only fueled the resistance. When the government announced it would house returning ANC exiles and their families in an abandoned school in Pretoria, someone blew up the school. A wave of other explosions in December 1991 and January 1992 destroyed black trade unions, multiracial schools, post offices, and a South African police training center. A group called the Afrikaner People’s State Movement claimed responsibility, but it was later revealed that it was a local member of the AWB in partnership with a CP member of Parliament.

The referendum

As the violence continued, the CP won a stunning victory over the National Party in a by-election in Potchefstroom. Sensing they were losing support, the NP decided to press its institutional advantage while it could, and called a snap referendum for March 17, 1992 on whether to continue negotiations with the ANC. Caught off guard, the right wing debated whether to boycott the poll, but finally agreed to form a united front and fight it.

This may have been a mistake, as the NP quickly turned the campaign into a referendum on the AWB, linking it and the violence to the CP. Bombings continued in the midst of the campaign, adding to the atmosphere of chaos. Terre’Blanche also made two critical mistakes during the campaign. During one appearance, his horse slipped, and he fell off. This led to rumors that he was drunk (though Mr. Kemp denies this). Second, a few days before the vote, Terre’Blanche boasted that he had a non-aggression pact with the Zulu-nationalist Inkatha Freedom Party, so people could vote “No” without fear of violence. The very next day, the IFP denied any such pact.

Outspent 23 to 1, facing media bias, and caught off guard by the speed of the referendum, the “no” voters were crushed 68 to 32. A surprising 62 percent of Afrikaans-speakers supported the referendum, though the “yes” vote among English-speakers, at 79 percent, was even higher. For white South Africans who did not want to be ruled by blacks, the system had failed.

Fighting back with violence

After this defeat, AWB members escalated their campaign of violence, in the hope of creating so much chaos that it would be impossible to hand over the country to black rule.

On April 10, 1993, an AWB member assassinated Chris Hani, former commander of the ANC’s armed wing and Secretary General of the South African Communist Party. This raised tensions dramatically.

At the same time, a group of South African military and police leaders formed the Afrikaner Volksfront (AVF) and invited the AWB to join. The AVF believed that if enough Afrikaner organizations banded together it would be possible to force the idea of a Boer homeland into the official ANC/National Party negotiations. The AWB realized this was would never work, and the differences in approach quickly surfaced during a famous incident at the Johannesburg World Trade Center on June 25, 1993.

Inside the building, the ANC and the National Party were negotiating the transition to majority rule. The AVF was demonstrating outside, demanding to be let in so it could present a Volkstaat petition to the negotiators. The AWB then joined the protest, with the aim of breaking up the negotiations entirely. Some of its supporters drove an armored car through the glass doors of the World Trade Center, and scores of protesters poured in after them, sending the official negotiators into terrified hiding. The AVF presented its petition, but there was hardly anyone to receive it. No one was seriously hurt, and the AVF’s supporters overwhelmingly supported the disruption, but the conservative AVF leadership was unhappy about the lawlessness.

In late 1993 and 1994, AWB men were involved in yet another wave of bombings and murders. They targeted power stations and shopping centers, and in December 1993, they forced black passengers from their vehicles and shot them. In 1994 there were attacks on railway lines, ANC offices, and even the homes of ANC members. In listing all the attacks, Victory or Violence actually becomes uncharacteristically tedious.

Clearly, the AWB was not going to surrender their country without a fight, but it is hard to see a strategic purpose in the attacks. In retrospect, they seem little more than lashing out in rage against the betrayal of their country. A much more rational and potentially successful imitative was the incredibly detailed plan conservatives set up at the last minute to secure a Boer Republic.

The false start of the Volkstaat

The attitude of the conservatives to all the violence had been ambiguous. In late 1993, a new group called the Pretoria Boere Kommando (PBK), which included a number of AWB members, occupied a military base, but generals in the Afrikaner Volksfront, uncomfortable with AWB tactics, told the occupiers to leave. At the same time, however, the Afrikaner Volksfront was planning for part of the Transvaal to secede. The new territory would declare itself the Boer Volkstaat, and the AWB was supposed to occupy some of the towns.

Incredibly, General Constand Viljoen, an important leader of the AVF, then did an about face and announced that it was better to participate in elections than to secede. A public meeting of the AVF, attended by Terre’Blanche and others, showed that there was little support for elections among the AVF rank and file. The crowd wanted a Boer Republic, headed by CP leader Ferdi Hartzenberg, who drew up a “cabinet” with General Viljoen as minister of Defense and Terre’Blanche as minister of Law and Order. The situation was so desperate that all the groups of the Afrikaner right were now forced openly to associate with each other. It was now or never for a Volkstaat.

General Viljoen then betrayed the AVF and the rest of the Afrikaner right. Although Nelson Mandela declared that the ANC would “never agree to an Afrikaner Volkstaat,” Viljoen seemed determined to keep negotiating. He abandoned his supporters and founded a political party called the “Freedom Front,” through which the Afrikaners were to participate in the elections—this, in exchange for a vague promise from the ANC/NP government that it would “consider” the idea of a Volkstaat.

With Viljoen’s support gone, the CP also pulled out of the secession plan, making it unworkable. Needless to say, the new “democratic” government rejected the idea of a Volkstaat, and the ANC later thanked General Viljoen for betraying his people. In more bad news for the AWB, the Zulu nationalists of the Inkatha Freedom Party also decided at the last minute to participate in the elections, leaving the AWB utterly alone.


It was at this point that the famous AWB intervention in the black “homeland” of Bophuthataswana occurred. Mr. Kemp’s explanation of what actually happened in that incursion may be his most valuable contribution in this book. The media reported the incident as a military defeat of the AWB at the hands of heroic blacks. The truth was almost entirely the reverse. The AWB entered the territory expecting aid from Bophuthataswana’s government and military in establishing Bophuthataswana as an independent homeland for the Tswana people. This would have been a precedent for the establishment of a Boer republic. Instead, the AWB found that the government had lost control of its military, which wanted union with South Africa rather than independence.

Adding to the AWB’s woes, General Viljoen’s forces were also in the territory but refused to turn over any of the gasoline or other supplies that were under their control at what was to be a staging ground. Viljoen was eager to participate in the elections, and had no intention of fighting for an independent Bophuthataswana, even though it could have set the stage for further secession. Cut off from both their black and white allies, the AWB forces prepared to leave, but were ambushed by Bophuthataswana forces, which had rebelled against their own government.

The AWB men actually conducted themselves well, killing over fifty members of the Bophuthataswana military and wounding over 300, despite being taken by surprise and outgunned. However, one vehicle in the AWB convoy was separated, and three men were wounded. As they lay bleeding in the street, international reporters (who were quite willing to help other wounded people) contemptuously interviewed them rather than offer aid.

A black police officer then ran up to the men and shot them in cold blood in full view of the cameras. Instead of condemning this execution, the media celebrated the murder of three wounded men as an example of black justice. And that was, indeed, what it was.

Footage of the execution at Bophuthatswana starts at 5:09.

Even after this catastrophe, the AWB continued its campaign in the Western Transvaal through the April 1994 elections. Mr. Kemp concludes that “the only organized physical resistance came from the AWB.” (263) It set off bombs “four times as big as the biggest bomb that the ANC had ever been able to detonate during its twenty-nine year guerrilla campaign.” It destroyed the South African Broadcasting Corporation, as well as the offices of the Department of Home Affairs and a gasoline pipeline. There were isolated bombings up until 1996.

The purpose of this campaign was to disrupt the multiracial elections, or even prevent them from taking at place at all. However, in the absence of a plan to secure a Volkstaat, the bombings and terrorism were strangely purposeless, even nihilistic. Violence that was not linked to a concrete political objective had no chance of accomplishing anything.

Needless to say, the bombings failed to stop the elections, and the AWB was gradually marginalized. Terre’Blanche went to prison for a non-political assault, and the AWB was dormant for many years.

The Left's view of the end.

The Left’s view of the end.

In 2008, Terre’Blanche revived the AWB, hoping to take the proposal for a Boer Volkstaat to the United Nations. However, in 2010, he was beaten to death by his own black workers in his own bed—a sadly typical end for Afrikaners dependent on black laborers. The AWB went out with a whimper, not a bang.

South African or Boer?

The AWB was never really a “South African” movement. It was a “Boer” movement that traced its heritage to the independent Boer Republics that were taken over by the British. As a result, the AWB and the Volkstaat movement could hardly be called conservative, since they rejected the unitary South African state. This claim to a Volkstaat was based on the idea that the trekkers had settled barren land and had bought it legitimately from local black rulers. Just as blacks were to have their own homelands, so too would Boers have a land for themselves.

The problem was that the land the Volkstaat activists identified as theirs was by then mainly populated by blacks. There were plans to raise the Boer birthrate and promote white immigration, but a “Volkstaat” would have had to expel millions of blacks.

Furthermore, in Terre’Blanche’s conception, the Boers could exist only as a “Christian” nation, meaning that those who did not “believe in Jesus Christ” would have no rights. Mr. Kemp describes this anti-Semitism as a reflection of religious principles, rather than a concern that Jews were dangerously liberal. Terre’Blanche repeatedly asserted that Jews should not have the right to vote in South Africa because they were not part of the “Volk,” and that “Israel is their fatherland.” The AWB was not preaching white unity against blacks. It wanted a Christian Boer state that would exclude blacks, Jews, atheists, and English speakers.

The result is that while the AWB was able to adopt traditional Boer symbols, it had an uneasy relationship with traditional South African patriotism. Thus, in February 1988 F.W. de Klerk challenged the CP by saying, “Do you associate yourself with the political aims of the AWB—a South Africa drastically reduced in size . . . an attitude which rejects non-Afrikaners and the acceptance of those who are prepared to associate themselves fully with the Afrikaner?” The CP leader, Andries Treurnicht admitted that he “could not agree” with the AWB on an Afrikaner homeland. (89)

The AWB’s Christian principles also opened the door to attacks. The NP charged that all good “Christians” must ask themselves if they can associate with the AWB, which was allegedly National Socialist and narrowly Afrikaner. (86) The AWB and Terre’Blanche repeatedly used “Christian” to describe white Afrikaners and their identity as a “Volk” with a given faith and culture. Their opponents used Christianity to call the AWB immoral. The AWB (and the Boers traditionally) had an almost pagan conception of religion; they owed allegiance to God because of His divine intervention to save them at the Battle of Blood River. Folk and faith were one. A Christianity of universalist values was a weapon against the AWB.

The problem for the AWB was that too many white South Africans thought they already had a country: South Africa. Like whites in America or Germans in the old Austro-Hungarian Empire, the dominant race and culture had given its character to the state. This had the ironic effect of undermining any movement for self determination. Thus, P.T. Botha dismissed Terre’Blanche’s challenge to give the Boers a “homeland” as no better than black demands for a homeland. And once the ANC took over and the racial balance of power was reversed, Mandela did the same thing: He dismissed out of hand any thought of a homeland for the white tribe. Under the NP or the ANC, whites would be forced to rule others or be ruled by others, with no opportunity to rule themselves.

Within or against the system?

One of the critical strategic questions the AWB faced was whether to operate within the system or against it. In their first statement of principles, the AWB condemned the “Jewish-British” parliamentary system and outlined an alternate model of government based on meritocracy and a corporate structure of professions, where doctors would help determine health policy, lawyers would determine justice, and so on. While the AWB believed in a limited role for elections, it held that “Democracy leads to a weakening of race consciousness.” Even under a dictatorship, if white racial identity were preserved, the Volk could have a future, but if the race were destroyed biologically, there was no hope of rebirth or resistance. (19)

The dangers of democracy and party politics were certainly borne out by history. Opposition to black rule was fatally weakened by squabbling between various party groups, especially between the HNP and the CP. The temptation of “elections” was also what motivated General Viljoen to sabotage secession, so his Freedom Front could compete.

However, the biggest problem in the AWB’s history was the relationship between the Conservative Party and the AWB. The National Party consistently tried to link the CP to the AWB, which the former always resisted. At the same time, the CP capitalized on the AWB’s activities and there was a cordial and productive relationship between the two groups until Terre’Blanche decided he wanted to run for office openly under the CP banner. He demanded set asides for the AWB as a matter of right, and was outraged when they were denied. In the desperate days that led to abortive plans for secession, the CP and AWB were forced into open association, though the CP pulled back at the final moment.

The AWB built itself as a non-parliamentary movement. While this limited its influence, it also allowed it to be flexible and form partnerships with any group on the hard right. Furthermore, it allowed the CP and other groups to create plausible deniability, a necessary step to defending their own electoral prospects. Some would argue that the CP should have let Terre’Blanche run for Parliament under its banner. In the end, Terre’Blanche’s abortive foray into electoral politics followed by his humiliating retreat made the AWB look weak. The AWB had its role as an activist organization, not as a political party. It was designed to bring a new system into existence, not participate in the existing one.

Aesthetics and ideology

The most frequent charge against the AWB was that it was a group of “Nazis.” While the group’s explicitly Christian ideology and traditionalist leanings were far removed from National Socialism, it must be conceded that the AWB’s aesthetic tone did not help. A party cannot have a logo that looks like a swastika, overt anti-Semitism, a giant eagle over the head of the main speaker at rallies, and a red, black, and white color scheme without giving people ideas.

How much did this harm the AWB? Moderate conservatives in the NP charged that the AWB was opposed to traditional South African democratic institutions and the free market. There is a great deal of truth to this charge. The AWB did want to replace the existing system, though charges of a “dictatorship” are exaggerated. Furthermore, the AWB did stand for state ownership of natural resources, and large-scale public services for the “Volk,” including free health care for women and children. Colorful groups such as the armed Aquila, the “Storm Falcons” (the AWB’s motorcycle division), and even a parachute division hardly supported the idea that the AWB was just another political group.

Nonetheless, the AWB consistently outorganized and outperformed the NP at the grassroots level, even to the point of making it almost impossible for President de Klerk to address a meeting in “his” territory. According to Mr. Kemp, by the end of 1988, the AWB had a membership of 14,900 people, with hundreds of thousands of followers and financial supporters. Mr. Kemp estimates that the AWB had the support of some 15 percent of the white electorate. (153) Perhaps more importantly, by 1992, the AWB had some 15,000 men trained and under arms in the “Wenkommando,” the armed force that replaced Aquila. At any gathering of the “right wing,” Terre’Blanche was a far more popular speaker than anyone from the CP or the HNP.

The AWB was never seen as a “responsible” part of the governing establishment, but people would attend its meetings and participate in armed drills as part of a cultural or extra-political movement. Its militant tactics also gave it a strong grassroots following that intimidated even people like General Viljoen. However, the AWB could never make the jump into government, as even the CP thought it had to keep some distance. The very pageantry and militancy that attracted so many people also scared away political allies.

The combination of an ultra-traditionalist ideology and provocative, pseudo-NS imagery was compelling, but politically foolish. The AWB was forced constantly to explain its ideology and how it differed from National Socialism. In 1987, it rewrote its program, removing some of the cruder anti-Semitism and restructuring its arguments for the Volkstaat in terms of a reasonable request for the Boer Volk’s “freedom.” This paid off: One of the mainline Afrikaans churches ruled that there was nothing “in this formulation [the new program of principles] against which the church wishes to express itself.” (145)

Had the AWB done this in the first place, its enemies would have had a harder time calling it National Socialist when its aspirations were actually quite within the mainstream of Afrikaner nationalism. There are much better ways to create a dynamic and militant image than using thinly veiled Nazi symbolism, especially when a group denies it is National Socialist.

Failure of leadership 

Eugene Terre’Blanche was the AWB. It rose to prominence on the strength of his oratory. It fell because of his own failings. Though many experienced Afrikaner nationalists were involved in the AWB over the years, most broke with it because of their impatience with Terre’Blanche’s personal behavior. At the same time, the finances of the group were highly unstable and some of the highest officials of the party did not receive compensation. (152)

There is no way around the importance of character. Whatever the truth of many of the allegations about Eugene Terre’Blanche, charges of sexual misconduct and alcoholism did not come only from the hostile media. They came from some of the highest people in the AWB, fellow organizers who knew Terre’Blanche best. Many of these charges may have been inspired by jealousy, and Terre’Blanche was certainly not a deeply immoral man. It’s impossible not to be angry about the media’s outright celebration of his unproven affairs when Martin Luther King is hailed as a saint despite his sexual recklessness.

However, politics is not fair. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Eugene Terre’Blanche, whatever his gifts, bears heavy responsibility for not conducting himself so as to be beyond reproach, especially since the AWB called itself a Christian organization. Furthermore, by refusing to undertake reforms within the group or exapnd the pool of leadership, Terre’Blanche ensured that the movement would go down with him.

The betrayal by the conservatives

Nevertheless, the most important lesson of the AWB has little to do with the AWB itself, and more to do with its erstwhile allies in the Conservative Party and the Afrikaner Volksfront. By the early 1990s, all the political subtleties and maneuvering had dropped away. It was clear that the National Party was determined to hand the country over to the African National Congress, and that the Boers would be a powerless minority in their own country. The secession plan in the Transvaal was the last chance to secure a Volkstaat and the survival of the Boers as a people.

General Viljoen’s decision to abandon his allies in return for a promise from his enemies is a typical example of conservative wishful thinking. The CP’s failure to go forward with secession is another example of a last-minute failure of will. CP members must have known that if the handover took place, their party would become utterly irrelevant. Yet, at the critical moment, they abandoned the AWB, leaving the only group willing to resist. Aside from the AWB, the conservative opposition to black rule was almost entirely wishful thinking and self-deception.

In a much smaller way, we see this with the behavior of the Republican Party in the United States on the immigration issue. Regardless of the hard facts of voting patterns and the lessons of past experience in states like California, Republicans plunge forward with plans for minority “outreach” without even considering the possibility of “unrespectable” but eminently practical alternatives. The “respectable right” of South Africa, from the Freedom Front to the Conservative Party, made the decision that they would rather play by the rules of a rigged game than accept a revolutionary role like that of the AWB. The most they can hope for in the end is to be treated like General Viljoen: contemptuous congratulation from their racial enemies for being good losers.

The lesson here for racial patriots is that conservatism as an ideology is distinguished by the love of institutions and policies without the willingness to defend the people who make them possible. Conservatives qua conservative suffer from a fatal lack of imagination. Ultimately, most members of the Afrikaner political system, from the National Party on, decided that it was preferable to make common cause with the ANC than to dismantle the institutions of the South African state. Eugene Terre’Blanche had warned the Afrikaners that eventually they would be forced to choose between the AWB and the ANC. They chose the ANC. They could not imagine anything else.


The rise and fall of the AWB is a universal story that goes beyond South Africa. The AWB confronted the problem of breaking away from a nominally white-controlled system that was pursuing policies destructive of their “Volk.” Their solution was the Volkstaat, but the conservatives could not marshal the imagination or the courage to follow them. South Africa is now just another miserable Third-World state, but whites around the world face the same problem as the AWB, and this time, there is no escape.

White advocates working for an ethnostate should remember to ground their movements within the traditional forms of their own cultures, avoid becoming dependent on a single leader, and maintain the strength of character to avoid corruption and infighting. Ultimately, no matter how skillfully patriots organize their movements, they will need to persuade some number of white conservatives to save themselves. Saving themselves is precisely what white conservatives seem stubbornly unwilling to do. Arthur Kemp’s Victory or Violence is a necessary and compelling study for all white patriots, but unfortunately, it gives no hint as to how to solve this last, critical problem.

[Editor’s Note: This book is available for purchase directly from American Renaissance.]

Topics: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Share This

Gregory Hood
Mr. Hood has been active in conservative youth movements in the US.
We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Oom Paul

    This is a very interesting article about the AWB. I found the Bophuthataswana part especially interesting. It is very difficult to get any literature about them that isn’t biased against them.

    Just as a correction, I think it is Barend StRydom, not Barend StyRdom.

    • JO

      It is in fact Barend Strydom

  • David Brims

    Google ”BBC 24 Hours Special Verwoerd Assassination”

    A one hour programme from 1966, it’s very interesting to see because we now know how it all turned out, Dutch Boer genocide. There is a South African jewish gentleman, a lawyer, Albert Sachs who is against apartheid in it, what a surprise.

    Henrik Verwoerd ” They don’t want one man, one vote, what they want is a one party state and black over lordship of the whites, a black dictatorship, no man, no vote.”

    • David Ashton

      There was a very strong Jewish presence among both Communist and Liberal opponents to apartheid, partly in recollection of pro-German “Christian Nationalism”, but not all Jews were sympathetic to the Black Majority idea, for example Percy Yutar who did a good job in the courtroom against the Rivonia gang. There were some close links between Afrikaner nationalists & Israelis (e.g. bomb testing) but the latter proved unreliable. I know a South African nurse of Jewish origin who was among the little known white refugees from Mozambique and who had no illusions about “Bantu behavior”.

    • zanegray

      Don’t forget the role of western corporates who supported the overthrow of the Afrikaner Government which was composed of honest if stiff necked types not susceptible to corruption and its replacement by a much more malleable African regime.

      Then they plundered the bountiful natural resources of the country.

      The ordinary African (as always) got nothing.

  • Randy Knob

    Arthur Kemp’s book March of the Titans was an utterly ridiculous, amateurish and pseudo scholarly attempt to attribute everything in the entire history of the world to white people, and not just white people, but nordic whites, and then he tries to claim that southern europeans are nonwhite and slavs are semi mongolian. That book sort of ruined his credibility in my eyes, BUT, he does have some intelligent views about the situation in South Africa and I respect that.

    • beano

      Can you offer specific examples of his errors or was he wrong just because you say he was?

      • Randy Knob

        He looked for any excuse to attribute an achievement to a single drop of white blood, or an ill to a single drop of nonwhite blood. Claims that Easter Islanders were white because some Dutch sailors reported them as having reddish hair, that ancient Mayans built their pyramids because white people visited them, that the japs are successful because the Ainu were “white”, he just really pushes it in some places. And the things he says about certain europeans are downright offensive and exaggerated. It’s a mixed bag really, he does make a lot of valid points but it’s mixed with a bits of shamelessly embellished parts.

        • Defoe

          Exaggerated I can take but there is no “right” in this world to not be “offended”.

          • People have the right to be offensive.

            And people have the right to look down upon and have less respect for those who are offensive.

        • Darren_Andrews

          Once again, a pack of lies. The story about Easter Island is NOT based on “some Dutch sailors” reporting them as having reddish hair, but rather upon color photographs of the leading tribe members published in Thor Heyrdahl’s book Aku-Aku.

          Nowhere does March of the Titans say that Mayans “built pyramids because white people visited them”–all it does is point out architectural similarities between stone pyramids found on the Canary Islands and those on the Yucatan peninsula in Mexico –once again that is from the Thor Heyrdahl-founded Museum of Ethnography on the Canary Islands–and not even Kemp”s suggestion!

          Finally, the Ainu are not even mentioned in the copy of March of the Titans which I have, but I do recall them being the subject of an appendix in a very early online version which said that they looked Caucasian (which pure Ainu certainly do http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bjs48_02_Ainu.jpg) .but that DNA testing on them had returned negative.

          So all in all, every single word “Randy Knob” has written here is a blatant, outright, bare-faced lie.

          • Darren_Andrews

            Here is a shorter link to the Ainu picture, for those who cannot get the link above to work: http://tinyurl.com/d7oktke

    • JohnEngelman

      If by “Nordics” we mean the Germanic peoples, they were the last in Western Europe to adopt urban civilization. When they overran the Western Roman Empire they were as unable to maintain its achievements as the Bantu are to maintain the achievements of European colonialism.

      In the West civilization began among the Caucasians, but it began in what is now Egypt and Iraq among those more akin to Semites than Nordics.

      • Defoe

        Read Charles Murray’s HUMAN ACCOMPLISHMENT, and some history of the Celtic civilization.

      • Defoe

        BTW, do you subscribe to the thesis in the book, GERMANY MUST PERISH, by Theodore N. Kaufmann?

        • JohnEngelman

          I had to look that book up on the internet, but of course I do not subscribe to its thesis that Germans should be killed or sterilized. I am half German.

          • IstvanIN

            I am not German at all and I am against the extermination of the Germans. One doesn’t have to be of a group to believe in the inherent right of that group to survive.

          • Bobby

            It’s just like those who believe slavics are stupid. Nothing could be stupidier to think. I am from ethnic Germans who lived outside ther Reich for two hundred years. My ancestors lived surrounded by Slavs, and yet my Grandmother to her dying day, played records in Croation. Her prayer book was also in Croation. Slavic people have written great technical books, are experts at games iike chess, and whoever came up with the notion that they are somehow dumb, that person(s) was the real idiot.
            I have also learned a lot from Jewish teachers. I don’t like what is going on in the mideast, I don’t like how Isael operates, but life is strange. Human beings are in the final account incredibly complex, and politics brings out the worst in them. And I agree that human different human groups have the right to survive, which puts many of us back to square one. Perhpas the ultimate answer is simply separation. The alternative way to peace doens’t sound good, via B.F. Skinners program, for example.

          • David Ashton

            Much good sense here.

            As I happens I found an unexpectedly cheap copy of Kaufman’s original booklet in a s/h bookshop; it is discussed in Jeffrey Herf’s “Jewish Enemy” and noted in David Irving’s “Goebbels”, and the Barnes Review has just republished it with a Nazi comment. The “Holocaust revisonists” have made several strong, as yet unanswered arguments against the logistics and technology of mass-extermination by gas(ses) but Nazi plans to sterilize Jews and other “undesirables” predate Kaufman. They are implied in the Wannsee document (if authentic and unedited) about “special treatment” of the sexually segregated survivors of forced labor. Revisionists/”negationists” have yet to recognize the full significance of Hitler’s statement to Horthy that Jews unable to work would “succumb” like beasts of nature, and of references to their “liquidation” in Goebbels’ diary and even one public statement, though the Propaganda Minister was always much more pro-Slav and pro-Russian than other Nazi leaders. The good and bad things between 1933-45 need balanced and objective research and discussion, and should not be used in any event to veto the morally legitimate cause today of the survival of western civilization and the primary race responsible for it.

      • purestocles

        “In the West civilization began among the Caucasians, but it began in what is now Egypt and Iraq among those more akin to Semites than Nordics.”

        And yet, in the end, Nordics (including Germanics) outpaced their Semitic neighbors and created a far more technologically advanced culture than any of them did. Northern people are people of energy, motion and advancement. From Viking ships to rocket ships, we lead the way. Scottish engineers developed the machine tools that created the Industrial Revolution of steam engines, powered looms, accurate timepieces etc. Meanwhile Semites debated points of religious orthodoxy–just as Islam continues to do today. The reason you mistakenly accuse Northern people of a dearth of culture is that their great skill lay in wood working and wood does not survive as well as stone so there is little in the way of a enduring legacy. But those Viking ships arose out of a tradition so there must have been clever technical work that preceded them. True, they were not skilled administrators of States made up of millions of citizens, but that’s not because they possessed a Bantu-like lack of intelligence–just inexperience.

        • JohnEngelman

          The Viking ships were an interesting phenomenon.

          Nevertheless, when the Germanic peoples were first written about by Julius Caesar in the first century BC and by Tacitus a century later they were at roughly the same level of development as the Bantu two hundred years ago.

          They had iron technology, but no cities, no writing, and no mathematics. The economy combined primitive agriculture and hunting. The highest political unit was the tribe.

          The Arabs have not achieved much since the Mongolian conquests of the thirteenth century. The achievements of the Jews require no mention by me, but they have received it.

          • purestocles

            The Nordic people then occupied what was essentially Alaska, a land of trees and wild beasts. That they did not organize into large cities is equivalent to a tautology. Of course they didn’t. They were living in a wilderness. Their social organization was appropriate to the environment in which they lived. Living on the edge of retreating glaciers demanded greater intellectual resources than living in a tropical jungle–isn’t that the contention of the scholars whose work informs this site? The flint axe heads from Denmark from 3500 BC are the equal of any stone work in the world. The bronze swords, helmets and lurs and the wheeled sun chariot all from 1500 to 1000 BC are the equal of any similar items created anywhere in the world. Then, as now, they were a technically proficient people. True, they did not leave impressive piles of stone.

            As an aside; ignorant instructors in Anthropology often teach their students that iron supplanted bronze because it is superior for tool making. This is not necessarily true. Early iron was brittle and could not match the toughness of work-hardened bronze. Napoleon used cast bronze cannon as the iron of that time was too prone to failure. It wasn’t until the mid 19th century when the Krupps (those Germans again!) solved the problems of smelting iron ore that true, modern high-tensile steel could be fabricated with consistency. Of course, as every educated person knows, steel is the single most important factor contributing to our lifestyle–without which we would live much as Mediterranean people did 2000 years ago. Even oil isn’t worth much without an engine to burn it in.

          • JohnEngelman

            I am not deprecating the achievements of Nordics. Nevertheless, it is simply not true that we owe every advance in civilization to them.

            Some even go so far as to say that the ancient Egyptians and Greeks were Nordics. That is not true, and that kind of ethnocentrism helped to inspire the Nazis.

          • purestocles

            I vote your comment up. Nordic people did not create “civilization”. It’s absurd to claim that Egyptians were Nordic etc. Equally absurd are claims by types like the “Savage Nation” guy on the radio whom I’ve heard say that but for the civilizing influence of Judaic Ethics, Europeans would be barbaric people. Hogwash! Ethics are grounded in primate social behavior. Even Chimps and Bonobos behave in ways that demonstrate that they grasp the fundamental notions of fairness and justice (see Frans DeWaal).

            As for the Greeks, there is room for open-mindedness. Athena was described as having “gray eyes” and Apollo was described as “fair”. The Greek invaders of the 14th (or thereabouts) century BC were from the Danube River Valley and some Greek children to this day are born with light brown hair. They certainly weren’t “Nordic”, but probably weren’t pure Mediterranean either.

            For what it’s worth, I’m with Thor Hyerdahl in believing that early people traded and got around more than we credit them with. Once again, scholarly Anthropology teachers had for decades misinstructed their students in teaching that the Oceans were impassable barriers but as any student of drifting knows, a chip of wood tossed in the sea at a proper distance off of the coast of Africa stands a very good chance of making it to the Caribbean islands simply by the power of the currents in the great oceanic gyres. Any number of humans have survived these voyages which, incidentally, give birth to hair raising tales of survival that make great reading. I recommend “Adrift” by Stephen Callahan as the best of the genre.

          • KingKenton

            Equally absurd are claims by types like the “Savage Nation” guy on the radio whom I’ve heard say that but for the civilizing influence of Judaic Ethics, Europeans would be barbaric people.

            I believe your are referring to Michael Savage, who is Jewish. I think it is very important to point out that Judaism has nothing to do with Christianity. There is no such thing as Judeo-Christian ethics or morality. Your are either Judaic or Christian. Just like oil and water, they do not mix.

          • MikeofAges

            What we call the Judeo-Christian tradition is real, but a modern invention. The concept refers to modern people who have united post-Davidic monotheistic religion and Platonic idealism into a single belief system. Primarily, it refers to a creed under which Christians, Jews and compatible non-believers can share a secular cultural, political and economic life.

            Reading the Bible (in English translation) I personally have come to conclusion that the life of the Biblical David is an important nexus of world history. David prefigured the life of Christ and the later concept of the Christian king. Without David, you have no Western Christendom. So Judaic ethics are a central influence, just as Savage says. But Christianity and Judaism are joined as a single tradition only in case of adherents who also share a philosophical belief in Platonic idealism.

            Islam apparently specifically rejects the Davidic nexus insofar as it claims to have an Abrahamic foundation and lineage. It may be worthwhile to note, also, that many black intellectuals (yes there are such) violently reject Platonic idealism, going so far as to call it a foundation of scientific racism.

          • David Ashton

            There is a case, a thin one admittedly because of the paucity of evidence, that Greek achievement resulted from the blending of invading northern Nordic and resident southern Mediterranean peoples, both closely related biologically. The impact is quite different in the case of large-scale crossing between very different racial types, e.g. out-breeding depression

          • gemjunior

            Because of the Ice Age, Europe developed later than Mesopotamia in farming and domestication (“cradle of civilization”). It was impossible for Europeans to build as it was not possible to dig in permafrost or what was still tundra. They had to manage by hunting for quite a long time. If they lagged this is a good reason for it, right? When they were able to build, you absolutely cannot deny they shot past everyone else and have stayed there. Even if there were times that China developed certain scientific discoveries first the commoner weren’t allowed near them and for the most part they didn’t enrich the lives of people. I doubt the Germanic tribes were ever “roughly the same level of development as the Bantu two hundred years ago” – come on. The Bantu 200 years ago is similar to today, and 2000 years ago even

          • JohnEngelman

            Two thousand years ago the Han Dynasty in China was as advanced as the Roman Empire, and the Parthian Empire in what is now Iraq and Persia, and the civilization in what is now India were nearly as developed.

            During the middle ages Europe was less advanced than the Arabs, and later the Ottoman Turks, were under Islam.

            It was only during the Renaissance that Western civilization became preeminent throughout the world.

          • gemjunior

            John, that’s my point – Europe was less advanced because the climate was too COLD to build, too cold to dig. All that could be done was to pick up rocks and pile them on each other to create 4 walls, then cover the top with whatever vegetation was available, or skins, and eventually thatch. The receding ice after the ice age didn’t just disappear. It took time for it to fade off. In the more northern areas there was permafrost for a long time. That’s why they lagged behind. However, during and after the Renaissance Europe and Western civilization developed exponentially compared to any of these civilizations that you listed.

          • Martel

            I’m not sure how you would call the Arabs more advanced, they conquered advanced societies and made use of the locals who did have certain skills, wanting to keep their heads to their necks they converted or they were born to forcefully converted parents, and they did all work which is now attributed to Islam. Nearly all translators of ancient Greek texts in the Dar El Islaam in those days were Christians and conquered peoples.

            There is not even one Arab historian who is comparable to the level of Roman historians, I’m not sure about the exact quotation but Bernard Lewis called Islamic historical accounts a hodgepodge of randomly collected texts, unintelligible and poorly written. If you have ever read the quran i wonder when you believe this “Arab civilization” started its one of the most repetitive and poorly written books I ever read, even the original accounts are filled with grammatical errors and foreign words (including ‘quran’).

            When the Muslims engages the Europeans they were surprised by the advancements in firepower, including European cannons. Muslims continued to fail in these areas. I really don’t know about which age you meant to discuss, but I’m not impressed with anything any Muslim people produced, they were proper usurpers, keeping the right people alive to serve their needs.

          • JohnEngelman

            I was thinking of a thousand years ago, give or take two centuries. Most historians would agree that Arab culture was more advanced than European back then. Literacy was more widespread. The cities were larger. It was not until the Renaissance, which began during the fifteenth century, that European civilization left other civilizations behind.

          • Martel

            So do you believe other Islamic/Arab factors helped to inspire the Italian renaissance?

            More Greek manuscripts where stored in Europe then in the Muslim world as far as I know, the order of Benedict the most well known of the provides of ‘ancient’ knowledge’. The inventor of algebra was Persian as far as I know, but indeed part of the Muslim hordes.

            I don’t see how 6th to 9th century Arabia was more civilized then Europe though. I agree after the downfall of Europe, In my opinion due to the Muslim onslaught amongst other factors, progress was limited.

          • David Ashton

            Ibn Khaldun was quite exceptional, especially on the subjects of race and the decline of civilizations.

          • Lygeia

            2,000 year ago, the white, European Tocarians lived in China and were the rulers who built the Great Wall of China. The emperors from this period are described as over 6 feet tall with long red hair and green eyes. They were outbred and absorbed into what we now think of as the Chinese. In the North, there are villages of indigenous white people that the Chinese of today don’t want us to know about.

          • JohnEngelman

            The Tocarians lived on the western fringe of China. There is no evidence that they ever dominated China, or were instrumental in the building of the Great Wall of China.

          • MadMike

            Northern Europe also did not have a large population until late 1300’s.

          • IstvanIN

            The Nordics were the same level of development as the Bantus of 200 years ago? The Bantus couldn’t survive one northern European winter today on their own. They survive in northern climates because of our technology.

          • Yacol

            Jewish achievements in the sciences range from nonexistent to minor, until a great many pale skinned people with little to no middle eastern ancestry started calling themselves Jews.

          • JohnEngelman

            The New York Times Science January 14, 2006

            A new look at the DNA of the Ashkenazi Jewish population has thrown light on its still mysterious origins…

            The researchers, Doron Behar and Karl Skorecki of the Technion and Ramban Medical Center in Haifa, and colleagues elsewhere, report that just four women, who may have lived 2,000 to 3,000 years ago, are the ancestors of 40 percent of Ashkenazis alive today…

            They argue that all four probably lived originally in the Middle East…

            A study by Michael Hammer of the University of Arizona showed five years ago that the men in many Jewish communities around the world bore Y chromosomes that were Middle Eastern in origin.

            This finding is widely accepted by geneticists…

            Dr. Hammer said the new study “moves us forward in trying to understand Jewish population history.” His own recent research, he said, suggests that the Ashkenazi population expanded through a series of bottlenecks – events that squeeze a population down to small numbers – perhaps as it migrated from the Middle East after the destruction of the Second Temple in A.D. 70 to Italy, reaching the Rhine Valley in the 10th century…

          • David Ashton

            The problem I have with the Ashkenazim = Khazars theory, which attracts anti-Zionists of various kinds, is the probable phenotype of the Khazars. Most of the “Ostjuden” have features that race taxonomists called Assyriod or Armenoid, not Turko-Mongoloid, and these go back to Hebrew antiquity. Further comments from genuine experts are welcome.

          • JohnEngelman

            Why are Jews so successful?

            Richard Lynn, The Chosen People: A Study of Jewish Intelligence and Achievement, Washington Summit Publishers, 2011, 408 pp. soft cover $39.00, hard cover $60.00…

            The Chosen People: A study of Jewish Intelligence and Achievement is the most recent work of Richard Lynn dealing with group differences in IQ…

            The Chosen People is a case study of one distinct group that has shown remarkably similar patterns of achievement in a wide variety of settings…

            Professor Lynn begins by pointing out the extraordinary success of Jews in almost every field. In the 19th century the restrictions that had prevented most Jews from advanced nonreligious study began to be lifted in most of Western Europe, and by mid-century, “people began to observe that Jews were outstandingly successful…

            Having established with extraordinary diligence the success of Ashkenazi Jews, Professor Lynn addresses the question of the origins of these Jews’ high intelligence. He dismisses environmental explanations on a number of grounds…

            One is left with genetic explanations.

            Richard Lynn has spoken at American Renaissance Conferences.

          • David Ashton

            This major explanation does not exclude the minor explanation of ethnic networking, which is what one might expect in all the relevant circumstances.

          • JohnEngelman

            Networking of any kind can get one an opportunity. It cannot enable one to achieve unless one has the talent to. One should also consider that Jews have had to earn their achievements despite antisemitism.

          • David Ashton

            Antisemitism encouraged solidarity. See e.g. plancksconstant.org/blog1/2010/03/what_makes_jews_so_successful.html

      • Martel

        Completely false, for 200 years the germanic invaders maintained the judicial, monetary and administrative system of the romans. Infrastructure, the arts and literature were also carefully maintained. It was only when the moors destroyed the seatrade, and started raiding Europe, the economy crumbled and europe headed for societal collapse.

        Alaric vowed to maintain Rome and he did so succesfully, you have been conned by marxist revisionism, a carefull study of the oxford guide of archeology refutes your statements completely, even if modern historians in leftist universities do not like its conclusions.

        • Nathanwartooth

          While interesting, I’m not really sure any of this matters.

          In the 21st century, only a handful of races can create what we would consider first world conditions. Koreans, Japanese, European Whites, Chinese (if they weren’t under communism) and Jews.

          We can argue all day about who created what first, but these are the only groups that can harness those inventions and create truly livable conditions.

          • Martel

            I view this a bit differently, i see the esteem and confidence of young whites at an all time low. I am sure you are familiar with how many young people will answer ” nothing” when asked what whites contributed to the world, at the very least a very long pause or signs of embarrassment. Its one of the most shocking effects of politically correct conditioning, and its something many pro-whites have noticed. Marxist revisionist history and radically leftist teachers are the cause. This racial confidence needs to be restored, hence i see the need of propagating the fact that the Europeans have a special knack for innovation. Its true the asians can make use of the technology Europeans created and can improve these technologies, perhaps even stumble on new technologies( where i blame the law of numbers) and this is the competitive world we must take into account, but history does help to raise the racial confidence of young whites to take the modern challenges head on.

          • Nathanwartooth

            I agree with what you are saying. The only problem I have is that history is easily debated and distorted. There is always a anthropologist or a historian willing to spin a tale about how some ancient tribe developed this or that first. Just look to this thread for all the proof you need of even like minded people arguing about who did what.

            We should be damn proud that we are in the 100+ IQ club that can create livable conditions. This can be easily proved as wherever you find these groups around the world they pretty much always succeed in the same ways.

          • purestocles

            It may be that young whites answer “nothing” because–and I’m embarrassed and reluctant to say this–they know nothing about what whites have “contributed to the world”. I don’t want to come across as an elitist, but….

            (1) Scientific knowledge has become so complex that most people (including college graduates) cannot master it and therefore don’t grasp the significance of the achievements attained.

            (2) Unless they’ve traveled to Europe and seen first hand the spectacular Gothic cathedrals, Roman Coliseum, Renaissance painting etc. it is impossible to appreciate their significance.

            (3) Contemporary music has drowned out our great classical creations. People are unaware of the historically-novel complex mathematic structure underlying classic music. The same applies to the discovery of the laws of perspective in painting.

            and so on.

            Since the 1970s revolution in Education which promised to make school curriculums more “relevant” by recasting the great issues in contemporary terms, our historical legacy has suffered neglect. Which brings me back to my opening statement, that “young whites answer “nothing” because they know nothing about what whites have “contributed to the world”. Having no understanding of their historical roots, they are adrift in a world in which they cannot find their bearings. They are buffeted about by every wind and current of the moment which to their eyes are seemingly without logic or deeper meaning. Hence in a desperate attempt to maintain some control over their lives, they believe in “miracles” or in the currently fashionable psychological theory that they (we) “create our own reality” because they cannot fathom the deep roots of their cultural traditions to which they are heirs whether acknowledged or not.

          • Martel

            True, it takes some effort to truly appreciate what the Europeans build. On the other hand, good old fashioned propaganda will be helpful as well.

            I have no knowledge about (3) myself, so if you could point me in the right direction, books or articles, I would appreciate it. And another request, I am aware to some degree about the changes in curriculums and the damage done to schooling, but if you have any relevant books on the subject, i would like them, I know about Benjamin Bloom, John Dewey, the school to work programs and outcome based education, but I cannot find a detailed historical account on the matter.

          • David Ashton

            Worth reading is Ricardo Duchesne’s “The Uniqueness of Western Civilization” (Leiden: Brill, 2012).

            A recent useful introduction to the adverse long-tern impact on “social science” and education curricula of Cultural Marxism is Bruce Bawer’s “The Victims’ Revolution: The Rise of Identity Studies and the Closing of the Liberal Mind” (NY: HarperCollins, 2012).

          • Martel

            I was planning to purchase your first suggestion(based on a 22pg review by K.Macdonald) , and i will take a closer look at the works of Bruce Bawer. I’m familiar with some of his work but never got around to getting the books you mentioned. Thanks for the suggestions


          • David Ashton

            Duchesne is pretty expensive but worth it.
            Bawer (as you must know) is a homosexual supporter of liberal democracy with neo-con friends, but this far from detracts from this witty survey of “critical studies” in “academia”.

          • David Ashton

            The deliberate instigation of irrational guilt and self-hatred among young whites and the censorship of their sources of information are more than a scandal. They are tantamount to introducing a psychology of suicide.

          • Martel

            I agree, I’m not surprised when i look at the statistics on white male suicide. If you are looking for young white males walking with their head down, in obvious depression, you never have to look far. Perhaps its different where you live.

          • David Ashton

            I live in Britain but haven’t noticed this (as yet).

          • Martel

            Thank you for the suggestions, they will be on my shelf. I’m from mainland Europe so anything concerning the United Kingdom is of great interest too me as well.

          • David Ashton

            Will try to oblige when time permits if this is possible here.

          • Martel

            Weird stuff, I was surprised why I didn’t see anything yet but that explains it. There are many random bugs with discuss.

            Perhaps post them in another topic if it doesn’t work, like this one:


          • David Ashton

            I am adding a few suggestions for you and other readers, but do not wish to fill too much space with what is available on education, biological anthropology, “critical studies” and deconstructionist jargon.

          • Martel

            Looking forward too it David, thanks

          • David Ashton

            Not sure exactly what would most interest or help you and other readers here, but here we go again – briefly, May 10.

            Thousands of publications from our opponents and their websites (e.g. www-personal.umic

          • Martel

            There seems to be some bug again. Could you send it to Martel202 at outlook dot com?

          • David Ashton

            You should see the post above.
            Forgot to add Byron M. Roth, “The Perils of Diversity: Immigration and Human Nature” (2010). Only idiots will be so troubled by his surname that they learn nothing from his excellent book.

          • Martel

            I support everyone who breaks down the cultural marxist narrative, a great deal of what I know comes from the writings of Horowitz.

            I was planning to get the book by Roth already. I will probably get the radicalism handbook first though

          • David Ashton

            Button is sympathetic to “radicalism” but he describes the developments which we need to understand and adds biographies of the main players.

          • Martel

            I will look into that, I see Francis Gannon also released volume#4.
            I tend to enjoy accounts released in those days as they cover a lot of hidden gems which have been forgotten by most cultural conservatives.

          • Martel

            Wonderful, thanks a lot

      • People get mixed up, and I think it was done on purpose,
        between identifying the Northern Kingdom of Israel with the
        Southern Kingdom of Judah from whence the Jews came. Todays Jews are in general, renegades and many have no Israelite blood in them but are Jews by religion only. Preachers can’t figure this out even after Jesus told them, “Therefore the kingdom is taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits thereof.” This nation was called by Jesus The Lost Sheep of the House of Israel. Prophecy tells us that they would loose their identity and we would later regain knowledge of who we are. “In the place where it is said, You are not my people, there it will be said, You are the sons of the Living God.” That is a term for Christian.

        After King Solomon died the Kingdom was divided between the
        Northern Ten Tribes and was called, Israel, and the Southern
        Kingdom was comprised of Judah and the tribe of Benjamin.
        (Benjamin was for “a light always before me) 1 Kings

        Because Northern Israel turned to idol worship God allowed the
        Assyrians to conquer (God called this a divorce for adultery) them and they were deported to what is basically the area you described as Iraq and farther north. When war erupted between Babylon and Assyria the Ten Northern Tribes and some of Judah escaped over the Caucus Mountain Range and began to move to Northern Europe and the British Isles then to North America and the other colonies. This was all part and parcel of prophecy.

        Gen 28:14 “And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth,
        and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to
        the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all
        the families of the earth be blessed.” The ultimate blessing to the world is still future when peace will come.

    • Darren_Andrews

      @Randy Knob (a highly suitable name). What a load of nonsense, I have read March of the Titans and find nothing at all like you claim it to be. Nowhere does he say that southern Europeans are “nonwhite” or that Slavs are “semi-Mongolian.” That is pure invention and fiction on your part. In fact, Kemp goes out of his way to state several times over in the book that although there has been racial mixing in certain parts of Europe (confirmed later by DNA studies, by the way) there is no way anyone could claim that entire peoples are “non-white” any more than one could claim that all Americans are of mixed racial origin because there has been racial mixing in that country.
      You are obviously someone who has either not read the book, or is blinded by malicious hatred and thus resorts to lies. Go and peddle your hate somewhere else.

  • My father use to always say “white pig politicians (both liberal and conservative) are the greatest threat to European mankind”.

    • ProWhite son of Jacob

      Indeed, it was politics and they were politicians who vicariously (and directly) brought down the Roman Empire. It’s something to remember when our own nation is founded on the Roman model.

  • White Mom in WDC

    So true. Do not become dependent on one leader. Tap into white individualism. Do not believe our white politicians.

    The Republicans and Conservatives are back stabbing idiots . They will sell out ten white people for one Mexiturd. They possess no loyalty. They are high paid prostitutes and have no values.

    Jews need to go back to Israel and stay away from whites. We do not need them. They are at their core blacks with high IQs. Their culture is about defiling white women via porn and for that I have no use for them.

    At least the Democrats are out there with their stuff. Better the devil you know.

  • PBL

    Always depressing to see the turmoil caused by white division. Always illuminating to see the results that flow from our discord.

    • Defoe

      More importantly, we need to fully understand how this “divide and conquer” strategy is developed and used. Even more important is to discover who is behind this strategy.

      Make no mistake, the divide and conquer strategy has been incredibly successful.

      • Lygeia

        In South Africa, look to the diamonds and the gold.

  • PDK?Kelto-Scandic Secessionist

    Our fully enfranchised democracy, has not only ruined our
    Founding Father’s free enterprise Republic, it has successfully transmogrified
    this culture into a culture of a socialist democracy, which further, always
    gravitates towards tyranny, poverty and misery.

    Our American pledge of allegiance states, “and to the
    Republic for which it stands”, and further, does not state “and to the
    democracy for which it stands”, however, just as all liberals refuse this
    pledge in spirit, so too do they and their comrades, their minority allies in
    our fully enfranchised democracy, wish simply to use, abuse and parasitize the
    wealth creation that only a free enterprise Republic can beget.

    Liberal ideology, born of immaturity and insanity, pursues
    as their ultimate goal, the reality of all that is inherent in the concept of
    “The white man’s burden”. That all things born of the white Europeans and all
    their posterity worldwide, be shared with and given to all, including
    themselves, without a semblance of fair compensation, and regardless of the
    consequences, including, most painfully of all, both our genes and wealth.

    Our American democrat party, the party of liberal ideology,
    intends nothing less than the complete ruination of the white gene pool and all
    the positive manifestations born of this said, white gene pool, from
    anti-biotics to technological advances and beyond into wealth and happiness.

    Should a new Republic emerge, like the Phoenix reborn out of
    its own ashes, by a separating out and away from liberals and their alliance
    via a secession of the republican states, a fully enfranchised democracy must
    be outlawed by the new Constitution, alone the law of our new land. In truth
    and in fact, at least as best I see it, only those who traditionally vote for
    the Republican Party be enfranchised, and this is older white males and older,
    married white females.

    The republicans by definition are supposed to stand for the
    Republic, whilst democrats by definition stand for democracy, and obviously a
    fully enfranchised democracy, which is itself the purveyor of ruination to both
    the white gene pool and white culture. People may resent this, however
    sometimes it takes a real tough stance to make things work, at and for, the
    most optimum level possible. To borrow from JFK, “When the tide comes in, all
    the boats rise, the big ones and the small ones”. Further, if any individuals,
    with membership in the new Republic, pine for transmogrification of this new
    Republic, they can either swallow their own dissatisfaction or emigrate, they can
    either lump it or leave it, their choice.

    I think in terms of the 1950s, 1960s America; with all that
    power, fame and fortune, but without the “rights” movements by liberals,
    blacks, GLBTs and any other minority groups thinking of themselves at the expense
    of the collective, our non-liberal, white culture collective.

    The Orientals have the wisdom to keep their culture and gene
    pool exclusive to themselves. Further, as they borrow and steal our wealth
    creating culture, while maintaining their purity, they are, without doubt,
    eventually going to surpass us.

    I suspect the white gene pool is the begetter of “the Goldy
    Locks” formula, sufficient IQ coupled with the strength of animation, a
    precious quality neither the Negro nor Oriental gene pools were blessed with,
    and further, I believe, that is why we are the winners so far. Unfortunately,
    the white liberals wish to give this away to save themselves from nature’s
    charge to mature, and are so cowardly and selfish, they would allow the
    ruination of our culture and gene pool for both now and all eternity, such
    cowardice and selfishness is both intolerable and inexcusable.

    Should our new Republic materialize, I believe the term
    Solutria should be employed as part of the new nations name, because Amerigo
    Vespucci, (America), was just a cartographer, while the Solutreans were not
    only whites of European decent, but in fact were, by 1,000s of years, the first
    here in the new world.

    This was our land, this is our gene pool, let us resolve to
    keep both. Thank you.

  • KenelmDigby

    If you really, really want to understand the true character of blacks – their cruelty, their capriciousness and above all their treachery, I suggest you read up about the murders of the AWB men in Bophuthatswana.
    I can only fervently hope that the murderer and his close family died horribly of AIDS.

  • PDK/Kelto-Scandic Secessionist

    “If you build it, they will come”, a would be cryptic message
    from the old Kevin Costner film “A Field of dreams”, about the building of a
    baseball field in the middle of a corn field. After building the baseball
    field, they came.

    When the Mormons sent out their message of building their
    own nation in the American West, circa 1840s, the nation of Deseret, a Biblical
    name, those of the spirit, from far and wide the world over, came; answering
    the call for all those of the spirit.

    Should American, non-liberal whites find both their courage
    and moxie to forge a new, white nationalist, free enterprise Republic with
    limited enfranchisement, and limited federal power, the type of absolute power
    that corrupts absolutely, and the message is sent out far and wide, all those
    whites of the spirit will come.

    Whites can be divided into 2 groups, the mature and the immature.
    It is for those who accept their personal responsibility of nature’s charge to
    mature, the non-liberals, that this new nation-state would be built. It would
    not be built for the immature whites, liberals, and their personal possessions
    of the immature character traits such as cowardice, selfishness, sloth, envy
    and others of the “Seven deadly sins” kind. In the very least, immigration
    should be discouraged by particular laws in a new Constitution that specifically
    disallows them access to power, democracy, a fully enfranchised democracy,
    their most necessary means to their end of ruination for all whites and the
    white gene pool via imposing the liberal ideology of the white man’s burden as
    the means to their cherished dream of a new world, one world order of globalism,
    socialism and democracy.

    Liberals, foolishly believe this new world order will materialize
    their long hoped for Utopia, in reality however, it will materialize a Dystopia
    and further will, along the path to their false Utopia, meld our precious white
    gene pool to gene pools of inferior, lower IQed, more animalistic gene pools,
    such as the Negro sub-species gene pool.

    Contrary to both liberal and Amerindian revisionist history,
    white Europeans, the Solutreans, were the first humans to both set foot on and
    conquer this new continent, and further our white relatives were here many
    1,000s of years before the Mongol Amerindians of today. Today’s Amerindian ancestors
    came after the old world invention of the bow and arrow, arming their ancestors
    with the new Mesolithic technology our white relatives were not armed with as
    they emigrated from the Paleolithic old world, and the invention of the bow and
    arrow is the hallmark feature of the birth of the Mesolithic time period, circa
    15,000 to 10,000 years ago.

    The archeological record has found no evidence of Mongol
    Amerindians further back than 9,000 years ago while the archeological record
    for Solutreans is at least as far back as 16,900 years ago. Radio carbon dating
    is one of the means for dating.

    Therefore, by the white liberals and Amerindians own position
    of the land belonging to those who arrived first, this land belongs to whites
    of European decent. Further, should a new nation state, conceived in white,
    free enterprise nationalism, and further Canadian whites being near identical
    to American whites, and also being relatives of the Solutreans, the new nation
    should be carved out of both countries.

    As far as those of other gene pools are concerned, being
    denied enfranchisement, denied access to white tax dollars, imposed harsh
    penalties for transgressions of the law, miscegenation laws and other
    Constitutional realities, they might be more inclined to emigrate of their own
    free will. They can lump it or leave it, their choice, but they will understand
    this is our white land, our white culture, our white gene pool and we intend to
    protect and defend what is ours for evermore.

    For our white posterity, this is our challenge to accept and
    triumph. Godspeed we in this, our endeavor. Thank you.

  • David Ashton

    Kemp in his book on the “lie” of “apartheid” draws attention to the racial basis of culture, and also the demographic disparities in southern Africa. The white countries of the west have an opportunity not to be outnumbered by immigration and reproduction of non-white communities, which was denied to the Afrikaners, and it is an opportunity that should be taken, partly in the light of the South African tragedy. They should also learn from the mistakes of the AWB and from the attempt to murder Chris Hani.

    Incidentally, do any AmRen posters know where one can obtain a copy of the critique of the Sharpeville “massacre” by Dr Rudolf Gruber?

  • PDK

    I posted two comments, I do not see them, were they pulled, if so why may I ask? Thanks.

    • Formatting gremlins, most likely Disqus’s fault. Helpful hint: Disqus does not well digest cutting and pasting paragraphs directly from HTML. First go into a Notepad type program to de-HTMLize what you cut and pasted, then re-paste it into the Disqus commenting box.

  • ProWhite son of Jacob

    It always saddens me to read about how Rhodesians and Afrikaners were betrayed…

    However, to add a perspective to this: For about 8 years now, I’ve had an observant Christian friend from Rhodesia, before she was betrayed by Britain and others (he principally blames Britain, as they backed the Shona and Mugabe). He was involved heavily in missionary work, bringing Christianity to blacks in the area. He looks back on it now, and he mentions how he genuinely believed that Christianity would make everything ok. Like any intelligent White from Africa, he of course will state blacks are less intelligent, that they are savage and brutal (they killed the two daughters of his neighbor to use their bodies in rituals, because they believed White blood would protect or cure them from disease. Ritualistic killings like this increased with the spread of AIDS [and the observation that Whites didn’t seem to be getting it], so he left for America).
    But despite all of this, he believed Christianity would make them reasonable people. So he was among the number that believed things would be okay if the blacks could all be brought to Christianity (he wasn’t a traitor). But he realizes now he was wrong. The savage black will use your good, honest, and moral intentions against you.

    • Lygeia

      There are many forms of Christianity. The Calvinism of the Boers and the Protestantism of the English in South Africa seem not to have worked.

      • ProWhite son of Jacob

        It wasn’t Christianity that was to blame though.

        • Lygeia

          I agree. It wasn’t Christianity that was to blame. Christianity is the only thing that really civilizes people, other than Judaism and that is kind of a closed club. Christianity is open to everyone. You start by promoting life and recognizing the dignity of every human person, but realizing that we are not all equal in ability.

    • Oom Paul

      Here in South Africa the black sangomas(witch doctors) suggest all kind of weird cures like:
      – Having sex with a virgin will cure you of aids. Considering this is in a country with one of the highest aids infections in the world this has spread the HIV virus even more. This also led to children being raped by AIDS infected blacks.
      – The sangomas sometimes also use human parts for their muti(ingredients for their spells); obviously children are also more pure, again this leads to children being butchered
      – There is at least a tiny silver lining to this. There are also cases where sangomas give blacks muti, too make them bulletproof or invisible to the police, which has hilarious consequences.

  • blarg

    “but unfortunately, it gives no hint as to how to solve this last, critical problem.”

    Ah but it’s right in the title

  • Greg Thomas

    One cannot help but notice this country headed down the same path. Our politicians from both political parties are in the process of surrendering to millions of illegal invading mexicans, many of which, hate White Americans.

    • romulus

      Love the proflie pic

  • Lygeia

    Terre’Blanche wanted a white, separatist state. Yet, he was beaten to death in his own bed by the black laborers he hired to do his gardening. He perfectly encapsulated the expression, “An Afrikaner would rather be murdered in his bed than have to make it.”

    White people really need to learn from this and start making their own beds.

    • Jane Johnson

      Should’ve picked our own damned cotton, too.

      • KingKenton

        Yeah, I think I read a bumper sticker once that said something similar…

        If we had known it would turn out like this, we would have picked our own cotton.

        A short, but insightful quip.

    • Nathanwartooth

      Cheap labor is the cause of many problems around the world.

  • As usual, the right is too individualistic for its own good. Had the nationalists stopped insisting on reliving 1939, and the conservatives stopped trying to profit from making themselves an alternative, a solution might have been found. The fact is that voters don’t want to be associated with anything that looks totalitarian, and while we all know the limitations of democracy, in this case there’s a good reason.

    If you want to avoid this fate, support your conservative party. Infiltrate and demand that it become respectfully, honorably and compassionately racially-aware.

    • JohnEngelman

      If you want to avoid this fate, support your conservative party. Infiltrate and demand that it become respectfully, honorably and compassionately racially-aware.

      – Brett Stevens

      That is easier said than done. The right is divided into different factions with differing and often conflicting concerns and goals. For decades libertarians and traditionalists were united by anti Communism, but they no longer have the evil empire to fear any more.

      Right now businessmen want, and will probably get, a vast influx of Hispanic immigrants to help them raise profits by lowering wages.

      Since the 1970s the GOP has appealed to the resentments of working class whites, but it obeys its corporate contributors. The only colors they care about are green and gold.

      • David Ashton

        They have Communist China to fear.

        • JohnEngelman

          Communist China may become a military threat, but I doubt it. China has less to gain from military aggression than from the development of its economy and technology.

          History is moving in China’s direction without the risks inherent in aggressive war.

          This is the news service of Communist China:


          I do not trust it the way I trust BBC, or VOA, but I do think it is an accurate expression of the mood of the Communist Chinese dictatorship. There is none of the anti American propaganda there would have been during the 1950s and 1960s.

          • David Ashton

            China is developing an overseas mercantilism, rather like that of the early British Empire but backed by the threat of potential armed force and cyber-power, as indicated by its talk of using the huge PLA to support its foreign holds in Africa and its recent probing provocations with India and Japan.

            “It is on the verge of reclaiming what it sees as its rightful position in the world. The new head of the ruling Communist Party has evoked that rise with his new doctrine the ‘Chinese dream’, a troubling whiff of nationalism and repackaged authoritarianism. Mr Xi Jinping’s emphasis on national greatness has made party leaders heirs to the dynasts of the 18th century when Qing emperors demanded that western envoys kowtow [and] is designed chiefly to serve as a new source of legitimacy for the Communist Party. Mr Xi is already playing to the armed forces, a ‘strong army dream’ [and] made it clear that he believes the Soviet Union collapsed because the Communist Party there strayed from ideological orthodoxy and rigid discipline. ‘Communists should have a higher ideal, and that is Communism’.” – The Economist, May 4, 2013, p.13. (Editorial abridged.)

  • Some one that isn’t white

    White people are just mad they can’t treat non-whites like garbage anymore.

  • JohnEngelman

    Most blacks need benevolent paternalism. Many of them seem to want it. Whites need to be able to protect themselves from black crime, both individually and collectively with an effective police force.

    I do not know what the white South Africans could have done to avoid their present predicament.

    It is clear to me that the violence of the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging was counter productive, as was the violence American segregationists directed against civil rights demonstrators.

    • gemjunior

      They do need benevolent paternalism. It’s all the libs pushing equality down their throats that has made them so bitter and of course they blame us whites. They’re directed to; it’s always being whispered in their ears. When they knew they were not on the same level it was easier for them to accept help, accept wages, among other things. The constant refrain they hear that they are equal to whites has caused them to absolutely assume something or somebody is putting up roadblocks to their success. If they are equal, as they’re told they are, why have they never developed any functioning civil society? Why do they need to be supported by white taxpayers? As these things cross their minds, a terrible suspicion that they are LESS capable is sure to follow, and it’s so horrible for them to imagine that truth so they actually PREFER to believe that they’re being kept down. That’s probably also the reason for that sullen face they wear everywhere.

  • Do not forget EVER that Vorster was pursuing a policy of detante with the frontline african states INSTEAD of supporting Rhodesia.

    Had the afrikaners been LESS tribal and more racial, there would STILL be Rhodesia.

  • LHathaway

    The only lesson to be learned here is that no other political options, stands, issues, economics, ties, loyalties – no ideals matter (with the possible exception of non-violence) except for forming your own country. To paraphrase the words of Jared Taylor, ‘at which point their society (white society – left alone) will evolve in whatever direction it will naturally take”. Perhaps some younger readers will live long enough to see what such a society will make for itself.

  • LHathaway

    “Like any intelligent White from Africa, he of course will state blacks are less intelligent, that they are savage and brutal (they killed the two daughters of his neighbor to use their bodies in rituals”

    “Most blacks need benevolent paternalism. Many of them seem to want it. Whites need to be able to protect themselves from black crime, both individually and collectively with an effective police force”.

    Whites don’t need an effective police force. Christians don’t need an effective police force. The government doesn’t need an effective police force. Blacks don’t need paternalism or not need paternalism. Whites don’t need to believe they are more intelligent than blacks, or less intelligent than blacks. Whites need their own country. Nothing else matters.

    • ProWhite son of Jacob

      Your point is somewhat obscured by denying the racial question while also supporting it. We know Whites need a country, this goes without saying. What we have, though, are an innumerable number of reasons as to why. And these reasons are, counter to popular opinion, quite important. Because without them, the natural propensity of Whites to be honest, moral people who try to find the good in others will lead them to being taken advantage of by blacks, cultural Marxists, and anything that attempts to dissuade Whites from the goal of a nation.

  • jeffaral

    Terre Blanche was full of bravado but no real action. Typical of most of the White people

  • Olivier DEVALEZ

    The story of the AWB and RSA in itself isn’t relevant for Europe and North America, even Oceania, because conditions AT THIS STAGE are completely different. Same thing happened to the French and European “Blackfeet” in Algeria for over 50 years, although all of them (around 1,000,000) had to leave North Africa in the 60’s, almost for the same reason : they felt attached to their new homeland, but failed to understand that colonization doesn’t work in the long run when the colonizer remains a minority and the colonized a breeding majority.

    BUT Europe especially is now endangered with a reverse colonization from Africa, and America from inner and foreign ones. Many Afrikaners displayed Israeli flags in their settlements after the coming to power of ANC, because they felt like the Jewish settlers in Palestine (just forgot they weren’t Jews and had no powerful Diaspora to back them up). It is said that the Bantus and Zulus came to South Africa almost at the same time than the early Dutch and French settlers (remember “Terre Blanche” is a French name). Whatever : we’re the Bantus, Zulus and Palestinians of Europe, not the one who are claiming to avenge them by colonizing us. And North Americans should remember that “Native Americans” became almost extincted (and weren’t because of the Whites themselves) when they failed to throw the newcomers back to the sea (for whatever reasons) and didn’t unite against him later on.

  • Olivier DEVALEZ

    That’s 1,5 million Blackfeet who had to leave North Africa in the 60’s (just checked it out).

  • Nate Miller

    I have no sympathy for the AWP and other such right wing uber racist white supremacist terrorists. The needlessly terrorized and murdered a lot of innocent women and children who happened to be black. And I was under the impression that only islamic terrorists did such dastardly things. In some ways it seems like poetic justice to the Boer retards in South Africa. Now they are the losers getting kicked and ruled over. Oh the irony! It is one thing to be a race realist and conduct yourself in a peaceful and civilized manner, it is another thing to be a race supremacist, deranged, cowardly, violent terrorist like these idiotic AWP Boer losers. Thank God they lost in the end. Justice won!

    • robinbishop34

      Were you bent over when you wrote this predictable jibberish?

    • David Ashton

      Afrikaners made mistakes of different kinds, but in uniquely difficult circumstances and without much western support. They had their racial idealists and people who worked for a partition of south Africa, and people who treated blacks with compassion as well as brutality. The real problem in historic perspective has been the small population of Afrikaners in relation to others – in different circumstances they might have developed into a distinctive modern white nation, like the Australians.

    • Lacocoon

      It’s because of pseudo-Whites like you that they lost. You are a Mattoid.

    • ProWhite son of Jacob

      The mistake made by many in regards to Whites in Africa is in completely misunderstanding the situation.

      Firstly, in many instances, the Whites were quite benevolent to the blacks–certainly much better than black despots that would soon usurp power (indeed, many in modern Africa romanticize the era of colonialism, with all its flaws). In Rhodesia, Tribal Land trusts were set aside for blacks to live on, and to protect various members of black tribes from being driven from homes by economics and banking they simply couldn’t understand.
      Oftentimes, at least half of the Rhodesian Army was black, even if the positions of leadership may have been reserved for Englishmen.

      Rhodesia’s neighbors to the south may have become overly radicalized to your taste, but it was a response to the black nationalist groups that planned on wresting power from the Afrikaners. You can’t blame them for maintaining power. And as it is, their violence pales in comparison to what black generals typically do in positions of leadership–on a consistent basis. The difference is also that, ultimately, the AWB wasn’t successful, whereas the black nationalism it was countering was successful. So your complaint is somewhat moot.

      However, although I think your stance is extremely naive, I appreciate it. Whites like you do prove that Whites genuinely are more civilized and would prefer not to resort to what they often must to survive. If you were a Bantu, and your BDF (Bantu Defense Front)–or however it would be called–had failed, you would say something along the lines of, “See how we be sufferin at hands of whitey now, since our BDF failed? If only we’d got da crackas, we’d be safe. I don care dat dey waz mean and eggstream. Itz whacha gatta do ta stob dem.”

      So thank you for your comment, Nate. People like you simultaneously give Whites something to be proud of, while also hindering plans that attempt to keep people like you in existence. It’s a sad Catch-22, but I try to see things as half full.

      Nevertheless, please educate yourself on the phenomenon of “racism” in general, if the subject interests you. The group in power does not have a special duty to be “non-racist.” Whoever is in power is going to act with a certain amount of racism. This is a historical and biological fact. The goal of humans, in our DNA, is to preserve our respective identities from being extinguished. Currently, Afrikaners are being extinguished and their genocide is at hand. I would not say that in expectation of this, the AWB acted rashly. Hopefully you can find it within yourself to understand and see it from a different perspective.

  • guest

    This is a great article about a sad story. It is the same way things are heading here in the US. Whites elected Obama and (through their representatives) are going to flood the country with third world immigrants. These wonderful illiterate impoverished third world immigrants will be given preferential treatment in all official areas, and many unofficial areas as well, and will also be given access to hundreds of different entitlement programs, including, thanks to Obamacare, the world’s most advanced medical services, all for free. They will also be given the same vote as whites who have been here for generations, and will gleefully strip whites of many of their rights.

    When these brown peasants vote to strip us of our rights, the FBI, IRS and BATF will be right there to enforce gun confiscation, breaking up white rights organizations, stripping whites of their assets, etc. The Federal agencies will target non-violent non-criminal whites above all other priorities. I’m sure right now there are FBI agents assigned full time to monitoring old geezers who attended Klan meetings decades ago.

    I wish whites would go down fighting, but we don’t. Tragically there will be plenty of whites who will dutifully do their jobs of crushing any white self-determination that should arise. The only thing we do is run. We’ve run out of places to run. I think we’ll end up dying, the world’s first auto-genocide.

  • robinaprichard

    All of Hollywood, the entertainment industry, and the American MSM viciously and relentlessly attacked SA whites for a decade. America persuaded the entire world to turn against SA economically. Follow the money.

    • David Ashton

      It was much maligned Britain which at least tried to put some break on the sanctions racket until Moscow-loving Harold Wilson pushed ahead with No Independence Before AFRICAN Majority Rule for Rhodesia, and the Left finally got their way with South Africa -thanks also partly to the pressure there for cheap labor in the mines as well as on the fields. The SA Conservative Party resistance was targeted for clever psychological warfare, partly flesh-pot temptation and partly incitement to counter-productive violence. The rot really began earlier when Dr Verwoerd, a man of vision, was murdered.

  • Theorist

    Why can’t Whites use the same tactics which defeated them in order to gain power? Perhaps they too can find some way to divide their opponents? Perhaps they can find some way to appeal to moderate enemies?

    • David Ashton

      We need operations on all fronts, taking cues from the Communist Party tactics in the past. The lack of funds should not be aggravated by needless sectarian divisions over minor or secondary issues.

    • emiledurk16

      Definitely agree. Whites having to fight other Whites (Liberals) for our survival is troubling, but perhaps, inevitably necessary.

  • Exoplanet Finder

    Here is a black message board debating whether Nigeria is better or worse right now than South Africa. It is full of the spelling errors one might expect, and reading through it after being exposed to the average Amren poster’s depth of analysis, it is a bit humorous as well. There is very little actual understanding going on: http://www.nairaland.com/75064/south-africa-worst-place-live

  • Gen 49:19 Gad, a troop shall overcome him: but he shall overcome at the last.

  • Nico

    Patriotism is tightly bonded to the notion of nationhood. The political Left seeks to intrude into national feeling and reduce the sense of nationhood. Separation from your identity allows people to be manipulated. Do not underestimate national feeling. Look at the lesson of the UKIP wins in Britain. All who value their nationhood need to stay strong and keep to their principles. See http://www.amazon.com/dp/b00c61zeo8

    • emiledurk16

      Although I have my doubts about democracy, appreciate the thoughts and will get the book.

  • After a very cursory reading of this article, I have one comment to make. One obvious issue that Arthur Kemp does not address is the linguistic divide among whites in SA, with English whites historically being loyal to Britain and Afrikaners being more like Americans, having cut all the ties with Holland, including Standard Dutch and spelling.

    During the 1960 referendum, whites barely voted in favour of leaving the British monarchy and a republic. The vast majority of English-speakers voted “no” while Afrikaners were mostly in favour of a republic.

    As far as I understand the fatal 1992 referendum outcome, the Afrikaner vote was more or less split down the middle, with half wanting further “negotiations” with the ANC, while the other half refused any compromise. A colossal 85% of English-speakers, however, voted in favour of De Klerk’s policy toward the ANC, which turned out to be unmitigated surrender.

    As I have written elsewhere, the paradox of apartheid was that it protected whites so efficiently from the nastier side of intercourse (no pun intended) with blacks, such as crime, that it facilitated the rise of liberal ideas of integration. After all, argued most whites, we have always been safe surrounded by millions of blacks, what could happen to us, even under black majority rule? They forgot that they had a system of territorial segregation and the white-run police force to protect them. Only now are whites getting a real taste of what black rule means in terms of violence, corruption, crime, lawlessness, anti-white legislation and so on.

    I am quite sure that if we could turn the clock back to vote again on the 1992 referendum question, 90% of whites would vote against simple black majority rule.

    Whereas Arthur Kemp seems to blame the AWB leadership – I never quite liked Terre’Blache either – I tend to blame the rest of the Western world. Without British organisation and Swedish money, the ANC would never have been able to get any black support inside the country and whites could have settled with moderate blacks on some workable solution, such as a confederation or partition of the country.

    Western liberals and leftists were, however, adamant that the “humiliation” of blacks ruled by whites should be stopped and were pouring huge resources into achieving the overthrow of a sovereign government in South Africa.

    The tragedy of South Africa is not over yet. Most whites are trapped here and sooner or later they will have to choose between resistance or domination to the point of destruction. Mental and cultural resistance is so much harder than actual military defense.

    Paradoxically, the decline of Western power elsewhere in the world increases our chances of a rebirth here, as we would simply have to deal with our blacks as a white minority like we have successfully done for centuries and not have to worry about powerful Western governments and liberal NGOs plotting our downfall.

    If only Western whites could give us 10% of the support they gave the ANC in the 1980s, we would have a Volkstaat in no time!

    • David Brims

      After a black muslim of Nigerian origin, beheads a British soldier on the streets of London, seems like apartheid was a very wise policy after all.

      • What also struck me about the reporting on this incident was that everybody referred to him as a “Muslim”, although he grew up as a black Englishman, speaking “with a broad South London accent” as some pundit commented. Is is fashionable to blame Muslims, but not blacks.

  • David Ashton

    The assassination of Dr Verwoerd, followed by US hostility in the wake of desegregation at home and the acceleration of Bantu reproduction rates, put an end to his Grand Apartheid vision, based on the Tomlinson Commission report and reassociation with the former British Protectorates. It could have worked, and in retrospect it is a tragedy for both races that it did not.