Posted on April 8, 2011

Afrikaner Survival Under Black Rule (Part II)

Dan Roodt, American Renaissance, June 2004

In Part I, Dan Roodt explained that Afrikaners are a white nation held together by language, history, tradition, and respect for their ancestors. The black rulers of South Africa are trying to suppress Afrikaner nationalism, which they see as a threat to black dominance and national unity. Dr. Roodt describes the Afrikaner battle for survival as a microcosm of the entire West, which also faces a rising alien tide.

Understanding Africans

Centuries in Africa have given the Boer a racial perspective unlike that of other whites. In a passage that would today be considered scandalous, the Afrikaner historian Gustav Preller wrote in 1937 (Daglemier in Suid-Afrika ) that, “although science would be sluggish in pointing out a remarkable physiological difference between the Bantu and the white man of European descent, it is certainly curious that the Afrikaners of a hundred years ago were aware of this natural difference . . . In this respect [refusing miscegenation] the Afrikaner has always been alone among all the European peoples that have come into contact somewhere in the world with natural [indigenous] man.”

Another historian, Hermann Giliomee, author of a recent mammoth volume called The Afrikaners: Biography of a People, has sought to explain Afrikaner race feeling by evoking the role of the Boer woman who, in the early days of the Cape, discouraged the liaisons between white men and slave women that were tolerated in other slave societies. Dutch women jointly owned their husbands’ estates and were often better informed and educated than the men. They saw to it that competition from slaves and natives for white men did not arise. If a man fathered a child with a slave woman it was grounds for divorce, and served as a further deterrent against miscegenation.

Some mixed marriages did take place in the first decades of the new Dutch colony because of the acute shortage of white women, but they soon came to an end. As Mr. Giliomee has written elsewhere, “Taking a black wife evidently entailed such a loss of status that it was considered better to remain a bachelor. European men unable to find a European wife tended not to marry. A study of the 1731 census showed that 59 percent of Cape Town’s European men and 51 percent in the rural western Cape never married.”

During the apartheid years, English-speaking liberals used to joke that Afrikaners had fathered the mixed-race Colored population. Why else would they speak Afrikaans? As noted above, some miscegenation did take place during the early years of Dutch rule. However, most Coloreds are not descendants of black-white mixes, but of intermarriage between Oriental slaves from Indonesia and Madagascar with the local hunter-gatherers known as Khoi-khoi or Bushmen. Although classed as a single population group under the apartheid system, the Coloreds are extremely heterogeneous, running from pure Khoi stock to Cape Malays who practice Islam. During the first 150 years of European settlement, the hunter-gatherers lost their own Khoi languages and assimilated to the early Afrikaner culture, as did the Oriental slaves.

According to statistics published in the 1930s before the legal prohibition of mixed marriages under apartheid, there were fewer than 10 black-white marriages per year in the entire country. Of these, almost all were white men — usually English — marrying black women. In quite a few years, marriages between white women and black men were officially recorded as zero, or one or two per year. Even now in South Africa, it is so unusual for an Afrikaner to marry a black that it usually makes the front page of the newspapers. At once or twice a year, it would be close to the historical norm, despite enormous governmental and media pressure for Afrikaners to “fuse” with Africans. Afrikaner-Colored marriages are only slightly more common, and occur only in the Cape, never in the north.

A columnist from the liberal Sunday Times visiting Stellenbosch University complained recently that she saw no mixed couples, whereas at the English-language University of Cape Town a few miles away, race-mixing is fashionable. The Beeld newspaper in Johannesburg runs a “bride of the month” competition, with many photographs of Afrikaner brides published every month, and I have yet to see one of these brides marrying a black or Colored man.

Television soap operas are, of course, a mixed-race utopia where all races are represented in all social situations. The effect of this government propaganda has been to alienate many viewers from television, or at least for them to see it for what it is: a highly artificial representation of South African life.

According to one retired newspaper editor, blacks fear Afrikaners more than any other whites because we know and understand them so intimately. In previous times, most Afrikaners spoke African languages, giving them insight into a magical, irrational world — a domain of spirits, witchcraft and superstition. Even the most liberal Afrikaners have a sense of black differences in mentality and physical characteristics, and although they would not make too much of them, they admit such differences exist.

The ANC hates whites, but hates Afrikaners even more, and the reasons are not hard to find. The black revolutionary Frantz Fanon wrote that the most common sentiment Africans used to feel for their white colonial masters was envy. Millions of black South Africans envy English-speaking whites their wealth and prosperity, but in the case of the Afrikaner, black envy reaches pathological extremes as they gaze upon excellence, not only in economics, but also in sports, in the maintenance of an indigenous Germanic language and culture, academic and scientific prowess, social cohesion and disciplined behavior. One merely has to visit the nearest Afrikaans school, or look at the results of the end-of-year examinations to understand black envy of a people they are intent on destroying once and for all.

Whatever form destruction takes, its vehicle will be demography. Whereas Johannesburg in the 1940s was still a European city whose population was less than a third black, the reverse is now true. Downtown Johannesburg has been completely taken over by blacks, provoking one of the largest recent instances of white flight in the world. Like almost all Westerners, Afrikaners have a declining birthrate of approximately 1.4 children per woman, and a shrinking population is further depleted by emigration. Violence and race preferences serve the black cause: either fearful whites emigrate to escape crime and mayhem, or they send their children abroad to get jobs.

Once the white population falls below a certain critical mass that precludes serious resistance, Mr. Mbeki will make his move just as his friend Robert Mugabe has in Zimbabwe, and drive the remaining whites out or perhaps even commit organised genocide. Either way, there will be no international outcry, let alone intervention. Years of propaganda have seen to it that international opinion will view such action by South African blacks as “getting their own back,” and will conclude that “the whites are receiving their just desserts for apartheid.”

In the meantime, part of the campaign to marginalize whites — specifically the Boers — is the imposition of African symbolism and values. There is even a quest for Afrocentric science, law and medicine. Just as the Soviet Union ignored the laws of science and practised “proletarian science” during the Lysenko era, the South African government is spending millions of mainly white taxpayer money on what it calls the “African Renaissance.” This is a fundamentalist revival whose objective is the replacement of Western precepts of science and law.

The government-funded African Renaissance Institute has branches all over the country. Its offices are lavish and its personnel wear designer clothes and drive luxury cars. The head of the branch at the University of South Africa recently derided South Africa’s Western legal system, based on Roman-Dutch law, as “neo-colonial,” and called for its abolition. African tribal customs were recognised by former white governments when it came to settling dowry disputes or clashes over tribal land, but the idea that a sophisticated economy and society should return to palavering elders under a tree beggars belief.

Traditional ideas and superstitions are definitely in resurgence. Patients going to witchdoctors will soon be able to file insurance claims, and a recent article in the local edition of Sports Illustrated described the use of muti or “medicine” in the National Soccer League, where players and teams routinely cast spells and drink potions before matches. Christianity has had little success in stamping out animal and sometimes even human sacrifice. Police statistics record an average of 400 so-called “muti murders” every year, in which body parts are harvested for magic rituals. Progressive theologians, both black and white, have stopped fighting muti, and are calling for the reconciliation of ancestor worship and Christianity. Some have proposed animal sacrifices in churches.

The subversion of the South African takes many forms, and as we saw in the case of Kleinboer, the Afrikaner is not exempt. People as diverse as Nietzsche and the French-American historian Jacques Barzun (From Dawn to Decadence: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life, 2001) have accused the West of decadence. As Westerners, albeit also white Africans, Afrikaners share this decadence. The loose morals, lawlessness, and free availability of drugs that have accompanied black rule have further weakened them. Many have become prostitutes and drug addicts, others luxuriate in gay or interracial sex, or they have become just as enamored of flashy consumer goods as their black rulers — materialistic, Americanized, deracinated.

Other Afrikaners are collaborationists who will bend to the black man’s will even to the detriment of their own people, language, and culture. Such is Dr. Theuns Eloff, the president of the last remaining Afrikaans university, in Potchefstroom, who recently succumbed to pressure to merge with a third-rate black institution so that his campus may be swamped by blacks demanding instruction in English. “We had no choice,” is their favorite refrain.

Abandoned by the West

The tragic fall of Afrikanerdom from having been almost a ruling aristocracy, with the English-speakers providing the merchant class in Africa’s only industrial power, is in no small part due to the fanatical opposition of most Western governments. South African whites have made many mistakes, but they are today ruled by Africans mainly at the behest of their Western kin, who until recently vilified and ostracized them, even imposing economic boycotts and arms sanctions as if they were Saddam Hussein.

The reasons for this are complex, and range from the worldwide syndrome of white guilt to the sheer incompetence of Afrikaner leadership after the assassination of Hendrik Verwoerd in 1966. Verwoerd did his utmost to implement a policy that would ultimately have led to the creation of an ethnic federation in South Africa, guaranteeing the Afrikaners’ own future as well as that of other whites in an independent state free of black domination. After his death, however, the most talented Afrikaners preferred medicine, law and business to politics. Perhaps this was understandable in a country where any white politician could be certain of few things, except being misquoted, vilified, caricatured and condemned by most of the world media.

Hendrik Verwoerd

When black activist Steve Biko died in police custody in 1977, this single African death on a continent where millions are routinely slaughtered in genocides, civil wars, organised famine, etc., caused a worldwide outcry. Since 1994, at least 1,500 Afrikaner farmers have been killed in horrible atrocities by marauding black gangs responding to the ANC’s slogan, “kill the Boer, kill the farmer,” yet not a single editorial has been written in the West condemning these killings.

One Afrikaner who understood the intimate relationship between white dominance in South Africa and Western dominance on the global scale, was G.D. Scholtz. He was a personal friend of Hendrik Verwoerd, and wrote an elaborate philosophy of apartheid as well as a multi-volume Afrikaner political history. In his 1964 book with the prophetic title, ‘n Swart Suid-Afrika? (A Black South Africa?), Scholtz warned that white people worldwide were no longer in their previously dominant position, something which would have grave consequences. “One of the greatest tragedies regarding South Africa’s whites,” he wrote, “is precisely the fact that so many of them remain in complete ignorance as to the great change that has occurred in the world and how their own position as a privileged aristocracy has been affected by it . . . In this ignorance — and consequently also negligence — that so many whites display toward the major changes in the world, lies the biggest danger that currently threatens the civilization at the southern tip of Africa.”

In the early sixties when G.D. Scholtz was writing, the notion that South Africa could be governed by blacks was as farfetched as the United States being governed by Nigerians, but he correctly predicted that the threat would not come from anything blacks could do, but from international pressure to give up power. Despite decades of advance warning in this and other publications, South Africa’s whites blundered along until they ultimately surrendered simply to please their Western kin.

Afrikaners must, in turn, take some blame for the collapse of Rhodesia because, as a prelude to selling out their own people, their leader at the time, John Vorster, stabbed the white Rhodesians in the back in an attempt to appease Great Britain. Just a few years later, after having turned over the second most prosperous country in Africa to Mr. Mugabe and his thugs, Britain fixed its sights on South Africa.

After betrayal by the West, demography has been the great weight on Afrikaner shoulders. On the first page of his book, Scholtz cited the South African population census of 1960 that recorded 15,841,128 people, of which 10,807,808 were Bantu as they were then called; 3,067,638 were white, 1,314,392 Colored, and 477,414 Asian, including Indians. Even the most radical demographic projections at the time did not foresee a rise in the black population to its current level of 36 million, nor did it anticipate the Colored demographic explosion to almost four million, while the white figure barely crept up to 4,500,000.

Since the black takeover, South African census figures are no longer accurate. Perhaps deliberately, as many as one million whites were not counted in the 2001 census. Whether whites are five or six million makes little difference, given the total population of 45 million, of which black Africans are just under 80 percent. A hundred years ago the black-white ratio was less than two to one, and now it is six to one and getting worse. For the next few years, AIDS deaths will keep the population from growing, but after that it is projected to double again by the year 2025.

There is also a steady stream of immigration from other African countries, with some estimates putting the number of illegal immigrants at ten million. A Western government would have tightened controls and sealed the borders. The ANC plans to abolish all visa requirements for other Africans, and the ultra-liberal/communist Constitutional Court has just ruled that foreigners qualify for welfare payments and health benefits. Up to a third of blacks may well be foreign-born, and have simply walked across the border from other African countries.

It is true that since Verwoerd’s assassination in 1966, Afrikaners have been making concessions to black South Africa so consistently that the 1994 vote to give them the country may seem inevitable in retrospect. However, the same trend has been seen in the West since 1920. Every European or North American country has made one concession after another with regard to immigration or race preferences. Here and there the tide has been temporarily halted on minor issues, but the trend continues. The influential Italian postmodernist author Umberto Eco, representing mainstream intellectual opinion in the West, already accepts European decline and the disappearance of the white race, writing in 2001: “Europe will become a multiracial continent — or a ‘colored’ one, if you prefer. That’s how it will be, whether you like it or not.” In this sense, Afrikaners will have to liberate themselves from the West and its pessimism if they are to escape the prevailing trend of white surrender.

In his often brilliant 1975 essay on Afrikaner history, The Puritans in Africa, W.A. de Klerk describes Afrikaner civilization as “a mere fragment” of that vaster edifice known as the West, but it is a fascinating fragment, well worth preserving. The Afrikaner struggle for survival under the domination of vastly more prolific and thus more numerous Third-World peoples, mostly African, but also Indians and mixed-race Coloreds, descendants of slaves and Khoi-Khoi hunter-gatherers, foreshadows the coming survival contest of the West itself.

By a curious historical and demographic twist, the percentage of white people in South Africa — nine percent — corresponds precisely to the portion of whites as a share of the global population. South Africa is a microcosm of the world. The processes of demographic expansion, territorial occupation, and moral and intellectual subversion we have suffered are similar to what the entire West is experiencing. Thabo Mbeki’s vociferous calls for an end to “global apartheid” and a free sharing of world resources among the developed and undeveloped worlds may sound extreme today, but in the context of the dominant values of our time they are by no means outlandish. George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac or Gerhard Schroeder may also undergo a “conversion” like F.W. de Klerk, throwing open their countries to a global system in which a few hundred million ageing whites will forever be subject to the young and growing populations of Africa, Asia and Latin America.

We Always Had a Choice

“We had no choice,” is the phrase heard over and over again in the recent history of South Africa. Yet we always had a choice. The Goethe of Afrikanerdom, a poet named N.P. van Wyk Louw, published a famous essay entitled “Die ewige trek” (The Eternal Trek) in 1939, in which he wrote that “the entire coming into being of a small nation is a gamble. It must rise up between the major powers like a small plant between the feet of great cattle. At any moment it may be crushed. Let it beware if it thinks that its ‘rights’ alone will protect it in a world of great power moves.” He goes on to discuss major turning points in Afrikaner history, showing that upon every such occasion there were two equally attractive alternatives, the one rational and logical, the other emotional and irrational. At each point the Afrikaner had gambled on the irrational alternative and won.

He wrote that one must sometimes choose the rational course and sometimes the irrational one, not knowing which is which, nor being certain of the outcome. If Louw had been alive in 1994, his theory would have been vindicated, for the Afrikaners chose the rational course of conceding to world opinion, and lost, horribly so. If they had chosen to persevere, to call the black nationalist bluff of revolution or outright war, they would today have had many more choices.

Rationally, the Afrikaners do not stand a chance against South Africa’s 40 million blacks or against the 600 million in sub-Saharan Africa, predicted soon to reach a billion despite AIDS, wars, and famine. However, at the Battle of Blood River the Voortrekkers were also outnumbered at least 30 to one by Zulus. When the Boers took on the British Empire, according to one estimate, they were outnumbered two hundred to one. If the British had not played dirty with their concentration camps for women and children, they would probably have had to abandon the war, and South Africa today would still be an Afrikaner republic. Without English liberals and communists to propagate their cause, blacks would never have gained power.

So Louw’s gamble of the small nation continues. Some Afrikaners are doing the rational thing and emigrating, others are collaborating with the regime in the forlorn hope that they and their families will be spared. More and more, however, I see the most talented Afrikaners opting for the irrational, to challenge the black power ruling over them, to insist on their birthright at the cost of being denigrated as racists and rightists.

Even left-wing and liberal authors who castigated the old apartheid government are starting to criticise the new black one. Hermann Giliomee, for one, was a liberal critic of apartheid ostracized by the old Afrikaner Nationalist establishment, yet he has played a leading role in the current struggle for Afrikaner rights, and, through his book, rekindled international interest in Afrikaner history. Small groups of dedicated activists are rising to the challenge to make our message heard in the world, knowing that the major powers will always support black South Africa, if only to keep their own multicultural societies from exploding under them. The Afrikaner is the scapegoat of the West, and has been put on the altar to die, as the price the West has to pay for its colonial history and resulting sense of guilt.

A left-wing French philosopher visiting South Africa two years ago took one look at the place and told me, “you Afrikaners should call out an independent republic in five years’ time, and do your own thing.” That is the obvious answer, but to make the psychological jump to Afrikaner secession after a century of South Africanism would not be easy. Afrikaner farmers still own 70 percent of the land in South Africa. The Afrikaner attachment to the land acts as an impediment to leaving parts of it to attain freedom in just one corner of the country.

Also, the ANC government is fearful of any Afrikaner attempt to break out of its fatal embrace, for it would lose half of its taxes and most of its intellectual slaves, possibly scuppering the system of institutionalized parasitism known as the South African economy. It has recently passed a new bill defining as “terrorism” any attempt to alter the constitutional order of the country. Without Afrikaners, South Africa in its present condition might collapse and become another Zimbabwe.

There is another theory about Afrikaner history. I would call it the “lessons theory.” Afrikaners are probably as likely as any people to treat blacks as equals, take their utterances at face value, and so on. However, on at least four occasions they have learnt very painfully that being under the power of blacks translates into utter horror. The first period was in the Eastern Cape during the 1820s when the combination of lax British colonial rule and zealous foreign missionaries siding with the Xhosa tribesmen against indigenous whites led to the burning of farmsteads and an insecure existence like that of South Africa today. This triggered the Great Trek into the interior, where Afrikaners encountered the warring Zulu tribe for the first time. Here they experienced the treacherous killing of Piet Retief and his men by King Dingaan in 1838, and the subsequent slaughter of the women and children at Blaauwkrans and Weenen, where the brains of white babies were dashed out on wagon wheels by Zulu warriors. This second lesson is indelibly marked upon the Afrikaner consciousness. Vengeance was taken at Blood River, the quintessential racial confrontation of the 19th century.

The third lesson was during the Anglo-Boer war, when Britain armed up to a hundred thousand black men to terrorize the Boer women and children. This piece of history has been carefully suppressed, but many Boer women were massacred and others were raped by marauding black “soldiers,” resulting in the birth of mixed-race children. In the northern parts of the country, this is often cited as a cause of the revulsion against race-mixing that endured until perhaps 10 or 20 years ago.

Now, for the fourth time in our history, we are experiencing black terror first hand, and despite the ideological brainwashing by the media and the government through the schools and universities, every Afrikaner knows what our most recent Nobel prize winner, J.M. Coetzee, an anglicized Afrikaner, wrote in his 1999 Afro-pessimistic novel Disgrace: “they do rape.” While the newspapers omit the race of perpetrators in their daily reports on South Africa’s constant wave of killings, robberies and sex crimes, and liberal commentators blame the crimes on “patriarchy,” “apartheid,” or “the cult of maleness,” Afrikaners are not hoodwinked. The race of any white who commits a violent crime is always reported so it can be said, “see, whites also do it, sometimes;” therefore all those other crimes must be committed by blacks.

The Afrikaners’ experiment in applying mainstream Western race theory in South Africa by submitting to rule by black Africans is turning out to be the worst mistake in their history, apart from the siege of Ladysmith, which was a waste of troops that enabled the British safely to land their forces in 1900, instead of having to take the country from the sea. According to conservative estimates, 30,000 Afrikaners have already been killed by blacks since 1994, more than the number of women and children who died in the British camps from 1899 to 1902, and 30 times more than the number of soldiers who died in the Angolan war against the joint Russian, Cuban and Angolan forces over more than a decade. For the fourth time, Afrikanerdom is receiving a bloody awakening because it failed to read its own history.

It may be that the anti-Afrikaner season in the West is bottoming out, and that we are on the way up again. But the price in human lives and suffering is as high as it has ever been. In 410 AD the Romans submitted without resistance to barbarian invasion. Was the Western imposition of black rule in South Africa a decade ago a similar sign of effete surrender to the Third World? The drama unfolding in South Africa may determine the future of the West, and 1994 may yet become the date that marked the beginning of the end for Western peoples as they succumbed to the syndrome of white guilt and penance for 500 years of excellence.

13 responses to “Afrikaner Survival Under Black Rule (Part II)”

  1. Escape Velocity says:

    It’s a bit one-sided though perhaps one could say it shows the other side. What does the author propose they do, turn their backs on democracy joining the rest of behind-the-times Africa? If you are unhappy with the political situation form your own country.

  2. Anonymous says:

    I have never quite understood the problem here. Yes blacks vastly out number whites in South Africa. But there are millions of whites. And blacks are pathetically, almost comically (if it weren’t for their malevolence) incompetent at just about everything.

    The solution seems direct, simple and easy to implement, provided African whites ADMIT there is a problem. If they can’t see the problem despite it being so extreme….well, it’s not reasonable for one to expect a mentally ill person to be functional and effective.

    Separation is what they need. Separation and concentration. Whites simply need to migrate and concentrate their numbers somewhere. And continue to do what they have always done, reproduce, farm, build institutions etc. Just with one added rule….no blacks allowed. They probably already have enough weapons to back that up but weapons are cheap and easily obtainable….especially in Africa. It’s organization, willingness to work together, cohesion, that are in short supply. So much so that South Africa’s military doesn’t really exist anymore. What exactly are they going to do if a militant presence grows up in their midst that simply wants to be left alone. Nothing. Under an apartheid state where whites attempt to civilize blacks and protect them from themselves, that was twisted into something racist. Still….no troops ever came to force the issue. Whites willingly ceased those behaviors for little more reason than some worthless sanctions and a few criticisms.

    The question is, do whites in Africa know better now? If they do, then simply living their own lives, separate from blacks, in a strict sense, minding their own business, is the way to solve the problem. Sure, blacks would love to rise up and exterminate them. Probably dream about it all day long, every day. They simply don’t have what it takes to do the job unless whites make themselves readily available, lay down in front of them and present their necks. They probably would have to manufacture the machete, sharpen it and hand it to them first.

    If they really , REALLY want revenge against the blacks, create their own currency. It would cause an instant collapse of the South African economy as it became clear whites no longer participated in it anymore.

  3. Anonymous says:

    I suppose that since the whites are terrorized and murdered in South Africa and Rhodesia that the United States offers sanctuary to these oppressed people. Right?

  4. NAVY says:

    Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd was one of my first heroes after our founding fathers.

    It has long been logical to conclude by theorizing population movements on a globe, that should millions of Africans overtake South Africa due to the spread of humanism in the United States, and Europe, whites in Africa would be subjected to the tribal brutality of blacks worse than whites in North America would be subjected to the primitive behaviors of Indians and blacks.

    Since the assassination of Dr. Verwoerd, America, overshadowed by humanism and conditioning, has been marching a path to obscurity.

    America must and will take action and deploy the Marines to South Africa because the implications of the status of whites as the weakest link in racial coexistence make a failed future apparent and can no longer be ignored.

  5. South African says:

    A brief look at the military situation:

    Google ‘sandf sa soldier magazine’ and read one of the magazines.

    It is by no means that the army has completely collapsed. There are still some very very dangerous toys available. We whites are disarmed. Then there is Robert Mugabe, backed by the Chinese with weapons. there are more African countries with dangerous armies – perhaps no match for the old white army but more than a match for a white nation with only handguns, half of them destroyed due to the harsh gun-laws.

    Then, as rightly observed by some, South Africa is not simply a ‘white-against-black’ country. Even in the white community there are factions of conservatives against liberals. Those liberals were, in my opinion, more responsible for destroying white South Africa than the blacks. In a white homeland, how do you exclude these liberals? They sit everywhere, in our high finance, in our universities, in positions of influence.

    It is the battle between the ‘minus’ man against the ‘positive’ man.

    For some background, for those that do not know about this link. Read the ‘Opening Pandora’s Box’ series. This should be a mandatory reading for everyone who wants to advise us whites what we should do. We have a very very complicated situation. We are interlinked with the international political situation, if our problem is solved, all of the occident’s problems can be resolved.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Just remember, if the blacks turn on you, the US and no part of the West will come to your aid. The Marxist ideology that prevails in the West, view whites as the root of all evil. They will say you’re getting what you deserve. Many of you have been there for generations, but I urge you to get out with your families NOW, while you still can.

  7. South African says:

    “but I urge you to get out with your families NOW, while you still can”.

    Can we? The contrary is taking place. Due to the global crisis whites are returning to South Africa. Britain is tightening up its immigration regulation with the slogan ‘British first’. No matter if those British are not white.

    How many whites managed to emigrate so far since 1994? No clue. There are no statistics, only guess work. Unconfirmed figures of over 500 000 in London. 32 000 – 50 000 in Australia. Stuttafords (international furniture removal company) writes about more and more whites returning as international opportunities are dwindling. Some whites long back to their country and culture and family. And the main stream media and dishonest South African major finance companies who need skills are not helping either – they are lying about the conditions inside South Africa, they are lying so much that even a wooden Jesus at the cross in the church would blush. They are whitewashing the situation. So that the expats say to themselves, lets return, things look bright over there, here are no jobs opportunities.

    The USA is in trouble. Soon the EU is going to be in trouble. For all whites on the globe there will be no window of opportunity. A few highly qualified individuals will move to an fro, desperately looking for better circumstances. There will be few. The problems are international.

    At the end of the day its gonna be war on the home turf. Where will the Americans flee to if the want to escape the multi-kulti? Its even worse for them – ten times as many white to emigrate instead of us few millions. Where will the British flee to- Australia? It will hit them too one day. It will hit every white nation one day.

    There is just one solution. Each white nation must make a stand on its home turf which it knows the best. But it must not do this stand isolated from the other white nations. All white nations must take hands and forget about the past historic squabbles amongst each other. The whites must rise above the occasion. They mus make it together, or together go under.

    Stop bashing the Germans. Stop bashing the Boers. The Boers must stop bashing the English about the Anglo-Boer war. The guilty parties do not live anymore. They are dead. The children are innocent. The children live today, in the now. You cannot take out revenge on their children, they are the innocents in this game. Their future is at play. The future of the white race is at play.

    To whom will the future belong? To those that stick to their principles and hold out the longest.

    The Anglo-Saxon world has a special responsibility. It has the responsibility of the principle of absolute numbers. One of the barriers to internationals cooperation is the language barrier. For Afrikaners (the Boers) you have perhaps three million white Afrikaans speakers. Those are absolute numbers and determine how many leaders who are in the know can come to the fore. The English speaking world is huge and the absolute numbers is in the manifold. They have much more potential to fix things. Will they fail, just as the USA has failed in its world leadership, a USA that filled the European vacuum after WWII?

  8. African4 says:

    It is not so easy for a white South African to emigrate as it is as for instance a black African.

    Some of us refuse to go, because this would mean leaving our retired parents behind.

    I can also see the same thing that happened to South Africa happening to Europe and the US. The way things are going in the states and the anti-fascist fascist laws that are being passed I think that South Africa might be a better place in the long run.

    We are used to the crime and are thus alert.

    The average American on the contrary has absolutely no idea what is going on and think that laws like the Patriot act for instance have been passed for his protection.

  9. Anonymous says:

    So long as nuclear, chemical and biologic (particularly ethno-specific bio), weapons remain out of the fight, a racially concentrated white group would have a massive edge, simply in using terrain to it’s fullest depth and employing modern weaponry while keeping your women and kids with you as ammunition carriers, protected from ‘POW candidacy’.

    Look at Iraq. You don’t beat massed, armored, maneuver forces with small arms. You let them become fully enmeshed in the bryar patch and then wait until they take a step outside their tanks to fire them up, so that they turn and thrash about, scratching themselves to the point of exsanguination as you menace them from ‘everywhere and nowhere’ in the surrounding bush.

    In this, explosives, even home made, are the predominant killers and Claymores and their (IED are actually an ‘ORM’ or Off Route Mines, made on the cheap) vehicle equivalents can engage the both the leading echelons of a threat during movement to contact phases. And the followon forces and particular CS/CSS.

    They can also be emplaced early, with little obvious signs of activity during the actual attack.

    Take out multiple threat vehicles at the same time. Front and Back vehicle columns. Use well placed snipers to score leadership kills. And give the enemy every conceivable panic-excuse to enter a convenient kill sack.

    Whereupon you click the clacker.

    Before fading away on a 2.5 minute contact rule.

    Blacks, like any unskilled person facing strange survival circumstances, are cowardly. What is important to understand however is that they are MORE reluctant than most to try-try again when initially, thoroughly, chastened by ‘voodoo’ white tactical understandings in application of remote firepower (no enemy to confront). Getting them to take even a distinctly different route or method of breakthru is hard because they act on impulse not on cohesive reasoning.

    The real problem here is that banding together for whites, used to living individualist lifestyles, is the same thing as admitting that we lost. To ourselves. Trusting other whites and being betrayed is one muttered-obscenity condition. Reverting to an ‘Indian Reservation’ type alternative lifestyle is acknowledging that the consequences of that betrayal are now a permanent lessening of one’s social position.

    At which juncture, I would simply point out the Jewish experience with the alternative, ‘wait and see’, method. Hang together or you will -be- hanged (gutted, shot, raped, necklaced and robbed) as individuals.

    If there is a real reason why the Afrikaaners need to worry, it is inherent to the notion that ‘as 9%’ they cannot be allowed to succeed, on their own, by the OWGian conspiracy.

    Globalist Corporate Socialism is about engineering dependence as a control mechanism to exploit the human as a herd conscience for the nebulous insanity of ‘profit margin’.

    Not to save us from ourselves.

    If someone stands alone, successfully, they provide an example which others might follow as proof that we don’t have to be ‘saved’ by anyone.

    Get it together Afrikaners. Or lose it all, alone. It’s no longer even a matter of when now. You have 5-7 years, tops before the world economy collapses and a very dark time begins.

  10. Guilty Liberal says:

    But there are millions of whites. And blacks are pathetically, almost comically (if it weren’t for their malevolence) incompetent at just about everything.

    Mmmmaybe. But consider this: when we whites fight amongst ourselves, the earth shakes. The problem is other whites. Let’s say a group of whites decide to secede from South Africa.

    All the ANC-dominated government would need to do is fight just enough to make a scene. They don’t have to win. They just have to bloody themselves.

    Do you think the UK and the United States would stay out of it?

  11. I am typically to blogging and i really respect your content. The article has actually peaked my interest. I’m going to bookmark your web site and preserve checking for brand spanking new information.

  12. s says:

    The liberal vs independent whites are of course seen in other countries. Flag communities and land in such a way that the independent can group there and prepare real and practical independence. If the liberals are left behind they might get a glimpse of reality.

  13. South African says:

    “In this, explosives, even home made, are the predominant killers and Claymores….etc.”

    This is the South African experience (my opinion) with white, even black armed resistance.

    The ANC and PAC (Pan African congress) planted plenty of limpet mines in South Africa during the struggle years (1980-1994). There were casualties, but the end-effect was that it stiffened white resolve. It did not bring down the government.

    Just before the 1994 elections there were a spate of violent home made bomb explosions by right wing extremists. To no avail, it did not stop the forthcoming events.

    A former Chief of the S.A. Defense Force, general Constand Viljoen, tried initiating a uprising just before the 1994 elections. It failed (details in the book ‘Warfare by other means’ by Peter Stiff).

    After 1994 a group of people (senior ex-military, medical doctors, i.e. the more intellectual class) called the Boeremag (Boer-force), started a spate of bombings. Due to betrayal they now are seemingly permanently behind bars (most probably serving as an example for future adventurers).

    The same with civilian bombing campaigns all over in western countries in the past – the Basques in Spain, the Red Army Fraction of Germany, and many more.

    So what is the conclusion? The conclusion is that this way is ineffective in order to topple a government. It just tightens the resolve of the adversary.

    A method that has partially succeeded in the past is the method of Revolutionary Warfare. Our ANC went to Vietnam and studied this method, came back and applied it. That is the wholesale murder of the moderate blacks and incitement of the youth, so as to coerce and terrorize them into action. That nearly succeeded in South Africa, but the formal Defense Force and security structures still were too strong for them. At the end of the day they only had success due to treason by our last white President, who disabled our Defense Force.

    Does this mean the only way the ANC can be toppled is by treason from within? But there is a little problem with that. And that is that the successors of the ANC will also be blacks, and South African politics is run on an ethnic base. The new rulers will continue looking after their own kind, so what use does it have for us? We are also a greying population.