Rape was the only way they could get a “white bitch.”

Life for ‘Ghetto’ Rapists

More news stories on South Africa

News24 (Cape Town), March 2, 2010

Two of the three men who raped a pregnant woman due to their “ghetto life” received life sentences in the Eastern Cape High Court on Monday.

Kevin Campbell, 24, and Elvis Nelson, 25, were both sentenced to life imprisonment for the rape, and another five years for the robbery of a 37-year-old woman on February 15, 2009, Captain Mali Govender said.

A third man, Clayton Donovan Arends, 18, was sentenced to 16 years imprisonment for rape and another five years for robbery.

All the sentences would run concurrently.


“The youngest of the trio apologised for what they had done to her, attributing their actions to the ‘ghetto life’ they led. He also mentioned to her that this was the only way that they could have gotten a ‘white bitch’.”

The woman was walking with a man in Port Alfred near the local SPCA when they were attacked by the three, one of whom was armed with a panga. The trio demanded drugs and money from the man.

“He was threatened by Elvis [Nelson] that he will be killed and that his arms will be cut off. Clayton Arends then first hit him with the blunt edge of the panga and after realising his mistake he hit him with the sharp edge,” said Govender.

The woman ran away and hid in the bush. Her male companion hit Arends in the face before escaping.

“In an attempt to get the suspects away from the female victim, he called out to them that he had a cellphone and R600 cash with him.”

Despite this the three found the woman and took turns raping her.

‘Lucky’ her life was spared

“She begged and pleaded for them to stop, but this was in vain. She was strangled on several occasions to stop her from making a noise and [drawing] attention. She also told them that she was pregnant and this also fell on deaf ears.”

The two older men left after they heard barking dogs and believed the police had arrived.

Arends told the woman he would lead her out of the bush. As soon as they reached a clearing, the woman ran away. She flagged down a passing police vehicle.

The three were identified and arrested soon after. They were convicted of the rape and robbery on December 11 last year.

In an interview before the sentencing, Campbell said he expected a life term. Nelson believed, because he had maintained his innocence, that he would be given a lighter sentence.

“They also mentioned that the victim was very ‘lucky’ as her life had been spared.”

According to Govender, the 37-year-old woman told her: “I am glad that they all got high sentences. I am so relieved. What they got is what they deserve.”

Original article

(Posted on March 3, 2010)

67% Say Illegal Immigrants Are Major Strain on U.S. Budget

67% Say Illegal Immigrants Are Major Strain on U.S. Budget

More news stories on Immigration

Rasmussen Reports, March 3, 2010

As the country wrestles with a future of historic-level deficits, 67% of U.S. voters say that illegal immigrants are a significant strain on the U.S. budget.


Two-out-of-three (66%) voters say the availability of government money and services draw illegal immigrants to the United States. Nineteen percent (19%) think otherwise and do not believe government money and services are a magnet for illegal immigration. Another 15% are not sure.

These findings help to explain why 68% say gaining control of the border is more important than legalizing the status of undocumented workers already living in the United States. Twenty-six percent (26%) think legalizing illegal immigrants is more important.

The majority support for controlling the borders has been consistent through several years of surveying.


On the other hand, 45% believe it’s at least somewhat likely that Congress in the next year will pass legislation to create a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. This finding includes 10% who say it’s very likely.

Forty-seven percent (47%) think it’s unlikely that Congress will approve legislation in the next year that makes it possible for those who are here illegally to become U.S. citizens. Of that number, nine percent (9%) say it’s not at all likely.

This belief that Congress is more likely not to do what the majority of voters favor illustrates why unhappiness with Congress has reached the highest level ever recorded by Rasmussen Reports. {snip}

Fifty-six percent (56%) say the policies and practices of the federal government encourage people to enter the United States illegally. Twenty-seven percent (27%) disagree, and 17% are not sure.

Seventy-five percent (75%) of voters are angry at the government’s current policies, up nine points since September.

A majority of voters across virtually all demographic categories agree that illegal immigrants are a strain on the budget and that they are drawn to America by the availability of government money and services. But there are partisan differences.


Eighty percent (80%) of voters rate the issue of immigration as at least somewhat important in determining how they will vote in the next congressional election. That includes 50% who say it is very important to them.


Original article

(Posted on March 4, 2010)

Anti-white, militant Chicano group to get $1.75 million from bailed out bank.

Anti-white, militant Chicano group to get $1.75 million from bailed out bank.

“We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him.” – Jose Angel Gutierrez, winner of the 1994 “Chicano Hero Award” from NCLR.

Pay up Whitey! Millions of Chicanos need free stuff!

“Useless treatments for the [white] elderly can be gone because we don’t need to spend money for people who are going to die anyway.” – Speaker at NCLR conference on Health Care Reform. June, 2009.

“We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him.” – Jose Angel Gutierrez, winner of the 1994 “Chicano Hero Award” from NCLR.

Citigroup, which was bailed out by taxpayer dollars, is giving $1.75 million to the militant Chicano outfit National Council of La Raza. The name La Raza means “the race” in Spanish.

Obama also earmarked millions of taxpayer dollars directly to the militant group in the Federal Stimulus bill. The money, provided mostly by white taxpayers, will subsidize home purchases by Chicanos.

Read Article.

Anti-white NCLR:

Photo Right: The militant Chicano movement in the United States often identifies and associates itself with the Aztec. The Aztec are one of the most bloodthirsty and violent cultures in world history. They started out as a desert people related to the Comanche Indians in the United States.

The Aztec captured members of other tribes for mass human sacrifices. When the Spanish arrived, millions of people greeted them as liberators. The Spanish led the masses into war against the Aztec and annihilated them.

Taxpayer subsidized Chicano charter schools in Los Angeles are even teaching the Aztec language, Nahuatl, in school. The language is used by Chicano prison gangs instead of English or Spanish, so guards can not tell what they are saying. Nahuatl was dying out as a language, until revived by the Chicano movement in the United States.

Last June, NCLR held a conference in DC to demand free health care for Chicanos. They demanded that elderly whites, who spent their lives paying into Medicare, give up treatments and die so that both legal and illegal Chicanos can get free treatments.

This was reported on the Mark Levin Show on June 25th.

Yes [they said they would get free health care for illegal aliens], these are my notes, Mark. They actually got up and said “Latino children need health care more than whites”. And then they would say things like “you must go out into your communities, use words like ’streamline’, use phrases like ‘all workers’ and ‘all families’,” because they said — and I quote — “If the American people find out that this bill is about giving health care to non-citizens, they will rise up against it.”

…One of the quotes they said was, “We want to make sure we take care of barriers like verification, but we can streamline programs to the more affluent” and, quote, “Useless treatments for the elderly can be gone because we don’t need to spend money for people who are going to die anyway.”

Patriotic Flags – New Minuteman Flag
Only $10 with free postage, for a limited time only.

Submit a News Item

The ADL: Managing White Rage

The ADL: Managing White Rage

Kevin MacDonald

December 7, 2009

A recent Haaretz article on the state of the Jewish world contained the following:

In general today, one of the long-term challenges for the American Jewish community is evident in demographic forecasts that predict that in two or three decades, certain minority groups are expected to become a majority in the United States. A recent ADL poll showed that 12 percent of Americans hold anti-Semitic views — but among African-Americans, the figure is 28 percent, and among foreign-born Hispanics it is 35 percent.

“If 20 years from now the largest caucus in Congress is Hispanic, they will have a great deal to say about where foreign aid goes,” says [ADL head Abraham] Foxman. “On church-state issues and all kinds of social issues — some of which impact directly on the Jewish community and some indirectly — they will have a great influence. We are working on it now, so as they become the majority force, there is a sensitivity, a relationship. It’s a major challenge.”

Jews tend to have a very large blind spot when it comes to immigration. Norman Podhoretz recently published a book titled Why are Jews Liberals? The basic pitch is that American Jews should support the Republican Party because it’s better for Israel. Podhoretz never proposes that Jews should actually become conservative — just support Republicans because they’re better for Israel. It never occurs to Podhoretz to oppose immigration for the same reasons alluded to by Foxman, his fellow Jewish activist and unregistered agent for a foreign government — to wit, that a future America with a non-White majority may well have much higher levels of anti-Jewish and anti-Israel sentiment than an America with a White majority.

Podhoretz claims that American Jews have a religious devotion to liberalism — religious in the sense that it is wonderfully impervious to empirical reality or even a reasonable view of Jewish interests. But Podhoretz’s pro-immigration brand of “conservatism” is open to the same charge — that it’s not in the interests of Jews.

Is Jewish support for immigration really irrational? Stephen Steinlight certainly thinks it is, stating, for example,

“Privately [American Jewish leaders] express grave concern that unregulated immigration will prove ruinous to American Jewry, as it has for French Jewry, and will for Jews throughout Western Europe. There’s particular fear about the impact on Jewish security, as well as American support for Israel, of the rapid growth of the Muslim population. At the conclusion of meetings with national leaders, several told me, ‘You’re 1000 percent right, but I can’t go out and say it yet.’”

In fact, Steinlight even argues that massive immigration in general is bad for Jews: “Massive immigration will obliterate Jewish power by shrinking our percentage of the population — to a fraction of 1% in 20 years.”  And he points out that there is also a problem with Latinos because they are

steeped in a culture of theological anti-Semitism that’s defied the post-Vatican II enlightenment of European and North American Catholicism. Nor have they a mitigating history of familiarity with Jews, little knowledge and no direct or familial experience of the Holocaust, and regard Jews simply as among the most privileged of white Americans. An ADL study found 47 percent of Latinos hold strongly anti-Semitic attitudes.

The idea that Jewish support for immigration is irrational fits well with the hostility that even Jews like Steinlight have toward the traditional people and culture of America. Steinlight’s hostility toward the restrictionism of 1924–1965 is palpable. This “pause” in immigration is perceived as a moral catastrophe. He describes it as “evil, xenophobic, anti-Semitic,” “vilely discriminatory,” a “vast moral failure,” a “monstrous policy.” Jewish interests are his only consideration, while the vast majority of pre-1965 Americans are described as a “thoughtless mob” because they advocate a complete moratorium on immigration. (See here.)

Such hostility is likely to be blind to rational calculations of self-interest — at least for most Jews. Just as the vast majority of Jews can’t bring themselves to vote Republican because of fear and loathing of all those conservative Christians — a major theme of Podhoretz’s book, Jews can’t bring themselves to oppose immigration because of fear and loathing of Europeans and their culture.

Nevertheless, the fact that Jews are doomed to follow their gut hostility about Europeans and their culture doesn’t mean that they aren’t making rational calculations about the future. Foxman’s comments indicate what is doubtless the mainstream Jewish attitude about a non-White future: It presents problems, but the problems are manageable if the organized Jewish community makes alliances with the looming non-White majority.

And that is exactly what they have done. As I noted elsewhere,

Jewish organizations have made alliances with other non-white ethnic activist organizations. For example, groups such as the AJCommittee and the Jewish Community Council of Greater Washington have formed coalitions with organizations such as the National Council of La Raza and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC). A prominent aspect of this effort is the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding, co-founded by Rabbi Marc Schneier, President of the North American Boards of Rabbis. The Foundation is closely tied to the World Jewish Congress which co-sponsors the Foundation’s Washington, DC office and several of its programs. Typical of the Foundation’s efforts was a meeting in August, 2003 of the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Jewish Congressional Delegation, and the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus; the meeting was co-sponsored by the World Jewish Congress. The Foundation’s many programs include organizing the Congressional Jewish/Black Caucus, the Corporate Diversity Award, given to “a major Fortune 500 company committed to building a diverse work force,” the Annual Latino/Jewish Congressional Awards Ceremony, the Annual Black/Jewish Congressional Awards Ceremony, and the Annual Interethnic Congressional Leadership Forum. The latter project organizes an annual meeting of the NAACP, the National Council of La Raza, the World Jewish Congress, and the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium. Quite clearly the various non-European ethnic groups are developing close ties and Jewish organizations are taking the lead in this effort. (Jews, Blacks, and Race; Ch. 14 of Cultural Insurrections)

Besides making alliances with non-White groups, Jewish groups may well have a reasonable fear that any movement to restrict immigration is bound to bring White racial consciousness to the fore. Calls to restrict legal and illegal immigration would inevitably be met by anguished hostility and cries of “racism” by Latinos and others who are the main beneficiaries of current immigration policy. This would increase White racial consciousness. One only has to recall the high-profile marches in Los Angeles and other cities during the 2007 Congressional battles over illegal immigration. Whites around the country were treated to open displays of hostility by Latinos and others.

And of course, support for immigration restriction would come from many of the same groups that Jews fear the most: Whites and Christians. (Podhoretz’s book is a good primer on Jewish hostility toward Christianity and the culture of the West.) Moreover, it would be applauded by the racialist right — some of whom have explicitly anti-Jewish views. It would also tend to legitimize the racialist right because undoubtedly their main concern is the dispossession of White America via immigration.

The campaign to manage White discontent is multipronged. A good recent example is the ADL report, “Rage Grows in America: Anti-Government Conspiracies.” It begins thus: “Rumors about gun confiscations.  Angry protests about the government’s tax policies, replete with Nazi comparisons.  A resurgent militia movement.  Rage at the election of a president deemed to be illegitimate and threatening.  Distrust and anger toward the government fueled by paranoia and conspiracy theories.”

Yikes! The peasants are getting their pitchforks.

But then the report shifts into management mode. Particularly important is to keep any vestige of “extremism” out the mainstream media, particularly anything that would legitimate White anger and concerns about the future. Because of the bothersome First Amendment, Jewish organizations cannot simply outlaw all the speech that they dislike, although they would certainly like to do exactly that. We know this because Jewish organizations have been strong advocates of laws against speech around the world whether or not the speech is connected to a violent crime. The ADL was the major force behind the recent Hate Speech law in the US, but that is pretty weak tea for them, since it only criminalizes speech in connection with other crimes.

Since the enactment of police-state controls on speech remains an unfinished task for the ADL, it necessarily resorts to other strategies. Recently Lou Dobbs resigned his show in CNN. Over the years, the ADL has targeted Lou Dobbs several times, including a 2007 article claiming that Dobbs “broadcasts an anti-immigrant message and supports the views and activities of other anti-immigrant activists. … [including] Peter Brimelow, who runs VDare, a Website that publishes racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-immigrant articles.” The  ADL was especially upset about the following statement in particular, from Dobbs’ book, Independents Day:

Socioethnocentric special interest groups, meanwhile, join in the assault on our borders, demanding multiculturalism rather than assimilation into American society. America’s elites have embraced corporatism, globalism, and mulitculturalism as the unholy trinity of a twenty-first-century orthodoxy that is now at work to deny our traditions, values, and way of life and to render impotent even the idea of America’s national sovereignty.

Dobb’s invention of the word ‘socioethnocentric’ presumably functions to blunt his charge: An important force for open borders is the ethnocentrism of non-European Americans. The ADL is a perfect example. Their ethnocentrism is aimed at helping their own people — a biological imperative, not a sociological one.

The ADL article also targets Pat Buchanan, radio personality Lynn Woolley, former Congressman Tom Tancredo, and Congressman Steve King (Rep-IA). None of these individuals, with the exception of Buchanan, has spoken out against legal immigration. None has taken an explicitly racial view of White identity and interests.

The latest mainstream media target of an ADL hate campaign is Glenn Beck. The ADL complains that Beck is “fearmonger in chief” — the “intersection of the mainstream and the extreme.” The ADL complains that Beck compared Obama to Hitler and called Obama “a dangerous” man.

The power of the ADL can be seen from the fact that its fatwah against Beck was immediately picked by the MSM. Tim Rutten of the LA Times snapped to attention and chimed in on Beck, citing the ADL report and comparing Beck to Father Charles Coughlin, the radio personality of the 1930s. And just as Coughlin was removed from the air waves because of his views, Rutten wants Rupert Murdoch to get rid of Beck:

Is [Fox] willing to become the platform for an extremist political campaign …? CNN recently parted ways with its resident ranter, Lou Dobbs — who now confirms he’s weighing a presidential bid.

Does Fox see a similar problem with Beck — and, if not, why?

The campaign against Glenn Beck is still in its early stages, and it’s certainly not at all clear that Beck would actually contribute to a real change in a racialist direction. Like other mainstream conservatives, he is at best an advocate of implicit Whiteness — his supporters are overwhelmingly White but he does not explicitly advocate White identity and interests.

In his recent TOO column, Charles Dodgson notes that Nick Griffin’s performance on Question Time was not adequate to impress the educated classes” — a critical constituency among Whites. The ADL’s campaign to set strict limits on what can be said on TV is really a campaign to manage elite-level discourse aimed at the educated classes. The effectiveness of Jewish influence stems from the veto power it has over all the high ground in American society, particularly the mass media and the academic world. In the ADL’s ideal world, explicitly racialist rhetoric and anti-government attitudes and behavior by Whites would exist only among “extremists” far from the center of political discourse. Purveyors of these ideas would be objects of derision — little more than reliable cash cows to fill the coffers of Jewish activist organizations like the ADL and the $PLC.

The fact is that the domination of the mass media and the academic world by elites that are hostile to White identity and interests makes it very difficult for educated Whites to sign on to a racialist movement. Such people are often vulnerable to economic pressures where they work, and, as college-educated people, they have a respect for mainstream academic and media institutions. Having been treated fairly in general, they trust the integrity of the basic institutions of the society. They identify with its basic ideology — America as emerging from its long dark night of evil into the glorious goodness and virtue of the multicultural future.

This is not so much the case with less-educated Whites. These people often have fewer inhibitions and far less to lose by adopting explicitly racialist views. They don’t pay attention to the New York Times.  Most importantly, they are less able to avoid the costs of multiculturalism: They can’t move to gated communities or send their children to all-White private schools. Their unions have been destroyed and their jobs either shipped overseas or performed by recent immigrants, legal and illegal.

Dodgson directs his readers to this compelling video of a working-class British woman of the type that is the heart of the BNP. These people are former supporters of the Labour Party. They have been completely abandoned by their party which, like the Democrats in the US, is seeking to keep itself in power by enabling a permanent majority of non-Whites. They rightly fear a future in which the White working class will have no power at all.

It may well be the same in America. As I noted previously, the enraged Whites who are expressing themselves in the tax revolts and town hall meetings of 2009 are middle- and lower-middle class. They are very angry — but they can’t discuss the real reason they are angry: mass immigration and the dispossession of people like themselves and their culture.

Eventually, all the phony implicit White issues will run out. And when that happens, these people won’t be overtly concerned about health care plans or even about Obama and his radical proclivities. All that will be ancient history. And it will have to get right down to it — that it is indeed about race.

Kevin MacDonald is editor of The Occidental Observer and a professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach. Email him.

Permanent URL: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-ADL.html

YouTube condemned for showing video clips glorifying Nazi troops and Hitler

YouTube condemned for showing video clips glorifying Nazi troops and Hitler

By Daily Mail Reporter

Video-sharing website YouTube has been condemned for showing video clips glorifying Nazi troops.

The scenes, accompanied by militaristic music, have drawn millions of hits from potential Nazi sympathisers and voyeurs.

YouTube, which hosts film clips from the public, has 2,880 items on the Waffen SS, the most fanatical of Hitler’s soldiers who were indicted for war crimes throughout WW2.

A Nazi swastika appears in a pro Nazi YouTube video.

A Nazi swastika appears in a pro Nazi YouTube video. The website has been condemned for hosting the videos

The entries have a string of ‘Sieg Heil’ comments and praise for the fighting prowess of the Waffen SS, recruited for their unswerving loyalty to Nazism.

The videos, some from Nazi propaganda news reels, have angered Jewish organisations who have called for YouTube to remove the ‘hugely offensive’ postings, including one that features the headline ‘Hitler Was Right’ directly below the YouTube logo.

Senior Liberal Democrat MP Susan Kramer was shocked by the content and the amount of SS sites on YouTube.

“Glorifying the Waffen SS or Hitler in any way is sickening,” she said. “YouTube must understand its responsibilities. They should be hunting this type of material down if they want to maintain any credibility.”

She added that YouTube has grown from fringe influence to mainstream source of content and that many young people view it alone where extremist views cannot be challenged by parents and teachers.

 'Hitler was Right'

Another video posted on the site shows a picture of Hitler with the words ‘Hitler was Right’

The Board of Deputies of British Jews said it continues to be ‘very concerned about the level of racist and anti-Semitic content on the internet’.

The YouTube clips include excerpts from history programmes but it is clear that many are directed at extremist right-wing elements around the world.

The Waffen SS regimental anthem is posted along with slickly edited montages of troops in heroic poses and Hitler addressing rallies.

One viewer has simply posted a giant swastika made from 134 smaller swastikas.

Another states: “The fighting men of the German Waffen SS were true heroes  real Vikings!”

YouTube was bought by Google for $1.65 billion in a purchase described by its chief executive Chad Hurely as ‘one of the most significant milestones for our company and our community.”

Google has been keen for YouTube to become self-policing and has pledged to clean-up on pornographic and street violence entries. But the system is still awash with violence and soft-porn clips.

Deconstruction: I Know How to Do It Too

Subscribe to The Occidental Observer Newsletter and be notified of updates through emails. To subscribe, go to our Subscribe Page.

The First Thanksgiving at Plymouth,  by Jennie A. Brownscombe (1914)

Deconstruction: I Know How to Do It Too

Alex Kurtagic

December 4, 2009

I recently came across an article published by Racism Review where MSU “sociologist”, Matthew Hughey, citing no sources, alleged that the early English puritans enslaved the local Indians. His article was an exercise in historical revisionism, which aimed to deconstruct the trendy multiculturalist reading of the Thanksgiving celebration, not in order to restore truth to popular conceptions, but in order to further delegitimize historical White claims to the United States. He proposed that, because the early Puritans either viciously shot the local Indians, or wickedly enslaved them, Thanksgiving should be abolished and replaced by a national Day of Mourning, involving “fasting and/or service to the homeless and hungry.”

Now, I am not American, but were I not already well educated in the fatuous and risible mentality of the crazies and haters that comprise today’s academic oligarchy, I would be so exasperated by Hughey’s propagandistic garbage I would not know what to do with myself. How could a nation predicate itself on guilt and mourning without eventually committing suicide? Except, that is what precisely this Hughey character wants: He wants to destroy in order to rebuild along communistic lines, thus bequeathing us an America in which Whites are permanently on their knees, weeping, ashamed, mortified, mentally, morally, and physically enslaved.

What the likes of Hughey do not realize is that we too know how to deconstruct. After all, they trained us at university. I am not going to waste my time on defensive arguments, reacting against Hughey’s ludicrous academic buffoonery. Instead, I am going to do some deconstructing of my own.

Critical Reader

Not long ago I received a rare critical email reacting to an article of mine published by Vdare.com back in June which dealt with the issue of ancestral birthrights. I had protested in the article that, as the British Empire retreated from its former colonies and became simply the United Kingdom, it forgot about its former subjects and left them stranded in jurisdictions controlled by hostile non-European majorities. As a result, the descendants of former subjects have nowadays to negotiate a tortuous and nonsensical bureaucratic maze in order to bring their citizenship into harmony with their heritage, while those without any blood-ties to the United Kingdom or Europe, can obtain citizenship here without half the trouble.

Of course, as we learnt not too long ago (despite the BBC’s deliberate efforts to suppress it), this lack of trouble is partly the result of a criminal conspiracy concocted by Tony Blair’s corrupt Labour government, which sought to neutralize their political opponents by swamping the United Kingdom with immigrants from the Third World, and thus relaxed immigration controls in order to make multiculturalism irreversible and give themselves a permanent electoral majority. Yet, the fact remains that a retreat from colonialism ought to have been accompanied with legal provisions for the descendants of former subjects who were left stranded in what has since become a foreign country. In a sane world, the former Empire ought to have made it easy for the people who made the empire function to return to their ancestral motherland in the event that they wished to or needed to.

My critic appeared to resent the fact that many had, notwithstanding the legal difficulties, done so, and concluded with the sentence: “I appreciate you do not feel that South Africa is your country anymore but was it ever….”

Never mind that my critic somehow assumed that I am South African (I am not; I have never set foot in that country). And never mind that my critic was probably motivated by a sense of grievance. Her statement deserves a reply, for it goes to the core of the post-imperial problem — which comprises, not only countries like South Africa, but also any former European colony, including the United States. The consensus among the liberal oligarchy is that Europeans never had a legitimate claim to their former colonial territories. Therefore, the question regarding South Africa (and by extension any other such former colony) needs to be answered: Whose country was it, anyway?

Postcolonial Theory

Let us address the legitimacy of White South Africans. My critic seemed to hold the view that, because the Blacks were there first and are more numerous, South Africa is theirs. This view necessarily relies on the belief that South Africa is simply land: Only then can it follow that those who first established permanent residence there or are more numerous have a legitimate claim to it, while those who came later and / or are less numerous do not.

First of all, my critic’s view regards the Blacks as a single, homogeneous category. This is convenient, for it enables those with an animus against Whites (and, sadly, this includes many Whites) to argue that, since nearly 80% of South Africans are Black, a White minority “stole” the land from a Black “indigenous” majority.

The truth is, of course, rather more complicated: The Black majority is comprised of no less than 9 ethnic groups: Zulu, Xhosa, Basotho, Bapedi, Venda, Tswana, Tsonga, Swazi, and Ndebele. All of these speak Bantu languages. A linguistic map shows that the corresponding language zones are concentrated on the East half of South Africa — the West is dominated by Afrikaans. The Bantu peoples, however, are not indigenous to South Africa: They, in fact, originated in what is now known as Cameroon and are recent arrivals, having entered South Africa in the 4th century.

The original inhabitants are a tenth ethnic group, the Khoi-San, which is lumped with various mixed peoples under the category “coloured”, and which is itself comprised of not one people but two: the Khoikhoi (known as Hottentots by Europeans) and the San (known as Bushmen). The Khoikhoi, who are a pastoral people, originated in northern Botswana and occupied the region in the 1st century; they have mostly disappeared. The San, who are hunter-gatherers, occupied the region much earlier, arriving at the Waterberg Massif 10–22,000 years ago.

The Khoikhoi and the San intermarried, but maintained distinct cultures. They were rivals, of course, and the word “San” means “outsider”, a pejorative term applied by the Khoikhoi to the bushmen to distinguish them from what the Khoikhoi called themselves: “first people.” There are presently only 10,000 San. In the 4th century, the Khoi-San were displaced by the Bantu people, who were more advanced: In addition to herding, they also knew iron and agriculture; this gave them an advantage.

Who, then, has the more legitimate claim to South Africa? The San or the Bantu-derived peoples?

If the former, then South Africa would once again have a small, ethnically-distinct minority ruling a majority — a majority of 50 million people. If the latter, then it gets even more complicated, because only three out of the nine peoples comprising that group — the Zulu, Xhosa, and Bapedi — are unique to South Africa; the rest are distributed across borders with neighboring countries. And the most numerous of those three, the Zulu, are outnumbered 5 to 1 by the rest of the population. Ultimately, given the patterns of migration, displacement, and conquest in the region during the past two millennia, what belongs to whom comes down to which is the more powerful ethnic group, not to who was there before or who is in the majority.

Secondly, what we know as South Africa today is not simply a land area: It is a legal entity that includes infrastructure, bureaucracies, and institutions. The latter were not always there, and they certainly did not exist before Europeans settled in the region: what they encountered upon arrival were prehistorical tribes.

Moreover, what we know as South Africa came into existence through the progressive annexation of numerous smaller states, the land for which, when it was inhabited, was either sold or given to Europeans by local chiefs in exchange for military assistance in the effort to defeat their rivals. The land for Klein Vrystaat, for example, was bought from Swazi King Mbandzeni in 1886. The land for the Nieuwe Republiek was given by Dinuzulu to Boer and British mercenaries in 1884 in exchange for the latter having helped him defeat his rival, Usibepu, in the battle for succession to the Zulu throne. The land for Stellaland was given to Europeans by Mankoroane after the former volunteered to help him defeat another chief. The State of Goshem was formed in 1882 with the approval of the chief Moshette. Griqualand was formed in 1870: The Griqua people are a crossbreed between Europeans and Khoikhoi. It goes on and on.

From this perspective, Europeans who settled there have a legitimate claim to South Africa, as they not only paid for it with their money and their blood, but they also paid for it again by investing their time, their energy, their know-how, and their creativity in building the country into the most powerful state in the region.


Had Europeans never settled there, South Africa would not exist: Instead, there would be virgin landscape and a sparse population of prehistorical tribes of hunter-gatherers and subsistence herders and farmers; the resulting map (and this would have to be drawn by Europeans) would contain numerous, small, and unevenly distributed colored blotches, representing a constellation of ethnic groups, of different provenance, of wildly different lengths of residence, with no fixed borders, no agreed names, no common language, and in a constant state of flux, as the various tribes displaced, conquered, or annihilated each other.

Language Map of South Africa

The only real South Africans, therefore, have European origins.

Bloody Foreigners

My critic also seems to hold the view that White South Africans are hypocrites: happy to live down there while the going was good, but quick to get out and suddenly remember their ancestral birthrights the moment things got tough. This view appears confused.

Before 1961 White South Africans born in the dominion were British subjects; and before 1949 White South Africans born there were British citizens. When South Africa became a republic in 1961, this change of status was enacted against the wishes of nearly half of those who voted in the Referendum of 1960. And certainly this did not take into account the views of those who were not old enough to vote in 1960, many of whom have since 1994 probably formed a negative opinion of what was done over their heads by the politicians in their country.

Therefore, it is not fair to characterize White South Africans as foreigners with a dubious claim to British citizenship, as my critic appears to do. From a legalistic position, certainly those who migrated to South Africa prior to 1949 never left the motherland, while those who migrated there before 1960 were still inside one of the motherland’s outposts.

Also, it was the South African government of the day, and not the ordinary White South Africans, who eventually decided to hand over the whole of the country to the Bantu Blacks — another group of relative newcomers, as we have already seen. White South Africans were told by their politicians to “adapt or die” — words that now seem rather ironic, in view of what has happened to them since 1994.

My critic may want to argue that these White South Africans could have mounted stronger opposition to their government, and that, since they failed to do so, even though their government was actively working against their interests, and giving away the country that they and their ancestors created, they deserved their fate. After all, were we to do the same here, as many of our number are already doing and have been for some time, it would be fair to accuse us of surrendering our birthright. Given their careers, we certainly cannot consider the Ted Kennedys of this world as having a legitimate claim to be citizens of the country that they worked so diligently to destroy. And one speculates whether the Blacks have similarly harsh thoughts about some of their past chiefs.

Yet, in our case it would not be fair perhaps to lump all South Africans in this category: Many were engaged in opposition, while others may have been ignorant, naïve, or misinformed — the same way that many among us are today because our predecessors ceded control of the media and academia, and because they took no interest in politics. At most we can accuse them of being neglectful of their duties as citizens. But we can only hope that those who were and have since reclaimed their ancestral birthright will join us in the effort to prevent our politicians from giving away the ancient motherland as well.

As to the Whites residing in the United States in 1776, their situation was undoubtedly better that those of the Englishmen in South Africa in 1994, in that, when the British Empire relinquished its thirteen colonies, the US became a jurisdiction controlled by a White majority, similar to that which had previously controlled it from across the ocean.

The situation in 2009 is much changed from that of 1776, however. White Americans are rapidly approaching the point where, by a process similar to that which took place in South Africa, they will find themselves in a jurisdiction controlled by a hostile majority — one that regards them as foreign invaders with no legitimate claim to US territory. If not ridiculed, attacked, and stigmatized, malevolent and dishonest pseudoscholarship like Hughey’s will contribute to make that a reality.

Alex Kurtagic (email him) was born in 1970. He is the author of Mister (published by Iron Sky Publishing, 2009) and the founder and director of Supernal Music.

Permanent link: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Kurtagic-Deconstruction.html