Thursday 5 December 2013

Nelson Mandela Dies: A Nationalist Reappraisal, or, Where Would You Have Stood as a Black Person in Pre-1994 South Africa?

Commentary on the news of the death of 95-year-old Nelson Mandela will vary tremendously, from fawning obsequience and hero-worship in the mass media, to outright condemnation by "right wing" commentators.

I would like to take a different approach, not only because I want to be different, but also because this is something which I really believe and which the "right wing" would do well to consider.

The time has come for all honest pro-European activists across the world to take on a new perspective of this African nationalist.

Yes, Mandela was a Communist.

Yes, although Mandela personally did not kill anybody, and never set off any bombs, or even shoot a gun in anger—he certainly had the intention to do so and the organization which he founded—the ANC’s armed wing—most certainly did kill people.

And Mandela was certainly no friend of white people, no matter how the media tries to spin it.

Yes, the current state of South Africa is shocking.

But I would suggest that the current state of South Africa was inevitable, and would have occurred even if Mandela had never lived.

The knee-jerk condemnation of Mandela as the cause of South Africa's problems, is a typically “right wing” misunderstanding of the story of the political development of South Africa.

I know, because this was the line I was fed as a youngster in Southern Africa, and, sadly, believed for a long time—until I became wiser and realized it was just another lie of apartheid.

The pointless war: Arthur Kemp. (left front) and his Casspir crew, Unit 19 mobile reaction unit, 1988. 

The reality is that the ANC only resorted to “armed struggle” some 50 years after its foundation. During those prior five decades, it had sought to end white minority rule by protests, mass demonstrations, strikes, stay-aways and so on.

The state, however, refused to contemplate black rule, and cracked down on the ANC—using force.

From Mandela’s perspective therefore, it can be argued that the resort to “armed struggle” was a reaction to the state’s violence against opposition to Apartheid.

And, contrary to the “right wing” version of history, this is in fact completely accurate. The ANC resorted to violence and, yes, terrorism, after its five decades of peaceful attempts to end white rule.

Think about it for a minute: if you had been a black person in pre-1994 South Africa, what would you have done?

The time has come to be completely honest about this: if I had been a black in South Africa in the pre-1994 era, I would have supported the ANC and the armed struggle as well. And so would all of my “right wing” friends in South Africa—had they been black.

The truth is that any objective observer cannot “blame” Africans for wanting to rule themselves, not be ruled by whites and for eventually taking up arms to achieve this goal.

Quite frankly, that is a perfectly normal human reaction, and I would expect it of any healthy people.

No healthy race wants to be ruled by others. 

Why would you, except if you were sick?

Now I know that Mandela was an self-admitted socialist. He described himself as such (see Sampson, Anthony (2011) [1999]. Mandela: The Authorised Biography. London: HarperCollins) and one of the main pieces of evidence during the Rivonia Treason Trial was a hand-written document by him called “How to be a Good Communist.”

I know that the ANC committed many gruesome atrocities in its “armed struggle.” But I also know, from personal experience of my four years’ national service in South Africa from 1985-1988, that the state was prone to violence as well. It was a cycle of violence, each outrage feeding the next in an ever-increasing spiral.

But all of this aside: the true meaning of Mandela is that here was a man, fully committed to the liberation of his people at whatever cost, who held true to this belief and never wavered.

Even though you may personally not like his ideology or what was done in his name (and, given the outrageous black-on-white murders in South Africa which are still occurring), you cannot get away from the fact that from his perspective, he stood by his principles and never faltered, even though the personal cost was massive.

The desire of Africans to rule themselves in their nations, free of white rule, as personified by the life of Mandela, in fact justifies the demand of Europeans to rule themselves in their nations.

Think about it. Instead of condemning Africans for wanting to rule themselves, pro-European activists should accept that it was wrong for Europeans to colonize the Third World—and therefore, that it is equally wrong for the Third World to colonize European lands.

Instead of condemning Africans for doing what any healthy people would do, “right wingers” should give up the old, tired and failed rhetoric, and instead be looking for a “European Nelson Mandela” to help lead them away from the path of extinction on which they are currently headed.


Adrian said...

That took some courage to write. It's a piece that repays reading and re-reading. Well said!

Administration said...

Quite right, I have the same dislike for Mandela as I do for Adams and McGuinness. The problem is that if we as white people stood up as he did we would be shot down.

The Saint Mandela myth is the same as the Saint Lawrence myth. The Mau Mau get the same treatment from the Liberal left!

A 73 year old man was caught planting a bomb at a mosque this week. If he was black or Irish the left would cheer him, as he was white and fighting, it is believed for his nation he will be attacked as a terrorist.

Africa should be for the Africans and Europe should be for the Europeans.

Unfortunately the left do not see it that way

Flávio Gonçalves said...

Great post, couldn't agree more.

Anonymous said...

Absolutely excellent article..You're spot on Arthur

Anonymous said...

This analysis has been long overdue, but more importantly it will disect the multicultuturalists arguments about the need for mass immigration. They (Leftists) keep on telling us that we white europeans have no right to our own homeland, but somehow the Blacks and Asians do.

I ove seeing the Leftist's brains short circuit when confronted with reality (which they of course always deny)

R_Moreland said...

For the left, the support of the ANC was a tactic to gain power. It was never about the liberation of oppressed peoples. Why should it be? The left institutes repressive regimes wherever they hold sway, whether it is the Bolshevik USSR or your local PC university campus. Their support for multicultism today is a similar tactic to gain power. Mass third world migrations into the Western world are a means to create a new proletariat which can be used as the muscle to seize power.

Anyway, I have a question for Arthur: here in the USA we have several proto-nationalist movements attempting to organize. But they seem unable to get it beyond the virtual website stage, or marginalized groups operating in the remoter regions of the country. What advice would you give Americans who want to organize an effective movement in the real world?


Anonymous said...

This post seems disingenuous.

First, you somewhat misrepresent the history of white South Africa (when the whites arrived, when the blacks arrived). But you know that.

You appear to be attributing collective guilt, throughout history, to whites. In this case, colonialism, which none of us had anything to do with, and can't undo even if we wanted to.

Do you apply the same collective guilt standard to Jews (Jews are always the litmus test for Geert Wilders--and for me, in the opposite direction) and other non-whites? If not, your argument fails. It's the Establishment's own argument. We already know whites must "atone" for everything bad in the past, while being credited with nothing good.

Nelson Mandela's and the ANC's position is noncomparable. Whites have no Establishment backing anywhere, and a 1984-style police state and racist mass media to contend with.

Mandela and his fellow Communists had all kinds of assistance from the global Establishment--the Soviet bloc, the liberal West, billions of dollars funneled to them by the Swedes, and a sympathetic mass media. They also had Jewish and Leftist support within South Africa itself.

To compare that with the position of whites today is . . . I am strongly tempted to say "dishonest."

I do not believe for one minute that you would grant white Europeans, today, leave to use ANC-style terrorism and "atrocities," as you put it, to fight our own government killers. And yet, our dispossession has gone on for longer than the 50 years you cite in justification of the ANC.

Moreover, no one was trying to wipe out blacks, or even South African blacks, AS A RACE. But the intention IS to wipe out whites as a race, everywhere.

And finally, yes, Communism was evil. Those who supported it were evil. I am sure you would not extend the charity you grant them to the Nazis, who killed fewer people.

Your position as expressed is the default position of the Establishment, both Left-wing and conservative.

I feel no need to grant anything to the South African Communists, terrorists, or present-day rulers before asserting the white right a) to exist and b) to fight genocide the only way it can be fought.

Anonymous said...


The question that should be asked is where do we now (2013) stand as White people?

It is understandable that former colonial populations would want to steal what the white colonialists had built on what they considered to be their tribal lands, but why are they coming to Europe and setting up parallel societies? and why oh why are we standing for it? and why are allowing the worst elements of 3rd world nations into our once safe havens?

The whites in Africa were in a fight they could not win, thanks to the left's domination of the Journalist schools and the media, but they should have demanded a homeland instead of ending up second class citizens amongst a population who hated them.

The whole idea of white people getting out of non-white countries is wrong if we are going to allow non-whites to set up parallel societies within our territory

America 1886 to European wannabe immigrants:
Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free and be independent.

Britain 2013 to the Muslim world:
Give me your lazy, your poor, your violent, illiterate and uneducated, your unskilled and unemployable Muslim immigrants yearning to set up a heroin empire from a minicab office.

Britain 2013 to Africa:
Send us your morons, your genetically defective inbreds, your insane, your enraged, your sexually perverted, your pedophiles, your hate-preachers, your knifemen, your sadists, your rapists, your enslavers, your thieves, your gang members, your jihadists, your self-hating women, your braindead killer zombies.

Arthur Kemp said...

@R_Moreland -- My "advice" -- for what it is worth (and I don;t know why my advice is worth any more than anyone else's, but seeing as you asked) is the same as it has always been: 1. create an lobby group to endorse campaigns on particular issues; 2. run candidates for the senate seats (you only need two decent candidates per state, instead of thousands, which you likely won't have or find). The purpose of that would not be to win seats--right now that is so unlikely, but rather just to generate interest and spread the message to recruit people for step 3; and 3. start with a seriously coordinated project to create European concentration areas as outlined in Nova Europa: European Survival Strategies in a Darkening World.

Arthur Kemp said...

@anonymous 6 July 2013 02:49:
1. I don’t see how I have “misrepresented the history of South Africa” at all. Perhaps you could point out where…. In any event, you labour under the illusion that “who was there first” actually matters. It doesn’t. All that counts is who is the majority population now. Power comes from physical demographic possession, not history nor title deeds. Until you understand that, you will wonder in the darkness why political power shifts occur.
2. I don’t attribute “guilt” to present-day whites for anything. You are misrepresenting what I said. Read it again and you will see.

3. I also don’t “blame” Jews for wanting a homeland of their own. The fact that they have brutally beaten up and displaced an already existing native population (the Palestinians) is a good lesson in the failure of colonialism, as they have generated the enmity and hatred of the entire Arab world. If anything, Israel is an object lesson in how not to do it.

4. As for the rest of your comments, I know where you are coming from: I also used to believe all that right wing rhetoric. Hopefully one day you will see through it as well.

Arthur Kemp said...

@Anonymous 7 July 2013 09:34:
“The whites in Africa were in a fight they could not win, thanks to the left's domination of the Journalist schools and the media, but they should have demanded a homeland instead of ending up second class citizens amongst a population who hated them.”
That is exactly the point. The great failure of apartheid—and in fact all racial segregration imposed over an integrated economy and territory, (see the US South etc. etc.) is that it:
1. Was morally unjustifiable;
2. Was, over the medium to long term, practically speaking, unenforceable.
Anyone who thinks otherwise, is dreaming.
If, in 1960, instead of demanding the entire country, the Afrikaners had opted for a smaller territory, based on partition, and used only their own labour, that state would still be going.

Anonymous said...


Thanks again for creating such quality work! I just finished reading Nova Europa and it is an excellent product.

My question for you:

I have been following the progress of Orania and Klienfontein over the last few years.

What is the status of Whites in Namibia? Are there any Orania-type movements/settlements there?

Is the Black government and people of Namibia openly hostile to the Whites that live there?

Thank you Sir.


Alex said...

The only way a successful White homeland will work is if it has a solid ideology, a set of ideals to live by and heroes of the past who set an example of Bravery, Self Sacrifice, Loyalty and Honour for which to live by today.

A firm belief in the Blood of ones Race must be the cornerstone and absolute law in a future white society if it is to survive through the generations. (Anyone who disagrees should be thrown out into the wasteland).

Anything else will end in petty arguments, greed or failure.

Unknown said...

Arthur I agree with most you said! However the people attribute things to him that was never said! Daily you hear this was his vision and that was his dream, with no proof, when in fact I think he was just the poster boy actually? That is why there was only one term! He did head MK and my problem is the extreme violence on Blacks after his release and his silence? Points to something more sinister for me! I like you did my time in the SADF and I did not then nor now approve of any sides violence! I think his legacy is exactly what we are living today!He is and was part of this organisation that is controlling (if you can call their stumbling that)the country! The ANC was all but done by 1990 resurrected by the negotiations for one!The "peace" was badly negotiated for a fact! lastly the "right" have been asking since 1948 for a place of their own. Last time was 1993. An agreement of sort was drafted with Mandela and the ANC. They were cheated again. So their disillusionment I understand like you do for the ANC. He did claim to have approved the Church street Bomb himself so I also understand that the "victims" would take that badly. You write well, and I enjoy your viewpoint mostly! This time I think you tried to go with simplistic in a complicated matter. Did not work really!

Keith said...

Mr Kemp in your book lie of aparthied you imply that it was almost innevitable for apartheid to fall due to the minority status of whites in south africa. But why are whites in latin america able to retain power, at least so far, even though they are a minority? Why is there situation different?

R_Moreland said...

Arthur, thanks for the input on politics. There are a lot of people who appreciate the work you do.

Nick Georgalis said...

Your emphasis on maintaining the white blood line in order to secure the race is admirable. But the reason for maintaining racial purity is to enable the creation of genius. And genius is necessary for the survival of the human race. It is the corruption of the white race by the dark race that reduces the probability of genius and thus threatens man's survival or at least his progress. I suggest that you read Richard Lynn's IQ and Global Inequality; The Bell Curve by Murray and Herrnstein; and Race, Evolution, and Behavior by J. Philippe Rushton; and incorporate some of their ideas into your work. These authors differentiate races by the average IQ. Along with the average IQ is the standard deviation or the distribution of intelligence and of all the races the white race has the widest distribution and it is the reason it produces geniuses. The Negroid and Mongoloid races have narrower distribution and so produce very few geniuses. In particular the Negroid race has an average IQ of 85 and a narrow distribution. Admixture with the Negroid race results in a mixed race with a higher IQ than the Negroid and a lower IQ than the Caucasian but with a narrower distribution. Continued mixing will result in the elimination of genius from the human race. Thus history of man is predictable and easily extrapolated from your work on this basis.

Anonymous said...

I absolutely agree with you! We white people cannot make demands for a white/European nation and turn around and condemn blacks for wanting a nation for themselves. We need to use Nelson Mandela's fight for his people as an example (To a certain degree. I am not espousing violence!) of how WE have the right to fight for a homeland for our people.