George Floyd: A Test Case in Anti-White Hatred

 The outpouring of hatred against white people which erupted in May 2020 after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, serves as a classic example of how lies and distortions have become the norm in the mass media and in the mind of the mob.

Chapter 1 of the book The War Against Whites: The Racial Pyschology Behind the Anti-White Hatred Sweeping the West.

CHAPTER 1

George Floyd: A Test Case in Anti-White Hatred

 

The outpouring of hatred against white people which erupted in May 2020 after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, serves as a classic example of how lies and distortions have become the norm in the mass media and in the mind of the mob.

The establishment narrative alleges that Floyd, a 6 feet 4 inch (193 cm) and 223 pound (101 kg) “black”[1] American, was killed after he was held in a neck restraint position by a white police officer.

The incident was filmed by a bystander with one of the now ubiquitous cell phone cameras, and showed Floyd being held by officer Derek Chauvin in a neck restraint pose.

On the video, Floyd can be heard telling the policeman that he “can’t breathe,” and he then becomes unresponsive.

Floyd was subsequently treated onsite by paramedics, was transported to a local hospital, but could not be revived. He was declared dead at 9:25 p.m. on May 25, 2020.

The footage of Floyd’s treatment went viral on social media. Within hours, there were protests, which soon escalated into violence, looting, and arson. Thanks to the mass media’s coverage, the protests first went national in the US (following the same pattern in most cases, i.e. violence, arson, and looting), and then, finally, internationally, as the protests “spread” to many parts of Western Europe.

Before all of the facts were known, the narrative had been created: Floyd had been murdered by a racist white policeman for no reason at all except that he was black, and this was just one of a long line of similar incidents where black people are routinely murdered at will by whites. It is claimed that this is the result of what is called “systemic racism,” or “endemic racism,” generated of course by whites against nonwhites.

To satisfy the mob, all four officers were fired. Chauvin was charged with second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and manslaughter. The other three officers present, Tou Thao, Thomas Lane, and J. Alexander Kueng were charged with aiding and abetting both second-degree murder and manslaughter.

The first flaw in this narrative came with the official autopsy carried out on Floyd exactly twelve hours after his death.

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.

Book Developments

Well who would have thought it, my major book, March of the Titans, is now into its tenth printing. And there is even more exciting news coming later this year, which I am dying to tell readers about but which will have to wait until it happens. But it is going to be great.

In the meantime, there is another 20% off sale at Ostara Publications. Click here for the details.

March of the Titans now has its own home on the blogspot here.

Me in Salisbury, Rhodesia, 1964.

Another time, another era. Amazing to think of all that has transpired since this picture was taken of me in 1964 in our garden in Salisbury, the capital of the British colony of Southern Rhodesia, as it was then.  Even Rhodesia's UDI was only the next year....

The (Almost) Unknown Karl Marx

Above: Arthur Kemp at Karl Marx’s grave, Highgate Cemetery, North London. Aluta Continua…sort of…er, actually not really at all.

Karl Marx has always fascinated me. Here was a man who, irrespective of the rights or wrongs of his political ideology, managed to shake the earth with his ideas, providing incontrovertible proof that ultimately the pen is mightier than the sword.

After all, the 1848 Manifesto of the Communist Party, more commonly known as The Communist Manifesto, compiled by Marx and Friedrich Engels, contained many principles which will be eerily familiar to modern society.

For example, point 10 of The Communist Manifesto calls for “free education for all children in public schools.”  That is now, of course, standard practice in almost every country on earth which can afford it.

Point 10 also calls for the “abolition of children’s factory labour” — something else with which all normal people can associate themselves.

Point 5 of The Communist Manifesto calls for the “centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.”

When one looks at how the international banks have behaved of late — plunging the world into a severe crisis with their reckless investment in the US Third World immigrant housing market (the so-called “subprime” disaster), then one can start to feel a certain sympathy to this position as well.

Just by the way, the British state bailed out most of that country’s banks after they lost their money in the subprime catastrophe. As a result, the British state now owns nearly 85 percent of the RBS Group, one of the largest banking chains in Britain. Marx’s dream has nearly come true in Britain, it would seem.

Other stuff in The Communist Manifesto is however clearly mad, such as the “abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes,” and the “extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State.”

In 1991, I had the great fortune to tour the states of East Germany, Hungary and Bulgaria shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall and saw for myself the total economic devastation wreaked by the practical application of Marx’s economic concepts.

How anyone could still be a proponent of those aspects of his ideology, is beyond me.

All that aside, it is still indisputable that Marx’s ideas were one of the most influential in the 20th century.

Marx’s Attitude towards the Jews

One aspect continually overlooked in academic studies of Marx (and I did an entire sub-course in Marx and Marxism when I got my political science degree, so I know this for sure) is Marx’s attitude towards Jews.

To call Marx anti-Semitic might be an understatement. This is particularly bizarre in the light of his own Jewish ancestry.

Marx’s grandfather was a Rabbi Marc Levy. At some stage, Rabbi Levy dropped the Levy name and changed the Marc to Marx.

Shortly after Karl’s birth, his father also changed his name, from Heshel Marx to Heinrich Marx. Heinrich then became a Lutheran, into which the young Karl was baptised. Karl’s mother was also descended from a long line of rabbis and unlike her husband, stayed true to her faith.

Hence the strangeness of Karl’s 1843 essay, titled “On the Jewish Question”.

“On the Jewish Question” by Karl Marx 1843

This was supposed to be an analysis of the position of Jewry versus the rights of the proletariat, but quickly descended into a violent anti-Jewish polemic.

For example, Marx wrote:

“What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly cult of the Jews? Haggling. What is his worldly god? Money! … What is contained abstractly in the Jewish religion — contempt for theory, for art, for history, for man as an end in himself.” — Karl Marx, Selected Writings, by Karl Marx and Lawrence H. Simon, 1994, page 22.

In his 1845 book The Holy Family or Critique of Critical Criticism against Bruno Bauer and Company, co-written with Friedrich Engels, Marx expanded upon his 1843 diatribe against Jews by writing that he had “proved that the task of abolishing the essence of Jewry is in truth the task of abolishing Jewry in civil society, abolishing the inhumanity of today’s practice of life, the summit of which is the money system.” — The Holy Family Chapter VI (3), The Jewish Question No. 3, Karl Marx Mainz, 1845.

Marx’s Attack on Ferdinand Lasalle

Ferdinand Lassalle, another German-Jewish socialist with whom Karl worked, had the misfortune to be dismissed as a “Jewish Nigger” by the founder of the egalitarian worldview of Communism.

In a letter to Engels dated 30 July 1862, Marx wrote that “the Jewish Nigger, Lassalle” was fortunately leaving London that weekend to return to Germany, adding:

“It is now absolutely clear to me that, as both the shape of his head and his hair texture shows — he descends from the Negroes who joined Moses’ flight from Egypt (unless his mother or grandmother on the paternal side hybridized with a Nigger). Now this combination of Germanness and Jewishness with a primary Negro substance necessarily creates a strange product. The pushiness of this fellow is also Niggerish.” —Marx To Engels in Manchester, Der Briefwechsel zwischen F. Engels und K. Marx, Stuttgart, 1913.

Marx’s Anti-Semitic Writings in the New York Tribune

Eventually Karl and his family settled in London, where he was to live until his death.

Somehow he got a position as London correspondent of the New York Tribune, which was at that time the largest and most influential newspaper in America — all this while he was working on his most famous work, Das Kapital.

Much of Karl’s writings in the New York Tribune was also overtly anti-Semitic. For example, in a Leader article published in 1856, he wrote as follows:

“Thus we find every tyrant backed by a Jew, as is every Pope by a Jesuit. In truth, the cravings of oppressors would be hopeless, and the practicability of war out of the question, if there were not an army of Jesuits to smother thought and a handful of Jews to ransack pockets.

“Take Amsterdam, for instance, a city harboring many of the worst descendants of the Jews whom Ferdinand and Isabella drove out of Spain and who, after lingering a while in Portugal, were driven out of there too and eventually found a place of retreat in Holland.

“The real work is done by the Jews, and can only be done by them, as they monopolize the machinery of the loanmongering mysteries by concentrating their energies upon the barter trade in securities. Here and there and everywhere that a little capital courts investment, there is ever one of these little Jews ready to make a little suggestion or place a little bit of a loan. The smartest highwayman in the Abruzzi is not better posted up about the locale of the hard cash in a traveler’s valise or pocket than those Jews about any loose capital in the hands of a trader. The language spoken smells strongly of Babel, and the perfume which otherwise pervades the place is by no means of a choice kind.

“The fact that 1,855 years ago Christ drove the Jewish money-changers out of the temple, and that the money-changers of our age, enlisted on the side of tyranny, again happen to be Jews is perhaps no more than a historic coincidence.

“Thus do these loans, which are a curse to the people, a ruin to the holders, and a danger to the governments, become a blessing to the houses of the children of Judah.

“This Jew organization of loan-mongers is as dangerous to the people as the aristocratic organization of landowners.

“The fortunes amassed by these loan-mongers are immense, but the wrongs and sufferings thus entailed on the people and the encouragement thus afforded to their oppressors still remain to be told.

“The loan-mongering Jews of Europe do only on a larger and more obnoxious scale what many others do on one smaller and less significant. But it is only because the Jews are so strong that it is timely and expedient to expose and stigmatize their organization.” —Karl Marx, Leader article, New York Tribune, 4 January 1856. As reproduced in The Eastern Question: Letters Written from 1853 to 1856 Dealing with the Events of the Crimean War by Karl Marx, Eleanor Marx Aveling, Edward Bibbins Aveling, Routledge, 1994 pages 600-606.

The Forger Confesses! UPDATED

A couple of years ago, when I was in the US, my good buddy Dave Otto snapped a picture of me wearing a oversized cowboy hat after we had spent the day at a riverside concert.

Later, Dave photoshopped in a swastika eagle thing in the background, and when I left, he presented me with a nice print out of his “work,” as a personal joke.

I had a good laugh, and threw Dave’s faked pic in along with all my other pictures. Sadly, later on when I got divorced, my ex-spouse got hold of my collection of pics, scanned that fake one and put it online . . . and as a result, it still circulates today on the Internet.

Knowing that it was a joke, I have always ignored it, but Dave’s recent post on Facebook is maybe worth a peek for those who have a bizarre interest in this silly little episode.

UPDATE:  While having a clean out, I found the original picture before it was photoshopped:

Arthur Kemp

Arthur Kemp

Free at Last, Thank God, Free at Last

As of 1 September, my membership of the BNP expired. Not a moment too soon, what with the sheriff knocking on Nick Griffin's door and most disgracefully, a family business destroyed because of the deliberate non-payment of debts.

I really can't afford to be associated with this sort of thing, it is personally damaging. I hope others will see the light as well.

Who Said What at the Chris Hani Trial

Someone asked me the other day what exactly went on at the Chris Hani trial way back in 1993. His question was prompted by a renewed flurry of nonsense on the internet, and I thought why not, a review is well in order.

In 1993, I was briefly arrested and then released without charge in connection with the assassination of Chris Hani, the leader of the South African Communist Party and chief of staff of Umkhonto we Sizwe, the armed wing of the African National Congress (ANC).

Clive Derby-Lewis Gave My Name to the Police

I always chuckle when I read from the internet cranks that I was responsible for the arrest of Clive Derby-Lewis and Janus Walus, who were the planner and the gunman in that case.

In reality, I was arrested after Clive Derby-Lewis gave my name to the police, not the other way round!

“The South African police arrested five more right-wingers before dawn yesterday in connection with the assassination of the African National Congress (ANC) leader, Chris Hani, and confirmed widespread suspicions that he had been the victim of conspiracy.

One of the five arrested yesterday was Gaye Derby-Lewis, the Australian-born wife of Clive Derby-Lewis, the former far-right MP arrested on Saturday. The others were Arthur Kemp, Faan Venter, Lionel du Randt and Edwin Clark, all understood to have right-wing connections. Mr du Randt and Mr Clark were released after questioning.
The police said yesterday they had achieved their 'breakthrough' in the Hani investigation on the basis of information provided by Mr Derby-Lewis.” (Source: Suspects held in Hani inquiry: Police confirm plot after five more arrests, The Independent, 22 April 1993).

Funny that -- my name was given to the police by Clive Derby-Lewis, but now in the mad world of the internet bloggers, I am the one who “betrayed” Clive Derby-Lewis.
You could not make it up, actually.

I Was Not a “Key Witness” – the Eye Witnesses to the Murder Were

According to the internet cranks, I was a “key state witness” in the trial which followed.

Actually I was a minor witness and testified absolutely nothing about the murder at all. I was served with a subpoena to testify about the list of names and addresses I had given Gaye Derby-Lewis earlier that year – and that was all.

The list was not even a “hit list” - - as the court also accepted. (Source: SA right-winger linked to UK BNP, News24.com, 9 May 2009).

Gaye Derby-Lewis testified at a later Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearing that she had “compiled the list.” (Source: TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION, AMNESTY HEARING, 1 December 1997).

The actual “key witnesses” in the trial were the two people who were eye witnesses to the shooting and the people who testified about the firearm and the silencer - - none of which had anything to do with me.

These witnesses were Margarita Harmse, an Afrikaner woman, and Michael Buchanan, both of whom not only witnessed the shooting but also identified the shooter, Janus Walusz at an identification parade. (Source: Witnesses identify 'Hani killer' The Guardian, 31 March 2007).

Other key witnesses included: Conservative Party member Lionel du Randt, who supplied the firearm used in the assassination and who testified in court that he had supplied it wrapped in clothing (Source: The assassination of Chris Hani Independent Online, 10 April 2008);

Conservative Party member Faan Venter who testified that he had carried the firearm to Clive Derby-Lewis, who then handed it to Walusz (The assassination of Chris Hani Independent Online, 10 April 2008);

and Conservative Party member Keith Darroll, who testified that he had acquired and made the silencer which was attached to the murder weapon (Source: The assassination of Chris Hani Independent Online, 10 April 2008).

There were in fact nearly 60 witnesses in the case, all of whom gave far more important and relevant to the actual shooting than I.

Compared to that lot, my minor evidence about a list given to Gaye Derby-Lewis three months earlier was absolutely minor and in no way implicated Clive Derby-Lewis or Janus Walusz.

Clive Derby-Lewis and Janusz Walusz Confessed

Furthermore, the really crucial evidence in the Hani case was supplied by Walusz and Clive Derby-Lewis themselves, who fully confessed their actions to the police when they were first arrested under the Internal Security Act. (Source: Department of Justice Amnesty Transcript, Sapa, 17 August 1997).

My evidence in court in fact never touched on Clive Derby-Lewis or Janus Walusz at all.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearing into the assassination of Chris Hani heard that the original trial court had heard “ that Mr Kemp was not regarded as a co-conspirator” (Source: TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION, AMNESTY HEARING, 1 December 1997).

So What Did I Testify to in Court?

(1) I testified that I and Mrs Derby-Lewis had had nothing to do with the Hani assassination and we had merely cooperated with her in preparation for an article which compared the lifestyles of ANC and leftist leaders with those of their followers. (Source: South African Court of Appeal, 1989 Court Records lines 20-21).

(2) I confirmed to the court a previous statement ALREADY GIVEN by both Gaye and Clive Derby-Lewis that I had provided the names and addresses which had then been passed on to Mr Janus Walus, the man who had actually carried out the assassination and about whom I knew nothing. (Source: South African Court of Appeal, 1989 Court Records, 23-34).

(3) When Mrs Derby-Lewis was acquitted, the presiding judge, JA Hoexter, made specific reference to the fact that the reason she had been found not guilty was because of my evidence in court.

There is little doubt that had I not come to her aid, she would also have been found guilty and would also be sitting in prison today - as specifically stated by the judge. (Source: South African Court of Appeal, 1989 Court Records, lines 33-34).

(4) As the court record clearly shows, I provided the court with no evidence which the Derby-Lewis couple had not already given to the police. In addition, I provided no evidence whatsoever in connection with either Mr Derby-Lewis’s or Mr Walus’ involvement, as I quite genuinely knew nothing about it at all. All this can be easily seen by simply reading the court record, and lines 24-26 in particular. (Source: South African Court of Appeal, 1989 Court Records, lines 24-26).

I Served in the SA Police

As to the allegations about me being a “police agent” - - it is true that I served my national service in the uniformed branch of the SA Police. In fact, I helped Gaye Derby-Lewis canvass in the 1987 General Election when she stood in the Hillbrow constituency, while I was in the police!

I "Fled" South Africa "Because I Testified in the Court Case"

Another lie first started by the SPLC was that I "fled" South Africa because I testified in the court case" out some some fear that the "right wingers" were angry with me. That SPLC lie was an attempt to smear me personally, but, sadly for that organization, it is a lie which falls down of its own accord.

The Hani Trial was in 1993.  I emigrated from South Africa to the UK in 2007 - -  FOURTEEN  (14) years later!  Hardly the actions of someone "fleeing in fear"....  the truth was that I simply didn't want to live under an ANC government, and exercised my right of ancestry in Europe to leave.  But, like everything else the SPLC says, they never let facts get in the way of their agenda.

My UK Ancestry Visa, entrance, dated 2007.