White Refugees from Third World Barbarism: The Case of South Africa, Part 2

Lara Johnstone


Part 1.

Apartheid: A Just War for Demographic Survival of Boer Afrikaners

South Africa was populated by White and Black settlers. The Whites arrived at the Cape in 1652, predominantly from the Netherlands, France, Germany and the United Kingdom, to find only the Bushman as indigenous natives. These were hunter gatherers whose mode of existence kept overall numbers small. In approximately 1770, the eastward migrating Boers came into contact with the southern migrating Xhosa Africans, originally from Central Africa, at the Fish River in the Eastern Cape. Population pressure disputes over the ownership of farming land and cattle resulted in what is known as the Cape Frontier Xhosa Wars. Many Boers then migrated north to found the Free State and Boer Republics.

One hundred years later, the first census in 1868 revealed a country of 1,134,000 of whom 50% were settlers originally of European origins, and 50% were Black and coloured settlers who arrived respectively from North Africa, or as slaves from the Far East.

In the next 80 years the European population decreased from 50% to less than 25%. By 1948 the census revealed South Africa’s population to be 11,957,000, of which Africans were 8,500,000 (79%) and Europeans 2,500,000 M (21%).

The advocates of a Boer Apartheid republic understood that exponential African population growth would, if unopposed, lead to them being ethno-culturally swamped — a major concern also of prominent Israelis and a motivating factor for Anders Breivik. To do nothing amounted to ‘national suicide’ of White South Africans. They also saw the breeding campaign as an act of war. Apartheid was their political Just War of Self Defense.

The choice before us is one of these two divergent courses: either that of integration, which would in the long run amount to national suicide on the part of the Whites; or that of apartheid, which professes to preserve the identity and safeguard the future of every race, with complete scope for everyone to develop within its own sphere while maintaining its distinctive national character.— Dr. D.F. Malan’s National Party in 1947. (1964-01-10: ICJ: Ibid (www.icj-cij.org): Counter-Memorial filed by Gov. of the Rep. of S. Africa (Books I-IV), p.473)

‘The ultimate objective of Apartheid is to implement ‘separate and parallel’ Bantu states, for complete self-goverment, after a period of transition. It will be a dual commonwealth in which the Bantustans will be constituent units. Self government is to be developed on the basis of tribal traditions, the objective being full democracy, but in the form most readily assimilated by the African…’ – Clarence B. Randall, advisor to President Kennedy, Counter-Memorial filed by Gov. of the Rep. of S. Africa (Books I-IV), p. 494; International Court of Justice (www.icj-cij.org)

Judge Jason G. Brent’s response to an individual doubting that the implementation of Apartheid was an act of Just War makes it clear that he, and by extension the pro-Apartheid movement, saw the ANC’s breeding campaign as act of war:

We must all understand that the most potent weapons of war are the penis and the womb. Therefore, if you cannot convince a group to control its population by discussion, debate, intelligent analysis etc., you must consider their action in using the penis and the womb to increase population an act of war.

The roots of the political principle of apartheid are found in biology and ecology. The logic of apartheid is implicit in the competitive exclusion principle, a well known ecological theory. Simply stated the principle is that if you introduce two species competing for the same resources into the same niche, the ultimate outcome of their competition is predictable by comparing their rates of reproduction. The slower breeding species will always go extinct, unless it evolves a counter-strategy, a “behavioural shift,” that negates the competitor’s faster reproduction (see, e.g., Stalking the Wild Taboo, by Garrett Hardin: Part 4: Competition)

For animals such a behavioural shift would mean finding a food source that can sustain the slower breeding species, which the faster breeding species does not consume. In South Africa, Apartheid was legislated as a non-violent political and territorial defense, to exclude the faster breeding Africans from the slower breeding Europeans key resources — homeland territory and political institutions.

To impartially, rationally and reasonably analyse the nature and causes of Apartheid, the honest conclusion is that Apartheid was a Just War for Boer Afrikaner demographic survival because it was a measured response to the ‘Swart Gevaar’ (Black Peril) African breeding war.

As far as relations with the other peoples of South Africa were concerned, the National Party believed initially that its interests could be best served by following a policy of “separateness” — or apartheid. It felt that, only in this manner, would the Whites in general — and Afrikaners in particular — avoid being overwhelmed by the numerical superiority of the Black peoples of our country. Only in this manner would they be able to maintain their own identity and their right to rule themselves. — F.W. de Klerk submission to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC); 16 January 1997; my emphasis.

According to social geographer John Western in Outcast Cape Town (see also Arthur Kemp’s The Lie of Apartheid) the two primary motivations for implementing Apartheid were fear of demographic swamping due to the ‘swart gevaar’ and secondly the belief that segregation benefited all. This is enshrined in the ‘friction theory’ principle, to be discussed below. In fact Western states that if certain demographic factors had been different in South Africa, Apartheid may not have occurred: “Even once apartheid was legislated, the ‘Nationalists with all their Sowetos could hardly keep up with the Black demographic realities of rural-urban migration and absolute population increase. At immense cost, they as it were, ran as fast as they could, only to stay in the same place” (p. xix).

On the issue of Apartheid’s use of friction theory as a justified response, Western writes:

A central justification for [Apartheid’s racial residential segregation] viewpoint, that segregation is in the interest of all, is enshrined in the “friction theory.” The belief is simply that any contact between the races inevitably produces conflict. Thus, the minister of the interior, introducing the group areas bill to Parliament on 14 June 1950, stated:

Now this, as I say, is designed to eliminate friction between the races in the Union because we believe, and believe strongly, that points of contact — all unnecessary points of contact — between the races must be avoided. If you reduce the number of points of contact to the minimum, you reduce the possibility of friction. … The result of putting people of different races together is to cause racial trouble.

… The friction theory has some measure of sense to it, as may be illustrated by considering the work of Robert Sommer (1969, pp 12, 14 and 15), who wrote:

[Animal studies] show that both territoriality and dominance behaviour are ways of maintaining social order, and when one system cannot function, the other takes over… Group territories keep individual groups apart and thereby preserve the integrity of the troop, whereas dominance is the basis for intragroup relationships. … Group territoriality is expressed in national and local boundaries, a segregation into defined areas that reduces conflict.

The anti-Apartheid movement were very aware that Apartheid was legislated and implemented as a political response to ‘swart gevaar’ exponential black population growth. Consequently a non-violent option available to them was to remove Apartheid’s cause of concern. On 14 April 2011, Jus Sanguinis submitted an Official Request to EU anti-apartheid organisations, via EU High Rep. Catherine Ashton:

Prior or subsequent to the ANC’s M-Plan declaration of war against Apartheid did any EU anti-Apartheid organisation advise the ANC or any SA anti-Apartheid organisation to avoid/suspend the violent ‘liberation struggle’ campaign against the Apartheid Government?

Was there any advice to launch instead a non-violent cultural and political campaign to stop the African ‘swart gevaar’ breeding-war in order to demonstrate the ANC’s honourable intentions in line with Just War doctrine?

These questions are important to ascertain the responsibility of EU countries for the consequences of the anti-Apartheid campaign for South African Whites. So far there is no indication that EU countries or international agencies did anything to moderate the ANC’s campaign. Neither did they condemn the ANC’s ‘Operation Production’ campaign which guaranteed young men who signed up to the ANC free sex with women members; while ANC women were forbidden the use of contraceptives. Women who refused to be forcefully impregnated or used contraceptives, were accused of being Apartheid agents, which was punishable by being burnt to death by the necklace (see Witchcraft and the State in South Africa, by Johannes Harnischfeger).

Just War and the Tragedy of the Commons

Just War Theory is a derivative of International law, which deals with the justifications — theoretical or historical — for war and how and why wars are fought. The theoretical aspect is used by politicians or historians to determine whether a war can, or could be ethically justified, and what forms of warfare are, and are not allowed. The Just War tradition, or historical aspect of Just War Theory dates back to the concept of chivalry, or more specifically the codes of military honour conduct that have held currency with the military elite since the age of chivalry.

If we impartially and unemotionally examine the motivations for implementing Apartheid it meets all the requirements for a just war of self defense: It was a just cause to ensure Afrikaner demographic survival; it was a last resort; it was declared by proper authority; it possessed morally right intention; it had a reasonable chance of success; and the end was proportional to the means used.

The ANC’s anti-Apartheid movement on the other hand meets none of the requirements to be considered a Just War: The ANC had no just cause: The ANC could have non-violently ended their breeding war; which would have terminated the requirement for Apartheid. The ANC had no right intention: Apartheid raised Black living standards to the highest in Africa. The ANC had no proper authority: the majority of Black South Africans did not want Black rule. The ANC did not use proportional force: they implemented a people’s war of terror to induce the African population to join the ‘liberation struggle’. The ANC’s Declaration of War was not a last resort: The ANC’s declaration of war was founded on the Frantz Fanon and Black Liberation Theology principles that the native’s colonized mind can only be liberated by violence on the rotting corpse of the settler.

What if the high Black reproduction rate was not due to the ANC’s breeding campaign? Just War doctrine still works well enough to justify Apartheid because the policy of separate development was defensive, a last resort, and moderate compared to the threat posed. Apartheid was much closer to this ideal than other measures employed in ethnic conflict: slavery, ethnic cleansing, genocide, and demographic swamping. Those who defend the Black struggle as generally not constituting a war and therefore not warranting a warlike response from the White authorities should note that Apartheid was generally non-military and peaceful, though state power everywhere ultimately depends on the monopoly of armed force. It might be argued that Apartheid was unfair, for example in the size of the Bantustans compared to White areas. But unfairness does not justify resort to killing. A political resolution would have been found if large numbers of Blacks had been dissatisfied enough to agitate for reform. Certainly any attempt to swamp Whites through rapid reproduction was unjustified because it reduced everyone’s prospects of a decent outcome and was sure to harden attitudes.

The ostensible purpose of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was to investigate the ‘nature and causes’ of Apartheid; so that these causes could be addressed and resolved. A fundamental primary motivation for implementing Apartheid legislation was White South Africans fear that the ‘swart gevaar’ (Black population explosion) would overwhelm Whites and lead to their racial displacement. The TRC totally and utterly ignored this avenue of enquiry, ignoring any and all evidence justifying the argument for Apartheid. Consider the following analogy. Imagine if you live in a dangerous neighbourhood and, sincerely believing that a car closely following you has malicious intentions, you speed up to get away from it and you are charged for speeding. A Judge who refuses you the opportunity to submit your subjective state of mind and fears into the court record as mitigation and who refuses your efforts at discovery to investigate the evidence of the intentions of the car following you, would not be acting impartially.

Rainbow Illusions: Truth and Reconciliation Fraud

“The [Truth and Reconciliation] Commission also said that there could be no healing without truth, that half-truths and denial were no basis for building the new South Africa, that reconciliation based on falsehood would not last, and that selective recollection of past violence would easily provide the mobilisation for further conflict in the future. If these are its criteria for the role of truth in promoting reconciliation, it has failed to meet them.” — John Kane-Berman, SA Institute of Race Relations; preface to The Truth About the Truth Commission, by Anthea Jeffery

Jus Sanguinis argues that the TRC was a fraud, because — in addition to all the arguments documented by Anthea Jeffery and others documented by Jus Sanguinis, not all included here for brevity’s sake — the TRC failed to make an impartial enquiry into the motives for Apartheid, in particularly Afrikaners’ well grounded fear of being swamped by the ‘swart gevaar’ (Black peril) population explosion.

In fact when it comes to population policy issues, the TRC made no effort whatsoever to enquire into any population policy-related matters, whether as political, economic or psychological causes of Apartheid’s coercive elements. This was despite it being common knowledge that countries with large populations of idle young men, known as “youth bulges”, account for 70–90% of all civil conflicts.

For these and other reasons documented in the Boer Volkstaat Petition, Jus Sanguinis agree with the conclusions of the Volksraad Verkiesing Kommissie (VVK), that the only way that Afrikaners could have avoided the fate of all European minorities in other post-colonial African states was for them to abandon their dependence on non-White labour, to negotiate an ethno-Volkstaat, where they would have formed the only and outright majority to rule themselves.

Consequently, our petition calls for: [A] International political and legal recognition for a Boer-Volkstaat in South Africa; or in the absence thereof; [B] The enactment of Jus Sanguinis right-of-return legislation by the relevant progenitor EU nations, for EU citizenship for African White refugees.

Printed copies of the Boer Volkstaat Briefing Paper (p.201) may be purchased for Jus Sanguinis fund raising purposes, at R150; plus postage.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

Comments are closed.