South Africa Sucks

http://Zahell.blogspot.com

Go there, you'll learn a lot, and be amused inbetween.

Here's a selection of some of their best:

Never Forget:

On Easter Sunday, a gang of vile black beasts forced their way into an upmarket Faerie Glen home, where they found the 19 year old Esteè van Rensburg. Esteè was alone at her parent's home when rampaging blacks invaded her house. They slapped the screaming, terrified teenager around, punched and kicked her, ripped off her clothes and proceeded to gang rape her for a few tortuous hours.

When they were done raping and sodomising her, one of the criminals grabbed a pillow with his black paw and pushed it over her face. At this point Estèe's cries had subsided into pitiful, muffled whimpering for her mommy. In his other paw, the coon held a 9mm pistol, which he shoved into the pillow and calmly pulled the trigger. Estèe died instantly as she was shot in the head execution-style, her hellish excruciation finally -almost mercifully- over.

The blacks then ransacked the house, loading stolen electrical appliances into Estèe's silver Toyota and made off with their loot. A profitable, fun-filled evening they had themselves in the new South Africa.

But this wasn't the first violent house invasion: three years earlier, three armed blacks attacked Estèe and her father in the same home, racially abusing them, pointing guns and also making off with a car heavily-laden with looted household goods. Estèe's parents were away for the Easter weekend when their petite ballerina daughter was brutalised and cold-bloodedly murdered. Another young White life snuffed out - a few hours of sexual torture, and bang - her usefulness expired when the anti-White hatred of the black criminal wielding the gun boiled over.

Image: Estèe's body being retrieved by mortuary staff

As is sometimes the outcome of these unconscionable, mindless acts of savagery, her parents may liquidate some assets, start a trust fund for the simian murderers and hold tearful media briefings during which the formerly disadvantaged, Apartheid-oppressed tormentors of their lovely daughter are exonerated and hugged in a show of White Liberal Guilt, all while muttering apologies for black suffering for which Estèe (just like her beloved Jesus) paid the ultimate price.

Or, perish the thought- they might grow some balls, hunt down these fucking animals, torture their stinking carcasses for several days and finally snuff out these worthless subhuman cockroaches.

Know this, White Man: that little baby girl of yours, on whom you spent thousands of rands in pre-natal medical care, bought a cot, stroller, clothing and baby toys for when she was born... spent so much time with during midnight and early morning hours when she was sick or in hospital... had fever while teething...that girl, who you then put through school, spent thousands on piano lessons, sporting activities, clothing and entertainment...

That little girl, with whom you laughed and cried, teaching her right and wrong, on whom you lavished so much love, resources and effort to raise her as an intelligent, educated asset to society...

is in Azanian terms nothing more than a sperm receptacle for rapacious, murderous negroid beasts to violate and enjoy for a few hours. Her virgin womb little more than a glorified condom for the exclusive pleasure of the most execrable, vile filth imaginable, to stick their filthy, unwashed, disease-ridden dicks into, after which she is unceremoniously shot like a dog...her life snuffed out with as little thought and concern as squashing a bug...

Don't get mad White Man - you have no right to anger, no matter the gravity of injustice against you & yours. The only right and obligation you have is to apologise for the sins of your fathers. Just shut the fuck up and do your duty - to conscientiously raise more disposable sperm receptacles for your black brethren to enjoy as & when they please. And remember to APOLOGISE. - it's the right thing to do.

Does this mean I'm a racist?

I hate kaffirs!

There – I said it.

I’ll say it again because no amount of social taboo, political correctness, nanny banging and black arse kissing is going to stop me saying what I feel and think – I hate kaffirs!!

What’s more, I’ll bet I’m expressing the sentiments of a whole lot of other people who think and feel exactly the way I do but won’t say so for the aforementioned reasons.

What's more, I'll bet that every last white person who has emigrated from South Africa would say that these are mainly the reasons they left.

I hate them because they murder gratuitously.

I hate them because no life form holds any value for them.

I hate them because if every now and again, a white harms a kaffir it’s racism but when kaffirs murder, rape, torture, pillage and plunder white people EVERY DAY it’s to address “past imbalances.”

I hate them because they will fuck anything with or without a pulse, whether it’s their neighbour’s 9-month-old baby, their own 9-year-old or their own 90-year-old granny. Whether it’s a goat, a chicken or road kill they’ll fuck it – these sub-species exist only to steal, kill, eat, shit or screw. Nothing constructive or progressive can be ascribed to this most useless of primate and if there is any documented evidence out there that denies that the only thing a kaffir can make is another kaffir, everything else he either loses or breaks, please submit such evidence, I’m doing my master’s thesis on the “Contribution of the Negroid races to Humanity” and after six months have just successfully completed the first paragraph containing the preamble to the thesis. So please people, I’m looking for material ‘cause my research turned up nothing.

I hate them because they are stupid. These spastics believe that rubbing an ointment of powdered baby penis and baboon piss on their members will give them an eternal erection enabling them to pursue the aforementioned activities 24/7 without the need ever to earn a living, build a house, raise a family – as long as they can “Jikka Jikka” they are in monkey heaven. If it moves “Jikka” it, if it doesn’t move, “Jikka” it till it moves. If it screams, cries, quacks, squawks, squeaks, squeals, bleats or barks – “Jikka” it till it stops.

I hate them because they stink.

I hate them because they lie.

I hate them because they steal.

I hate them for slaughtering thousands of farmers and then rioting because they have no food.

I hate them for totally fucking up things that whites perfected and then awarding themselves millions in bonuses for it - ESKOM and SAA.

I hate them for burning the trains when they run late - better never than late is pure kaffir logic.

I hate the useless pieces of shit for stealing gifts and valuables in the mail - fuckn thievings bastards!!

I hate them because they are a threat to my family and myself.

I hate them because they have the right to commit crime and I do not have the right to defend my family, myself and my property against their criminal attentions.

I hate them for even entertaining the thought that all white women want their filthy attentions.

I hate them because they are corrupt.

I hate them because they are incompetent.

I hate them because a kaffir can call a kaffir a kaffir but if I do it I risk a jail sentence.

I hate them because it is technically illegal for me to hold a job because I’m a white man.

I hate them because if I run a business because it’s illegal for me to be employed, I have to hire kaffirs to ruin my business and steal from me to satisfy ‘Femtev Ekshen quotas.

I hate them because they can’t talk properly.

I hate them because they jerk around like spastics making unintelligible noises or yowling dementedly when they are striking, sexually aroused, happy, unhappy, angry, rioting, dancing, celebrating, mourning or “Dee-munding”

I hate them because they are lazy and would rather steal what they want than acquire it by hard work and honest means.

I hate them because they are hypocrites with double standards and dishonesty that a skunk would be ashamed of.

I hate their single male, multiple female hundreds of kids culture.

I hate their refusal to accept responsibility and accountability for their own fucks-ups.

I hate them for blaming the white man for their fuck-ups and then blaming the white man for not fixing their fuck-ups.

I hate them because just by being there they can make an area of pristine natural beauty look dark, dirty and dingy – like Durban beachfront or Clifton.

I hate their littering and conversion of any inhabitable structure to squalor, filth, and the perpetual stench of shit and piss.

I hate them because they are merciless killers but moral and physical cowards who only attack vulnerable victims who cannot fight back but will beg for mercy, forgiveness food, booze or cigarettes when the tables are turned.

Wanna know why I will never co-exist with kaffirs? – All of the above.

And a note to the liberal meidenaaiers – I never once mentioned that I hate them because they’re black – so; “Jou Antie se moer…..” – I’m not a racist.

A White South Africa - What Went Wrong?

I have had this article in my files for a while, and while there is all sorts of debate raging about a White territory, I decided to put it up.

In 1980, White South Africa was acknowledged -- even by her enemies -- as the most powerful country on the African continent. Now, 25 years later, this White giant has collapsed and is in the hands of the ANC.
The Afrikaners, once masters of the country, are today a subject nation, ruled by people, who only 120 years ago, did not have the wheel.How did this happen? What happened to Apartheid? Why did that policy not guarantee White survival in that country? What went wrong?

Arthur Kemp provides the answer.

It is one of the many bitter ironies about South Africa that the policy of Apartheid – to which Afrikaners clung for decades as their only hope and salvation from Third World domination – was in fact an impracticable and unworkable system which led directly to the Afrikaners’ demise as a political force in that country.The politicians -- the National Party -- who fostered Apartheid, are the primary criminals in this tragedy, holding out a false illusory hope to the Afrikaners, and then when the inevitable became just that, changed track and gave in, abandoning their followers to ANC rule as callously as they had earlier lied to them.

For Apartheid – in reality forced social segregation – was nothing but an illusion, a twisted distortion of the demographic reality of South Africa, not to mention the truth that it was, ultimately, morally repugnant as well.Who really wants to rule over millions of non-Whites by force? What sane White person would wish that as a legacy to their children? Worse, the conservative White South African politicians – all of them - never understood – and possibly still today, do not understand – what the driving force of political power is: namely, physical occupation.Political power comes from physical occupation: not historical rights, not title deeds, not moral rights – only occupation.
Those people who occupy a territory determine the nature of the society in that region. Two examples, familiar to all, illustrate this point well:Example 1: North America. On that continent, the American Indian (Amerind) people lived for thousands of years, creating a culture which dominated that continent. The culture of North America reflected the fact that the Amerinds lived and formed the majority population there.After 1500 AD, however, that continent filled up with White immigrants from Europe. These White immigrants displaced the Amerinds by squeezing them out of possession of North America.

The great shift in North America then occurred. Whereas the Amerind culture had dominated for thousands of years, in a few hundred years the dominant civilization on that continent had become White European. This shift reflected the fact that the majority of inhabitants of North America had become White Europeans -- and the Amerind civilization "fell" because the population of North America changed.
This effect -- the displacement of peoples and the subsequent disappearance of their civilization -- has direct implications in racial terms. The rise and fall of any particular civilization can therefore be traced, not by the economics, politics, morals etc. of a particular civilization, but rather by the actual racial presence of the people themselves. If the society which has produced a particular civilization stays intact as a racially homogeneous unit, then that civilization remains active.If, however, the society within any particular given area changes its racial makeup -- through invasion, immigration, or any decline in numbers -- then the civilization which that society has produced will disappear with them, to be replaced by a new civilization reflecting the new inhabitants of that territory.

Example 2: Israel. The state of Israel is today a political reality, not because the Bible says Jews belong there (although many Jews and Christians might think so), but simply because the Zionist movement has ensured that Jews are a majority in that territory. This was done through a deliberate policy of settlement and immigration, coordinated over decades. This also forms the rationale behind the current Israeli government’s plans to build up Jewish settlements in the occupied Arab West Bank: by physically occupying the territory, they hope to change the make-up of that region to the point where it becomes de facto part of Israel.
History teaches us that there are two main reasons for a change in the racial make-up of anysociety: either military occupation or the use of foreign or alien labor.The American Indians serve as a text book example of the "military occupation" case study, as detailed earlier, while South Africa serves as a text book example of the "use of foreign labor" case study. When a change occurs through the use of alien labor, the following process occurs: - The dominant society imports (usually racially) foreign labor to do the menial work in that society. - These racial aliens then become established, settle down and multiply in numbers by drawing upon the society’s structures (in White countries, their science, healthcare, technology, etc.)- They grow in number, and finally dominate that society by their sheer numbers.



It is, simply put, a demographic reality: those who occupy a land, determine the nature of that society. And so it was – and is – with South Africa, where population figures reveal precisely how the use of alien labor by the Afrikaners dispossessed them of their fatherland.Consider the following: in 1904, the first population census of the old Transvaal (one of four provinces in the ‘old’ South Africa) revealed that there were 297,277 Whites and 937,127 non-Whites in that region. (Transvaal,1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.) Importantly, the 1904 census also tells us that of these non-Whites, some 135,042 were not from the Transvaal, and only were in the "Witwatersrand to work in the gold and other mines", and that only 77% of all Blacks in the Transvaal in 1904 were actually born there. What this means is that, with the transient migrant laborers removed from the equation, there were 297,277 Whites and 802,085 Transvaal born Blacks in the region. Now, according to the 1960 census, the population of the Transvaal numbered 6,225,052, of which only 1,455,372 were Whites (Transvaal, Encyclopedia Britannica, 1966). This was just the figure for the Transvaal, it needs to be noted. For the entire country, the figures were/are even more frightening: in 1966, there were 4.5 million Whites to anywhere between 30 and 35 million non-Whites.What caused this disproportionate population imbalance to swing from 802,000 Blacks in the Boer homeland in 1904, to 4,769,680 in 1960 – just 56 years?The answer: the Black numbers multiplied because they were drawn to the Transvaal by the offer of work, and once settled there, used White society benefits (healthcare, technology, etc.) to exponentially increase their numbers.

It was not just in the Transvaal where the use of non-White labor caused this massive demographic shift. The east coast city of Durban, in the ‘old’ province of Natal provides yet another breathtaking example. According to the Durban city police department’s report of 31 July, 1893, there were only 360 "native women, including Hottentots" in that city in that year. Although that report does not specify how many Black males were in Durban in 1893, given that there were this few females, it is safe to assume that a fairly similar number of males were present. In any event, it is unlikely that the Black population of Durban was more than 1,000 – this in 1893.
According to the 2001 census, the population of Durban consisted of3,090,117 people of whom 277,492 (nine percent) were White, as opposed to2,812,625 non-Whites. This includes some 618,000 Indians, imported by the British to provide cheap labor in the city.The formalization of Apartheid by the National Party after 1948 did therefore not address the real issue: namely that the White population was simply being outnumbered by non-Whites because they wanted the non-Whites to do all the manual labor.

This issue has faced every minority trying to rule over a majority country throughout history: the contradiction of allowing huge numbers of racial aliens into the territory in question to do the labor; whilst trying to prevent that civilization from being overwhelmed by foreign numbers. The truth is that it cannot be done. In South Africa, almost every White household had (and still has) one or more Black servants. They have a maid (or maids) to clean the house; a ‘garden boy’ or two to keep the garden neat; and all building work is always done by Black laborers. It is an ironic truth that Blacks did indeed build the infrastructure of White South Africa – as the laborers, not as the planners or directors, but certainly as the muscle power.



The Afrikaner farmers who are now being murdered complain bitterly of the attacks on their properties, and of the impending government plans to seize and redistribute their farms. Yet it was those same Afrikaner farmers who were the ones who employed (and still do) hundreds of Black laborers on those farms, providing their families with housing, schools, food, and of course, churches. It is estimated that each Afrikaner farmer still to this day, employs anywhere between 100 and 300 Black laborers – and then still provides for their families as well.
Outnumbered on their ‘own’ farms by hundreds to one, it is little wonder that the White farmers are subjected to such attacks.

In the mines, the economic heart of the country, the vast majority of common laborers, numbering many hundreds of thousands, are Black. All over the country the overwhelming majority of laborers doing almost everything, from factory work to driving, from road building to house building, were (and still are) Black. Over this mass of economic integration, the Apartheid government attempted to enforce social segregation and still maintain a White government: it was a plan which was doomed from the start. Apartheid was based on a fallacy: the fallacy that non-Whites could be used as labor to drive society; that non-Whites could physically form a majority inside South Africa, but that they could not determine the nature of South African society.

The huge Black housing complex of Soweto, located outside Johannesburg as a dormitory town for non-White labor working in the ‘White’city, was, for example, built up in 1961 – at the height of the Apartheid policy, which was supposed to be saving the Whites. In fact, all that Apartheid actually did was guarantee that Whites would most certainly be overrun by the ever-growing non-White numbers. Apartheid was built on the premise that Blacks could do the labor, and could live segregated in the areas from where they performed the labor.This then, was the lie of Apartheid: that it was possible, through strict segregation, to ensure that Blacks could not rule over a country in which they were/are the majority.

The historical record is clear: there has never been a society in which the majority of the population has not determined the nature of that society. Nowhere, ever.White South Africans, it must be said, more or less believed the lie: they were happy to have Black domestic servants; to have Blacks serve them in restaurants; iron their clothes; make up the very beds they slept in – and were prepared to believe that this mass of established Black labor inside their territory would never have any effect upon the political power structure of their country. It is said, in jest, that the definition of a White South African is ‘someone who would rather be murdered in their bed than make it.’ Amusing? To be honest, not really: consider these true examples:
* Under Apartheid, Blacks could not use White public toilets, but were used to clean those same toilets each day. One can only wonder at the naiveté of such an arrangement.
* Under Apartheid, Blacks could work in restaurant kitchens, prepare the food, put it on the plates and deliver it to the White patrons’ tables, but could not eat that food at the same table in that same restaurant. What hypocrisy is that? Surely if one was going to be consistent, one would have forbidden Blacks from working in restaurants completely: but no, Apartheid didn’t go that far, it was built upon the premise that Blacks did do the work.

Cynical observers talked about the "grass mower" syndrome amongst South African Whites. They regarded Black labor as akin to lawn mowers. A lawn mower sits quietly in its shed or garage until you need it, then it mows the grass, and then you put it back in the shed where it stays quietly, not causing any trouble, until the next time it is needed.Somehow, White South Africans believed that Black labor was like a lawnmower: you could have it around, and when you didn’t need it, you could hide it in its little shed where it would be good and quiet – until you needed it again. The reality is, of course, dramatically different.

Another important part of the Apartheid lie was that military force could keep the system intact. The demographic reality once again belies this: the South African White population totaled about 5 million at its height, while the Black population at that time was around 30 million. Of the 5 million Whites, less than 800,000 were of military serviceable age, and not even all of these could be called up at any one time, so in reality the state had to rely on no more than a few hundred thousand military personnel at any one time – to try and control a Black population of millions. Given that demographic reality, it can be seen that Apartheid was unsustainable by military means. Yet the lie continued, and young White South Africans were conscripted into the army and police to fight and die for a system which was doomed from the very beginning.
At the same time, White Western healthcare and technology was made available on a massive scale: the largest hospital in the Southern Hemisphere was erected in the Black township of Soweto, outside Johannesburg, specifically for the Black population. Infant mortality rates for Blacks fell dramatically (and were way below that of the rest of Black ruled Africa). This rapid population growth put additional pressure on the demographic makeup of the country. As the non-White demographic balloon swelled further and further, the White Apartheid government was forced to think out ever more stringent and oppressive laws to protect the Whites as the Black population continued to leapfrog in numbers year after year.
These laws – detention without trial, banning of books and people, were bad enough by themselves, but as the conflict intensified, both sides started using methods which would be shunned by any decent society: the Apartheid state used officially-funded death squads while police torture became routine; and the ANC placed bombs in restaurants, and encouraged mobs to necklace murder collaborators, amongst other outrages.

In the name of a lie – that Apartheid could be sustained – the state caused, what was in anybody’s book, morally repugnant acts to take place, on both sides of the political divide. The Black resistance movements adopted a guerrilla hit-and-run policy of attacks on strategic targets. To combat this unconventional war, the South African Police were given extended powers of detention and other draconian measures - all of which could only be short term fire fighting measures, as the main issue: that of preventing majority Black occupation of the country-- was never addressed by any Apartheid laws.

The White government tried to give practical application to the policy of "Grand Apartheid." Independence was given to a number of traditional Black tribal homelands, the first in the mid-1970s. In this way, the Apartheid government deluded itself into thinking that Black political aspirations could be satisfied in the exercise of voting for these tribal homelands, despite huge numbers of these tribe members living outside the borders of these states - in the so-called "White" urban areas (which in fact were not majority White at all, once the domestic servants, gardeners, shop workers, factory laborers, miners, drivers, shelf packers etc. etc. were counted in).The White government also refused to adjust the size of these traditional tribal areas to fit in with the changed demographics, stubbornly insisting that the "Black Homeland" land area - some 13 percent of the country’s surface area - could accommodate what was rapidly becoming over 80 percent of the total population, even if it contained much of the prime agricultural land, as was the case.In a nutshell, the Apartheid government refused to accept the basic truth of racial dynamics: those who occupy a space determine the nature of the society in that space, irrelevant of to whom that space originally belonged.


White South Africa’s fate was sealed when the territorial division was not adjusted to fit in with the demographic realities; when all the effort was put into creating Black homelands and none put into creating a White "homeland" and the continued insistence upon the use of Black labor.
The partial reforms of the mid-1980s - which included the repealing of the laws forbidding mixed racial marriages and mixed racial political parties, combined with limited constitutional reforms which gave Indians and Coloreds (in South Africa, these are people of mixed race) their own parliamentary chambers, did little to stop the increasing violence. In fact, racial violence increased dramatically: the reforms created an unfulfilled "revolution of rising expectations," and it was precisely during this cycle of Black violence and White counter violence that the racial war taking place inside the country exacted its highest death tolls ever.

In 1990, the White government finally faced the truth that it could no longer effectively control the ballooning Black population, and unbanned the ANC and released Nelson Mandela from prison. By 1994, power had been handed over to the ANC in a one-man one-vote election - although strict Apartheid had ended in the 1980s, it is from 1994 that the policy is considered to have been laid to rest.It was an inevitable result: Apartheid could not be maintained. It was, in practical terms, unenforceable due to the demographic reality; and it was morally unacceptable as well, forcing young Whites to partake in a conflict which could not be won. White South Africans therefore sowed the seeds of their own downfall with Apartheid, a system of segregation that could never be maintained in the face of their own use of Black labor.

It is too easy – as many ‘right wing’ White South Africans still do – to blame conspiracies, Jews, the ‘Illuminati’ or the last White president, FW de Klerk, for the collapse of White South Africa. The reality is that the White population itself was responsible for the collapse: they were the ones who used non-White labor; they were the ones who supported and maintained the system which turned out to be the largest non-White breeding program in history.

Apartheid was founded on the deadly logic of petty segregation: History proves this is no answer to the racial question.

The only solution lies in complete physical geographical separation, nothing less. Any attempt to implement, by force, racial segregation over a hopelessly racially-integrated economy by a minority, is doomed to fail, and Apartheid was no exception to this rule.Apartheid had to fall: the only question was when, not if. And the politicians who sold it to White South Africans as their only hope and salvation, lied: either deliberately, or out of ignorance of the reality of the relationship between demographics and power.


Can the Afrikaners be Saved? The question therefore arises: Given the current situation, can the Afrikaners be saved?

The answer is relatively simple:
* In a united South Africa, in which they are the perpetual minority, the answer is no.
* In a smaller region where Afrikaners form the majority population, the answer is yes. No minority has every survived indefinitely in the face of a growing hostile majority, particularly one in South Africa where the material discrepancy between White and Black is so vast.

The only way in which Afrikaners can be saved, is if they come to understand the relationship between demographics and power: with no risk of overrepeating this critical point, namely, that those who occupy a territory, determine the nature of that territory. Only once a majority of Afrikaners understand this truth, can there even begin to be talk of a practical plan for saving them from ultimate long term extermination at the hands of the Third World.

Theoretically, if a majority of Afrikaners should come to this understanding, then it would be possible for Afrikaners to save themselves – as no-one else is going to save them. Let us be positive and say that theoretically, if Afrikaners did come to an understanding of the relationship between demographics and power politics. Then they would stop wasting time blaming crackpot conspiracies for their downfall, stop dancing around wasting time playing party politics in a majority rule system in which they are just as doomed to failure as they were under Apartheid and start practically working towards creating a territory or region in which they become the demographic majority.

This would, ipso facto as a result of their small numbers, be a much smaller territory that then current area of South Africa. Where it would be, could be decided when and if that time ever comes: the only preconditions must be that it must be majority occupied by Afrikaners (like Israel was created by being majority occupied by Jews); and that those who settle there must be prepared to do their own labor.(There are immense problems in this, and this writer would be pleasantly surprised if the majority of Afrikaner farmers could in fact be persuaded to dispense with their hundreds of farm laborers and mechanize like their American counterparts; or if the majority of White South African households could be persuaded to make their own beds and wash their own dishes instead of using the plentiful ‘maids’, but that is another story).

Yes, this means gathering together the stock Afrikaner nation into a defined area – for example, (and this is just a theoretical example) if 500,000 Afrikaners had to settle in the old Eastern Transvaal, and physically occupy it, then this territory would de facto, and later even de jure, become an Afrikaner state. The only way, then, that Afrikaners can be spared the fate of all first World minorities in Africa, is for them to abandon their dependence on non-White labor, accept that their salvation lies in a smaller territory, and finally pack their bags and congregate in that smaller territory where they will form an outright demographic majority.There is no other way: all else is chaff in the wind. History will tell if the Afrikaners have it within them to undertake this second Great Trek, or if they are doomed to go the way of all-White settlements in Africa: be ploughed under as the Third World destroys them bit by bit.

About the writer:

Arthur Kemp is the Rhodesian-born author of March of theTitans: A History of the White Race. He was educated in South Africa, obtaining a BA (Political Science, International Politics and Public Administration). He volunteered for military service in South African Police from 1985-1988, where, in active combat against the ANC-led uprising in the mobile Unit 19 of the Riot Reaction Squad, he first realized the fallacy of Apartheid, namely that the military ability of White South Africa was insufficient, on a purely demographic basis, to contain the Black uprising, and that the White politicians were lying to their White electors.

Here is some research that gives a perspective on the claims that differences between human races are genetically insignificant.

In Number of ancestral human species: a molecular perspective

D. CURNOE*, and A. THORNE, (in HOMO Vol. 53/3, pp. 201-224) write:

“Nuclear DNA
Our analyses using 24 genetic distances provide an estimated speciation rate of 1-13 with a mean of 4 for all DNA distances (table 1). Some of the speciation rates in table 1 are <1. This results from the fact that some of the distances between humans and chimpanzees, when halved, are below those between Africans and Asians.”

Just think about that: some of the genetic differences between Africans and Eurasians, are more than half as great as between the consensus human genome and chimpanzees!

Compare the research cited above, in regard to the great difference between African and Eurasian nuclear and mtDNA, to the deceptive statements by Feldman, as quoted in Discover magazine (IMO…, posted on site).

Next, consider how ‘racial’ differences, between Eurasians and sub-Saharan Africans, compare to the difference between modern humans and pre-human species of Homo.

“We estimate the mean distance between H. sapiens and «terminal» H. neanderthalensis from 16 distances to be around 0.08%. This is a very small distance and is less than half the estimated genetic difference between living sub-Saharan Africans and Eurasians (Starr & McMillan 2001). The mean of 8 genetic distances between H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis is 0.026-0.027. This is equivalent to the genetic distance between Papua New Guineans and Thais or Na Dene and Indonesians (Cavalli-Sforza et al 1994).”

So, the difference between the modern human consensus genome, and H. neanderthalensis, is less than half the difference between s-S Africans and Eurasians. These are the differences: twice as much as the gulf between Hss and Hn, which Lewontin and the race-deniers call ‘trivial’!

What about the genetic distance to H. erectus? “Homo sapiens and … H. erectus living about 0.3 Ma, … may have shared an ancestor around 1.5 Ma (a total divergence time of 2.4 million years). The distance between them as determined from the mean of 16 distances may have been around 0.19%. This is about equivalent to the estimated genetic difference between living sub-Saharan Africans and Eurasians of 0.2% (Starr & McMillan 2001). The mean of 8 other genetic distances between H. sapiens and H. erectus is 0.065-0.068. This overlaps the range of distances for living humans, with the lower estimate identical to the distance between «Bantu» and «Eskimo» (Cavalli-Sforza et al 1994).”

So, modern Eurasians and s-S Africans are about as genetically distant as modern humans are from H. erectus! The authors say erectus and modern humans may have shared a last common ancestor about 1.5 million years ago. Notice how that fits with the data on fossil mtDNA included on chromosome 11 (see Australian Ancestry) which also implies that African erectus and Eurasians had diverged for more than a million years, before [on my view] hybridization between Eurasian sapiens and tropical erectus produced the indigenous populations of Africa and southern Asia.

Even authors who have, in the past, minimized the importance of racial genetic distinctions are now admitting that the shibboleths, ‘race is a social construct’ and ‘we are all the same genetically’, are just plain wrong. As one reviewer wrote,
“New support for the existence and significance of group, or racial, differences in medicine comes from several contributors to the [then] current Nature Genetics, a leading journal of genetics. This already widely noted issue is devoted to the question of whether inherited differences between groups should be considered in medical research and treatment, and though various authors deny the relevance of such differences, Sarah Tishkoff (University of Maryland) and
Kenneth Kidd (Yale) in “Implications of biogeography of human populations for race and magazine” report that racial differences indeed exist, while Joanna L. Mountain and Neil Risch, both of Stanford, in “Assessing genetic contributions to phenotypic differences between among ‘racial’ and ‘ethnic’ groups,” recognize racial disparities and regard them as important for medical treatment.”

The reviewer comments that, “The careful (and sometimes cautious) findings of these scholars may seem all too obvious, but they are an important corrective, in an authoritative source, to efforts to use such recent advances in genetic knowledge as the Genome to obscure the fact and the importance of racial differences.”

The reviewer continues, writing of a recent Stanford study that has found a very close correlation between individuals' racial self-identification and the evidence from their DNA. In Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies, which appears in the February 2005 issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics, a dozen researchers report that the way the 3,636 individuals studied classified themselves racially tallied almost perfectly with their racial type as indicated by 326 signposts in their DNA: only 5 participants volunteered a racial identity at variance with that indicated by their genetic material.

Intriguingly, the study also determined that the DNA of self-identified African-American and Hispanic participants, despite their substantial genetic admixture from other racial groups (and despite their historical tendencies to identify with other racial groups), jibed with their expressed racial membership as often as did those of whites and East Asians. The largest of its kind to date, the Stanford study focused on four major racial groupings (white, East Asian, African-American, and Hispanic) and was conducted in fifteen locations in the United States and Taiwan.

Study leader Neil Risch, currently a professor at the University of California at San Francisco, believes that the demonstrated ability of prospective patients to accurately specify their group DNA can save time and money otherwise spent on painstaking individual genetic testing. … Without knowing how the participants had identified themselves, Risch and his team ran the results through a computer program that grouped individuals according to patterns of the 326 signposts. This analysis could have resulted in any number of different clusters, but only four clear groups turned up. And in each case the individuals within those clusters all fell within the same self-identified racial group.”

Risch said, “people’s self-identified race is a nearly perfect indicator of their genetic background, contradicting the race-as-social-construct view”.

I commend those authors for having the courage to tell even a little of the truth about this PC-censored topic. A paper by Deka, et al., titled: Population genetics of dinucleotide (dC-dA)n.(dG-dT)n polymorphisms in world populations (Am J Hum Genet. 1995 Feb;56(2):461-74) is both pertinent and long-ignored.

“We have characterized eight dinucleotide (dC-dA)n.(dG-dT)n repeat loci located on human chromosome 13q in eight human populations and in a sample of chimpanzees. Even though there is substantial variation in allele frequencies at each locus, at a given locus the most frequent alleles are shared by all human populations. … The microsatellite loci examined here are present and, with the exception of the locus D13S197, are polymorphic in the chimpanzees, showing an overlapping distribution of allele sizes with those observed in human populations.”

This study compares the genetic distances of eight human populations (Samoans, North Amerindians, South Amerindians, New Guineans, Kachari [Mongolids], Germans, more generalized Caucasians, and Sokoto: sub-Saharan Africans from Nigeria) to each other and to chimpanzees. The data were analyzed two ways - with Nei's standard genetic distance, and with modified Cavalli-Sforza distance.

Using Nei's method, the Nigerian-chimp distance was 1.334 +/- 0.375, by far the closest value. By the Cavalli-Sforza method, the Sokoto Nigerians were again the closest to chimps (0.539) by a large margin. The farthest were again the South Amerindians (0.712), with the Germans (0.680) and general Caucasians (0.667) being a very close third and fourth behind the South Amerindians as well as Samoans (0.711) and North Amerindians (0.697). So, while the two methods give slightly different orders, in both cases the Nigerians are by far the closest group to the chimps. Once again, given the first method, these sub-Saharan Africans were at 1.334 while all the other groups ranged from 1.527-1.901, and given the second method they were at 0.539 while the other groups ranged from 0.643 (Kachari again) to 0.712. Thus, based on these data, the sub-Saharan African group is genetically closest to chimps.

Finally, there have been numerous publications asserting that modern humans are 99.9% genetically identical. EVEN if that were true, there are so many loci in the human genome that a tenth of a percent of them would be MILLIONS! As one of the authors (quoted below) observes, “that could explain differences” … NO doubt!

However, that 99.9 figure is WRONG. As posted September 8th, 2004, in World Science:

“New research casts doubt on the widely accepted belief that humans are 99.9 percent genetically identical. That statement has been used to argue that race isn't real.

But two new studies suggest that percentage is too high, researchers say … “The 99.9 percent number is pure nonsense,” wrote Michael Wigler, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, New York, in a recent email. “I will not say anything more about it.” … Wigler is a co-author of one of the two studies, which is published in the July 23 advance online edition of the prestigious research journal Science. In it, the researchers wrote that they were surprised to find large-scale differences in human DNA. “There is considerable structural variation in the human genome [genetic code], most of which was not previously apparent,” they wrote.

Wigler’s group sampled DNA from 20 people from around the world. They detected 76 major differences among the people, differences known as copy number polymorphisms. This means that some sections of genetic code are repeated, but the numbers of repetitions vary among people.

This “could explain why people are different” … said Scherer, whose team reached similar findings to those of the Cold Spring Harbor group.

“At first we were astonished and didn't believe our results because for years we had been taught that most variation in DNA was limited to very small changes,” Scherer said. But later, he added, he learned Harvard University researchers were making similar observations, so the groups combined their data and reached the same conclusion.

The Cold Spring Harbor team found that these changes affected the code for 70 genes. These included genes involved in Cohen syndrome - a form of mental retardation - as well as brain development, leukemia, drug resistant forms of breast cancer, regulation of eating and body weight.

That [99.9%] figure has become one of the most prominent pieces of their [“race-isn't real” proponents] argument since about four years ago, when the number came out from scientists associated with the Human Genome Project, a 13-year program to map the human genetic code.

Lander - a researcher who has been quoted in published reports giving the 99.9 percent figure, and who works with the Whitehead Institute in Boston - didn’t respond to phone calls and emails requesting comment for this story. His secretary said he was abroad.

Also unreachable was Craig Venter, chairman of the Institute for Genomics Research in Rockville, Md., U.S.A. He was president of a company whose research produced the 99.9 percent figure in 2001, Celera Genomics. He didn't return phone calls or repeated emails.