Features

The grim state of South Africa one year after Nelson Mandela

It's not that he presided over a golden age; it's that the problems have become clearer since

6 December 2014

9:00 AM

6 December 2014

9:00 AM

 Cape Town

Nelson Mandela was so much the father of our new democracy that when he died a year ago South Africans felt like orphans. The joyful moment when he became our president 20 years ago has been replaced with a sombre mood now. South Africa has political stability, a fairly healthy democracy and has lifted millions of her people from the lowest rungs of poverty, but economic growth has been pitifully low, unemployment is at 37 per cent, and dreadful levels of violent crime terrorise the whole population, particularly the poor. The education of black children is among the worst on earth. The civil service, central and local, is bloated, incompetent and corrupt. State hospitals, state electricity supply and the state airline are failing. The ANC is as obsessed with race as the apartheid government was, and with the same disastrous consequences.

The myth that the African National Congress overcame apartheid by armed struggle is nonsense. So is another myth, now prevalent, that ANC rule under Nelson Mandela was a golden age but that the ANC has subsequently fallen from grace. Mandela was indeed a great man, whose generosity of spirit brought peace to an anxious nation, but he was not a great president. He took little interest in the economy and deferred practical matters to others, including ideologues and crooks.

His successor, Thabo Mbeki, ruling from 1999 to 2008, was a neurotic racist with intellectual pretensions. Like Robert Mugabe, he worshipped everything European while deeply resenting it. His racism led him to believe that Aids, then decimating the black population, was caused not by the HIV virus but by some sort of imperialist machination. His denial is estimated to have cost 300,000 lives, nearly all black. (Today 11 per cent of South Africans are infected with HIV.)

Jacob Zuma, the president today, is corrupt, incompetent and likeable. He has no political ideas and simply implements the ANC’s prevailing ideology. He is a master at manipulating the party machine. Staying in power is his only ambition. He has survived scandal after scandal. He rewards political allies through an immense system of patronage, and has composed an enormous cabinet where a multitude of ministers, mainly useless, receive huge salaries. Unlike Mbeki, he is proud of his African culture. He boasts of his many wives (all big, strong, black mammas) and delights in dancing in leopard skins, disporting the big belly that marks the traditional African man of substance. His personal demeanour is humble and endearing. Helen Zille, the leader of the official opposition, the Democratic Alliance, was once railing against his abuse of government. The interviewer said: ‘But he’s very charming.’ Zille sighed and said wistfully, ‘Yes, I know.’


The worst feature of ANC rule has been the continuation of racist policies — Apartheid Part II. They are called ‘Affirmative Action’ and ‘Black Economic Empowerment’. Both promote ‘demographic representivity’. This is the belief that at every level of employment, the percentage of the races should be the same as those in the total population. Since whites are now only 9 per cent of the population (down from 11 per cent when Mandela came to power in 1994), whites should not consist of more than 9 per cent of engineers, managers, doctors and maths teachers. Black Economic Empowerment, which is simply legalised corruption, states that all companies wishing to do business with the government must hand over a proportion of their ownership to black people. Naturally the black people in question are always connected to the ANC: relatives and chums.

These policies have been ruinous, especially for poor black people. Qualified, experienced white managers and engineers have been replaced by unqualified, inexperienced black ones in government service. (This is also known as ‘cadre deployment’.) In a municipality serving a poor black community, the unqualified black cadre in charge of water and sanitation is often out of his depth and poor black people die of cholera. If you question this policy, there is an automatic response: ‘You think blacks are incompetent!’ That shuts down the argument. Black babies have died in state hospitals thanks entirely to the incompetence of black affirmative action hospital managers. Anyone who points this out was decried as a racist.

None of the ruling ANC politicians would dream of sending their own children to schools where 91 per cent of the teachers were black. They want the best teachers, and if they are all white, that’s fine with them. Indeed many black parents, rich enough to choose, deliberately seek out white teachers for their own children. If they are not rich enough to choose, their children suffer inferior education.

The ANC has no economic ideology except Marxism. It loves state control and hates private business. It would like to nationalise the whole economy but economic reality stops it from doing so outright. So it proceeds by stealth, introducing laws that gradually reduce property rights and free enterprise. This racist legislation and a strangling web of red tape makes the cost of doing business in South Africa prohibitively high. It is getting worse.

Labour laws, drawn up by the rich and the powerful, make it so difficult to hire and fire that only the relatively rich may become employers or employees. Poor people are shut out of the economy. With a growing multitude of unskilled blacks, thanks to poor education, this explains our appalling levels of unemployment.

South Africa, with the world’s greatest mineral treasure, missed out on the greatest commodity boom in history a few years ago. This was because of vague and arbitrary allocation of mining licences according to the whims of ANC politicians.

Many African countries are now booming. South Africa is not. She has become unattractive for investment. Skilled whites are emigrating. Manufacturing is in decline. Labour relations are dire and, in a violent strike on a platinum in 2012, 34 miners were shot dead by the police. Electricity blackouts have become routine. There are only five million taxpayers but 16 million who receive welfare grants. Debt is growing. There are weekly protests, often violent, against the failure of government to deliver services.

After 20 years of democracy, and 12 months since Nelson Mandela was laid to rest, the mood in South Africa is bleaker than at any time in recent history — and with good reason. Still, the weather is lovely and the scenery beautiful.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10


Show comments
  • Foeu

    Good article.
    I wonder what SA would be like today if there had been no Apartheid? I guess it would still have turned out the same just as Rhodesia went to the dogs. Such a shame they were both wonderful countries.

    • Mc

      Without white rule, SA would’ve reached a Nigeria- or Egypt-like state a couple hundred years ago. White rule was simply delaying the inevitable. Strange how that was all so inevitable.

    • GenJackRipper

      Speaking of hypothesises; I’ve always wondered how SA would have looked like without any/very little amount of black people.

      Say that they pushed them north or something back in the 1800s; would SA be as prosperous as Australia and New Zeeland?

      • Moderator

        If you look around places with in ZA with low black populations like Sandton or Hydepark in Joburg or parts of Capetown, ZA would be a very attractive place to live. Good weather, large houses, it could be heavenly. Instead you need to build tall walls, electric fence your property, never walk anywhere….

      • Richard

        Even during apartheid there was mass immigration from neighbouring countries of people desperate for food in their bellies and medical treatment. Only in Arab Africa are there few blacks, and that is because they enslave them and treat them abysmally. White people tend to feel sorry for others, and therein lies their doom.

        • Brogan75

          it’s called ‘white guilt’, to which I am immune by the way

          • Terry Field

            Doom? The Germans are doing fine. The White Europeans and Yanks are doing fine. Many of the rest have problems that can be clearly explained by intelligence differences that are quite well documented.

      • Chris Morriss

        Probably even more so.

    • Lapsed self-loather

      Apartheid was not the great evil that it is made out to be. Whites brought Civilization, schools, infrastructure, medicine, technology, law and order, riches and the idea of democracy in the first place. Democracy does not work without a coherent demos and coherent culture, and an educated population aware of the issues and willing to work together for the whole.

      It has taken decades for Western politicians to acknowledge that multiculturalism does not work, but what they are still in denial that out is that multiracialism will ever work either. When Martin Luther King dreamed of a “colour blind society” it indeed sounds nice in theory, but this example, along and the race politics on the US, are recent examples of why it will never happen in reality and why it will only ever remain a dream — politicians will always use race to stoke identity politics and make a mockery of any pretense of “democracy” (in the UK the Labour Party are our most racist and undemocratic experts at this tactic).

      The only way whites in South Africa will have any chance there post sell-out in the era of worshipping democracy (even in cases where a demos will never exist in reality) would be to have consolidated their territory to form a local majority and draw a border. They would be mad if they were not planning this already.

      • Richard

        Miscegenation and emigration will take care of any whites left. That is the way of nature: power to the power-holders. Europe and the US will go the same way, because they have created societies in which the underclass rules society. In the Brave New World in which we now live, failure is success, bankruptcy is wealth, unintelligence is cleverness. Cool is king. We are all headed back to the jungle.

        • Omondi Akura

          … and what is wrong with the jungle?

          • disqus_KdiRmsUO4U

            down in the jungle living in a tent
            Better than a prefab…no rent.

            prefab = a just post WW2 simply built house ‘knocked up’ to reduce the housing shortage of the time.
            We shall probably end up building them again to house all those lovely immigrants .If not then tents will have to do.

          • Richard

            Nothing, if you don’t like medicine, or science, or functioning institutions. Go to the Congo and see if you like jungle-life.

          • Brogan75

            or come to London

        • Terry Field

          No, the Whites, the Chinese, rule the world. And do not forget the admirable and VERY clever Jews whose behaviour is praiseworthy.

          • Richard

            But we are being outbred, even the Chinese are. Africa’s population is exploding massively, and they are set to decimate Europe.

          • Terry Field

            The projection is for an additional 1000,000,000 sub-saharan Africans by 2100.
            They will live -exist – like caged animals, will be subject to every disease, war, famine and collapse. Climate change and massive desertification will see them and billions of others die well before they age to normal term.
            Politically correct poison attempts to hide the horrors to come. They will, nevertheless, occur.

          • Richard

            It is a tragedy of unimaginable proportions. People like Bill Gates think it is just about saving the lives of children. It isn’t, and never has been. It is about improving the lives of those already alive, in a sustainable way. If you want to get involved at all, that is.

    • Terry Field

      Apartheid simply slowed the collapse.

  • Mc

    “Nelson Mandela was so much the father of our new democracy that when he died a year ago South Africans felt like orphans.”

    Pass the sick bag. Mandela ushered in a pseudocracy, not a democracy. He and his henchmen had only one aim in mind, namely a 1 vote, 1 time poll with the sole objective to gain permanent power. Also, which orphaned South Africans is he referring to? The ones who believe they live in a “rainbow nation”?

    “it’s that the problems have become clearer since”. It was obvious even before the start – to anyone with a scintilla of brain power – what the problems were and that they couldn’t be avoided because the ANC was hellbent on instigating those problems. And if the ANC didn’t exist, it would have been another majority political party implementing the same disasters.

    And one can go on and on about the rest of the article. Mr Kenny is a classic useful idiot spouting the most appalling drivel.

    • Augustus

      Absolutely. When the Apartheid regime was boycotted by the West there wasn’t, of course, any boycotting of Arab states where women are oppressed, humiliated and stoned like animals, because in South Africa there wasn’t any oil and there was no threat from Muslim power. It was so easy to be indignant about this form of discrimination which would only have lasted a few decades instead of the Muslim form which lasts ad infinitum.
      Mandela had also been friendly with anti-Western people like Arafat, Khomeini, Gaddafi and Castro. When the Apartheid Government offered Mandela freedom from prison a number of times if he’d agree to stop the violence he refused every time. And naturally in his wake the dominant ANC have messed up the country, creating vast unemployment and poverty while their own bigwigs live in luxury. Aid money for development was used to build Zuma’s own palace. Staying in power seems their only ambition, and nepotism far more important than any reconciliation and generosity of spirit for which Mandela was so idealized. So much for South Africa’s new found ‘moral conscience’. So much for Mandela’s belief in a universal bond of sharing that was going to connect all humanity, and in which there would be a place for everyone in this New South Africa.

      • justejudexultionis

        The UK introduced racial segregation to South Africa in the 1890s. The UK owned up to seventy per cent of the RSA economy post-WWII. The UK therefore bankrolled Apartheid. The British could have pulled the plug on the Apartheid economic system at any time but chose not to for purely selfish financial reasons. London was, in a very real sense, the home of Apartheid.

        • Boroinmilan

          This is completely untrue. Before the Franchise and Ballot Act in 1892 there were voting rights for non whites and it is true this raised the franchise qualifications which effectively removed voting right from non-white people, but the Cape was almost completely unique in having any voting right for non-whites at all in Africa, and in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State there had never been any. Pressure for apartheid came from the Dutch and others settlers, not from the British government. If it had they would have imposed apartheid in other colonies which they did not. I hope you have spent some time in this wonderful country and know that the Cape is traditionally the home of liberal South Africa not apartheid. If I remember you made equally uninformed, paranoid, one eyed statements about Scottish independence. How did that work out for you?

          • Evolution stopped at the neck

            ” the Cape is traditionally the home of liberal South Africa ” , the reason is because there were not many blacks in the Cape . That is now changing fast and so will the liberals as the many recent incidents show .

          • JohnCrichton89

            I fail to understand the problem with apartheid, if white people want to have a separate community why shouldn’t they be allowed to ?
            irrespective of what many will openly admit, most do want segregation. We see it all the time. As blacks move in, we get white flight from the area. Why can’t a line be drawn ?

          • Charles Hatvani

            Oh, what an obvious question! Both black & white people wish to live separately from each other, for whatever reason, but the “official” politics are in the way. It’s time to dump the stupid philosophy, and not on ly in S.A.!!!

        • Mode4

          It’s always the fault of the British, its only a matter of time before we are made aware of it.

  • Mc

    “Still, the weather is lovely and the scenery beautiful.”
    Particularly when enjoyed with a bullet in one’s head planted there by a “disenfranchised” robber.

  • Picquet

    Learn from Botswana.

    • freddiethegreat

      Yes – the only country on the continent that actually works and is stable

    • Bumble Bee

      because it’s the least corrupt country on the continent

  • jesseventura2

    Can there ever be a successful African country when they continue breeding like impoverished dogs no matter their hellish circumstances?

    • Chris Morriss

      In the long run there can be NO country anywhere that will remain successful if overpopulation takes control. (Especially the UK.)

    • Terry Field

      Cheer up. Ebola is here.

  • freddiethegreat

    Wow!
    I’d call you a prophet, but it doesn’t take divine revelation to see all this.
    However, you do have courage. The Chocolate Peanut’s goons may already be on
    your trail. He might be charming, but so was Saddam Hussein.

    You
    are also right about it being the new Apartheid: Whites may not own certain land,
    hold certain positions, or make certain investments. They may not hold certain
    political offices, may not run certain industries. Of course, AA has backfired.
    Who is going to use a black doctor, or employ a black engineer or other
    professional – knowing that they were shunted through a (tenth rate ) education
    system because they were black, and passed university courses on a quota basis.
    It may not be fair to all blacks, but why should anyone take the chance? I have
    heard university lecturers complain that MASTERS students, besides not knowing
    how to use a library (!) are also unable to spell or even create coherent
    sentences. How did they get through school and their first degrees? By being
    black, and knowing that the university had to pass a quota level. It is
    apartheid indeed: identical programs, just the faces have changed. Mandela –
    Verwoerd, Mbeki – Vorster, The chocolate peanut – FW die Klerk.

    You’ve
    also missed on Mandela. He was the equivalent of Capone, grinning to all and
    sundry and ordering killings (using sniper squads, in Library Gardens), as well
    as presiding over an ethnic cleansing program.

  • freddiethegreat

    Wow!
    I’d call you a prophet, but it doesn’t take divine revelation to see all this.
    However, you do have courage. The Chocolate Peanut’s goons may already be on
    your trail. He might be charming, but so was Saddam Hussein.

    You
    are also right about it being the new Apartheid: Whites may not own certain land,
    hold certain positions, or make certain investments. They may not hold certain
    political offices, may not run certain industries. Of course, AA has backfired.
    Who is going to use a black doctor, or employ a black engineer or other
    professional – knowing that they were shunted through a (tenth rate ) education
    system because they were black, and passed university courses on a quota basis.
    It may not be fair to all blacks, but why should anyone take the chance? I have
    heard university lecturers complain that MASTERS students, besides not knowing
    how to use a library (!) are also unable to spell or even create coherent
    sentences. How did they get through school and their first degrees? By being
    black, and knowing that the university had to pass a quota level. It is
    apartheid indeed: identical programs, just the faces have changed. Mandela –
    Verwoerd, Mbeki – Vorster, The chocolate peanut – FW die Klerk.

    You’ve
    also missed on Mandela. He was the equivalent of Capone, grinning to all and
    sundry and ordering killings (using sniper squads, in Library Gardens), as well
    as presiding over an ethnic cleansing program.

  • freddiethegreat

    Sorry for the double post, AND in the wrong place. Is the ANC running Disqus now??

    • Mc

      By the looks of it, if you wish you can delete your own posts if you click on the small down arrow on the right hand side of your comment.

  • beenzrgud

    When the country ends up a complete basket case I wonder what excuse they’ll come up with for blaming us. That’s what they normally do to excuse their own incompetence.

    • Terry Field

      We will apologise for being brighter.

  • GenJackRipper

    ” If you question this policy, there is an automatic response: ‘You think
    blacks are incompetent!’ That shuts down the argument. Black babies
    have died in state hospitals thanks entirely to the incompetence of
    black affirmative action hospital managers. Anyone who points this out
    was decried as a racist.”

    Cultural marxism. It’s everywhere where there is white people….

    • greggf

      Well whatever it is GenJack, South Africa is a worked example of our future in the occidental West as quotas, norms, PC rules, multi-cultural wisdoms etc., effectively become the “rules of engagement” for administering mass immigration, its religions: cultures, habits, wars, prejudices and poverty.

  • CraigStrachan

    “…it proceeds by stealth, introducing laws that gradually reduce property rights and free enterprise.”

    Bit like the SNP, then.

  • Rik

    “Many African countries are booming”Really??Or is what we see the gross enrichment at the top of the pyramid of a few tribal/political elites enforced by their goons and thugs.Leaders that live in luxury in the capital and couldn’t give a damn about the life and security of their own citizens across the country.
    They are the classic examples of the champagne socialist/marxist all do as i say not do as i do.
    Revolting.

    • SHOOT THE BOER

      Well if you don’t like it then worry about you country. LEAVE AFRICA ALONE.

      • Chris Morriss

        I wish we would leave Africa alone. Instead we keep giving it untold amounts of aid and medical assistance. Leave it to fester on its own.

      • Evolution stopped at the neck

        Did you come back as guest to up vote yourself again ?

  • South Africa is doomed. I have a very low opinion of Nelson Mandela – to find out why read what he actually said he believed, not what others have put into his mouth, and what he himself declared for PR reasons. The above article under-estimates South Africa’s problems in every way. The simple truth is,was, and will be – the ANC. Take every area of life and consider the ANC’s policy on it and then draw your own conclusions. I wish it were different.

    • Richard Baranov

      Could you direct me to a book or articles on line concerning what Mandela actually believed. I would be most interested. Thanks!

  • Richard

    The reality of the situation is quite simple, and all of this analysis essentially meaningless. It is all reducible to one important fact: sub-Saharan Africans have an average IQ of 70. They may try, and many do try very hard, but they simply cannot change what nature has given them. As whites leave, and too few Chinese arrive to take their place, the country slides closer and closer to what an IQ of 70 will give you. Think about it this way: when 11% of the country was white (with 5% miscegenated), the average IQ was 74. Now it is 72. More importantly, the people who made the decisions hovered around 100 and up.

    Britain is rushing down to meet them. It has gone from an average of 100 to an average of 97 (that is an optimistic figure, based on a Third World population of about 15%). They have lost two points, and we have lost three. For the time-being the decisions in the UK are made by the 100+ group, but expect that to change as a reaction to political pressure and hiring practices.

    Another way of thinking about this is to posit the top 1% of the population: in the UK, they constitute one per hundred, with an IQ of 145. In sub-Saharan Africa, the percentage of people with 145 IQs is negligible. The average IQ for an engineer in South Africa is 85, in Europe it is about 125.

    Need anything more be said?

    • Paddy Kilshamus

      IQ is a Eurocentric value-system. All human beings are born equal, free and good. Therefore inequality, slavery and evil are the results of environment and social structures. We need to radically change if not level all social institutions which are based on the outdated essentialist model of biological determinacy and which perpetuate inequality. That is Marxism 101. Those brave Israelites who fought this evil racist system: Jo Slovo, Ruth First, Harry Schwarz, Helen Suzman, Nadine Gordimer, Albie Sachs, Denis Goldberg and many more the writer of this article has chosen to ignore.

      • Evolution stopped at the neck

        Someone have not heard of the human genome project , we are not that equal after all . The different races evolved in extremely different environments and how we responded to it , affected our genes . If you do not accept the scientific evidence then you are creationist 2.0

        • Paddy Kilshamus

          The human genome project is opposed by the ADL and the Homosexual lobby because it leads to conclusions of biological determinism which led ultimately to the gates of Auschwitz. Science cannot encourage anti-Semitism and homophobia.

          • Evolution stopped at the neck

            As I said : creationist 2.0 . Conservative Christians do not accept evolution because it challenge their beliefs , creationist 1.0 , you progressives do not accept evolution because it challenge your egalitarian beliefs , creationist 2.0 . You are anti science !

          • Paddy Kilshamus

            I am only playing devil’s advocate. The government of Germany cannot accept your science because to do so would give credence to the ideas of racial determinism which led to the Nazis and would therefore constitute a violation of the terms upon which they were allowed to have a government post WWII. Scientists are going to clash with ideology and they don’t seem to realise it. It is not the Christian fundamentalists who you are fighting it is the progressives, ironically.

          • EricHobsbawmtwit

            He’s talking nonsense anyway. He hasn’t got the first clue about biology.

          • Terry Field

            You are so full of non-sequtors and logical inconsistencies I am amazed you can negotiate the modern world. I assume you exist by visiting food banks and raffling through rubbish bins?

          • Paddy Kilshamus

            Irony is difficult to spot.

          • Terry Field

            Cut the crap, paddy old cocker – you really must be straight about bongo-man’s cranial condition and have some bollocks – you seem a chinless wonder!!!!!

          • disqus_KdiRmsUO4U

            and you sir do not understand the limits of the scientific method.

            Evolution by NS is an absurd simplistic self referencing nonsense.
            As soon as true science, in this case chemistry and biology , revealed the complexity of dna/protein synthesis Evo by NS should have been abandoned.

            Don’t bother to reply cos Ive heard ALL the arguments before. None stand up to scrutiny
            Lets just try one thing , a complete waste of time but here goes.
            BEFORE sexual reproduction occurred and while it was evolving what advantage was manifest in the body evolving ( forget the technical term ) to allow Evo to select.by increased survival rates.
            Even now asexual reproduction is more efficient in terms of survival then sexual

            IF you list advantages AFTER it appeared your are disqualified cos either sidestep or are ignorant of how Evo is supposed to work.

            The problem for EVO is TRUE for ALL characteristics requiring long term contingent change when the intervening steps confer no advantage whatsoever.

          • disqus_KdiRmsUO4U

            re my boast that I know more science than you I challenge you to explain the problem posed to Evo by chirality without first looking it up to find out what it is.

            As for stats study the improbability of USEFUL code carrying long polymer molecular chains evolving by chance.

          • EricHobsbawmtwit

            Your argument appears to be of the form, “I don’t understand homochirality, therefore evolution is wrong. This is similar to, “I don’t understand how nerve impulses are spread around the body, therefore they aren’t”.

            There’s a lot in biology that isn’t fully understood. We have only recently discovered that quantum effects are taken advantage of by plants in photosynthesis, or by birds when they migrate.

            There’s a lot still to discover, none of which poses a problem for evolution. Indeed you would expect evolution to take advantage of physical effects wherever it can.

          • disqus_KdiRmsUO4U

            I’m not sure who the ‘I’ is in your sentence (…)I dont understand homochirality etc but molecular chirality has been understood for rather a long time.
            It is also known to be serious problem for the origin / evolution of life as describedby Natural selection.

            In nature in general a 50/50 balance of chiral/achiral molecules occur.
            In life a finely tuned balance of Left handed Right handed chirality is present.

            This cannot be accidental and were it not so life would not exist.

          • Terry Field

            I don’t understand haw chocolate plain digestives are made, but I like eating them a lot. Do you?

          • EricHobsbawmtwit

            This is more complete and utter tripe from you. asexual reproduction is not more efficient than sexual reproduction in terms of survival, specifically because of the ratchet-like effects of mutations on clonal populations (Muller’s Ratchet) but more importantly because there’s a good chance your parent, sexual or asexual, is currently being lynched from within by one or more parasites.

            Sexual reproduction is mathematically proven to be more beneficial than asexual reproduction if you assume that (1) populations aren’t infinite and (2) that there are parasites in the population reducing its overall fitness.

          • disqus_KdiRmsUO4U

            In terms of survival of offspring you are just plain WRONG.
            bacteria can reproduce without being told by dopey liberals.
            ALL of the advantages of sexual reproduction occur AFTER it is present in a species population
            So Natural Selection cannot have introduced it into a species population..
            ditto;: walking upright. hearing. and intelligence.

            as for morality: nature red in tooth and claw not soppy lacking in backbone PC liberal.ideology.
            ( i bet you misinterpret that )

            Please return to chatting with those who present no challenge to you because they believe as you do.
            Possibly the local expensive and useless university.

            in this forum you are likely to get a good kickin’
            This is not the BBC

            .

          • EricHobsbawmtwit

            I’m not wrong. You must have stopped learning about biology in the 1950’s or something, if you ever started.

          • disqus_KdiRmsUO4U

            According to Muller’s Ratchet asexually reproducing organisms IN THEORY become extinct.
            I bet those friendly little bacteria were larfing their socks off as they devoured Mr Muller.
            I assume he has passed on.

          • EricHobsbawmtwit

            Bacteria have a propensity to pick up new genes from the environment, from phages or other bacteria.

          • Evolution stopped at the neck

            sarcastic much ? Thought you were egalitarian

          • Chris Morriss

            I don’t know about egalitarian, he’s certainly round the bend though.

          • Evolution stopped at the neck

            My previous post must be before you’re previous post and actually was . What happened , made more sense then

          • Richard

            Science encourages nothing. The thinking you espouse is like something from the Dark Ages.

          • Paddy Kilshamus

            Irony is lost on these threads. I am only playing devil’s advocate to show the absurdity of the ideology of the egalitarians and the more serious fact that governments implement laws to support such absurdities.

          • Terry Field

            So, you don’t like the potential political construct so you side with a bunch – not all- of gays who are threatened by newly discovered reality.
            If science is inconvenient, reject it.
            I assume you are a climate change denier as well
            Poor you.
            A creationist idiot.

        • obert

          Could you point me to some of these alleged scientific papers on race evolution?

      • Richard

        But what does this mean in reality? It is simply ideological babble.

      • vieuxceps2

        “All human beings are born equal,free and good”- What a staggering claim to make.Equal? Am I an Einstein or a Farah? Free? From religion and want? Good? No selfishness, no competing, no innate wish for self-defence at the expense of others?
        I thought Darwin had removed such toshfrom people’s minds.There are of course those who meet your criteria, but ALL? Ithink not.

      • disqus_KdiRmsUO4U

        quotte:
        Do you mean they are born equal in the sense that they all pop out of the same kind of chute or do you mean they are equal in terms of ability etc.?

        If you mean the latter then tell me when you expect white athletes to dominate the sprint events and when you expect sub saharan African to play an instrument to classical standards or excel at maths.. ?

        Funnily enough Louis Farrakhan can play the violin quite well.
        I’m pretty sure he is mixed race.

      • peter the painter

        If all human beings were indeed born Equal, Free and Good, then the world should be free of evil systems. Unless you think that there is a conspiracy of alien lizards (or europeans, or jews, or catholics) , or that we all share the free will of difficult moral choices.

        • Terry Field

          It seems pretty obvious that the comment above about sub-saharan African intelligence being about 70 on the scale seems right and explains the first and the third world admirably well. The proof of the pudding is clearly in the eating.

      • Terry Field

        “IQ is a Eurocentric value-system. All human beings are born equal, free and good. Therefore inequality, slavery and evil are the results of environment and social structures.”

        What utter garbage. IQ is a very robust test of intellect that works well to identify capacity to function, particularly in a modern world. The second sentence is utter soggy codswallop. There are, as genetic data shows more and more, supported by many rigorous studies commencing at Max Plank in the sixties clearly and unequivocally substantial major population group intellectual differences. You may not like it; tough.

        “We need to radically change if not level all social institutions which are based on the outdated essentialist model of biological”determinacy and which perpetuate inequality.”
        What 1960s undergraduate leftie irrelevant idiocy.
        You are an ignorant bigoted polemicist.

        • Paddy Kilshamus

          I was being ironic. Nevertheless people believe this and they have influence. forgive me it is a bad idea to be ironic on these threads. Surprised you didn’t pick upon the Israelites bit.

          • Terry Field

            Cut the dissembling. Do you or do you not accept that the bongo bongo man is relatively deficient in the brainbox department????

          • Paddy Kilshamus

            IQ tests show that they are about 70 I think compared to our European of 85 to 90 if I remember correctly.But that is heresy today. They cannot accept race reality and it has to be the fault of society, Hence the social justice and billions of pounds and dollars spent in an effort to change reality. Remember America has the phrase ‘All men are equal’ in its Declaration of Independence.That is a tricky thing to do away with.

          • Terry Field

            The definition of ‘man’ changes over the centuries.

          • Paddy Kilshamus

            Yes but who is the group defining it? Today it is the reality denying ideologues.

          • Terry Field

            The power elite who makes money from the definition makes the decision.

          • Paddy Kilshamus

            Well that group changes. Once it was the WASPS now its another. I think a change is coming. Not sure which group is next. Maybe the Chinese god forbid.

          • Terry Field

            Yes, the new group is global, disconnected from the local, and has the stench of faeces.
            The turdularii.

          • Terry Field

            ‘social justice; is a construct that serves the interests of international, US led commerce. It is total crap, but it works like a charm to add corporate value, so, as a shareholder, I am more than happy with it. We are all the same! I’d like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmoneeeee…. coke !!!!
            Bring on the dividends!
            Mine’s a Bentley continental…..what’s yours???? (here I am serious; I never joke about money)

          • Paddy Kilshamus

            Someone here gave a quite neat summation of it as a marriage between International Finance and ideological fervour. A witches brew if ever there was.

          • Terry Field

            Yep. And the wise man runs with it, makes money from it, has fun.
            Caligula roams the world.
            The Golden Palace is being rebuilt on a foundation of blood and turds.
            Plus ca change……………….

          • Paddy Kilshamus

            Isn’t it the placing of money/profit above all other considerations the source of this disease?

          • Terry Field

            Yes. hell has descended. The gentle period of post war social high-mindedness that was underpinned by the enlightenment and the social pioneers in Britain and America is at an end. The bastards, the killers, the psychopaths, the warmongers, the mass-enslavers, the party bosses are in charge now. It will last because it is the base from which no further degradation is possible. Until economic and social collapse happens, caused by climate change, resource depletion, rocketing global population, and a lack of digestive biscuits.

          • Paddy Kilshamus

            Certainly seems bleak. But perhaps sanity will prevail at the last moment and the West will suddenly awaken to what it has to lose and what it once was. I hope there is a massive enema coming and all the turd worlders and turdilluminasties get expelled. But that sort of thing is one of those massive shifts in consciousness that occurs, rather like the enlightenment (which brought us here with its poisonous trinity of liberty equality and fraternity).

      • obert

        There is no evidence that human beings are born good. That is the necessary assumption of the Left, who must believe that all differences in humans are environmental so that they can stick to the ideological notion that man is perfectable. Without perfectability, man can never reach the Utopia that the Left believe in.

        • Paddy Kilshamus

          Pretty nice summary. Jo Slovo and the rest of those meddlers seem to destroy everything in pursuit of this fantasy Utopia. We need an apartheid system to separate those dream-merchants from our societies.

          • obert

            Come now. I’m not agreeing with the main fellow in the thread – I haven’t personally seen any evidence that suggests one “race” of people is better than another intellectually speaking, and in any case separating out genes and environment in the equation is almost impossible.

            I am just saying that there is no evidence that our minds are blank slates. Stephen Pinker’s work on this aspect is very good (and he also touches on the thorny ideological issues it raises).

          • Paddy Kilshamus

            There is no honesty in the issue. Too many people hijacking the facts and conclusions. Or disputing the nature of facts themselves or invalidating conclusions. I am not scientifically-minded and neither are the hijackers. It is a thorny issue and science cannot deal with the intangibles which make up the human creature. I think there are vast differences in the races and they cannot live in close proximity without conflict arising. Societies are a racial construct.

      • Barzini

        Don’t you find it interesting that those brave Israelites believed in a Jewish only Israel but promoted multi-culturalism in all white countries?

        • Paddy Kilshamus

          Because they know we won’t survive in our monoracial monolithic monocultural monotony. They want to spice things up for us, because they are entrusted with the mission to heal the broken world, Tikkun Olam.

    • Hegelman

      You sound pretty low IQ yourself.

      • Richard

        Ah yes, the ad hominem attacks. Another all-too common device of the desperate. When I lived in South Africa, it was the Right who attacked me, now in the UK it is the Left. Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose…

    • Hegelman

      How do you account for variations within comparable populations?

      For instance, Botswana is run rather competently, compared to other Black African nations. Why?

      Some Chinese provinces are far more backward that others. The same applies in India – for instance, Kerala in South India has almost 100 percent literacy and a rather good medical system and neighbouring South Indian states, let alone North Indian ones, have nothing to match.

      How do you account for it?

      • Richard

        I think I did mention this. Botswana is pretty much occupied by the Tswana, so they have that on their side. There is little internecine fighting, consequently. They have not discarded the model left behind by the British of administration, it would appear (the same is true with some of the Caribbean islands) which differentiates if from other African countries. Botswana is blessed with minerals, which it is able, profitably, to manage. Bear in mind there are cultural differences between groups in South Africa, too, some of which manifest as greater and lesser corruption, competencies, openness to outside influences, etc.

        China and India are very much more complicated. Let’s talk about India first. Before the Raj, India was in fact a collection of separate countries. This set up a certain pattern of marriage and procreation, which, combined with a lack of caste inter-marriage, meant that clear differences in genetic material arose. I believe it is possible to tell to which caste a person belongs on the basis on a DNA test. We are aware that IQ-levels differ very greatly among various Indian castes, and so this would also apply regionally. In other words, Indian castes operate in the same way as different ethnicities do. We know that Parsees, for instance, almost match Ashkenazi Jews in IQ, whereas the Harijan caste are very much lower. In general terms (although some people say it is controversial, though this is more ideological an argument than scientific, to my mind) we can match intelligence with wealth and competence in certain, specific tasks. So, some of that is probably intelligence-related, and some of it of course cultural.

        I imagine China would be similar. The Han Chinese are the most competent of the Chinese groups, with other groups differing (there is part of an abstract of the Mongolian vs. Han Chinese populations here https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-1280412201/iq-of-mongolians).

        In other words, it is likely to be a combination of simple genetic variation, and cultural difference.

        To my mind, traditional African society was much better for Africans than their current system of aping the West. It was very harsh on people who disobeyed the rules, with strict militarism and obedience all entrenched. Law was severe, but it helped keep their (very small in numbers) society more-or-less stable, from the accounts we have. Perhaps Botswana is still such a state?

        • Hegelman

          Your ludicrous answers were enough to show me what a fool you are.

          Sorry. IQ test not passed. Very low score,

          • Richard

            What is your real argument? My IQ score is in the 99.6th percentile, or about one in three hundred and fifty, if that means anything in this particular exchange.

    • Hegelman

      Improved IQ is the result of development and not its cause, you fool.

    • Hegelman

      Any idea why the same populations vary so much in economic development?

      Why, for instance, Botswana is so much better run than other Black African states, why some Chinese provinces remain so much more backward than others, why Kerala in South India is so much more literate than other Indian provinces and has a decent medical system when neighbouring Indian provinces do not?

      Is not improved IQ the RESULT of economic development rather than its cause?

      • Richard

        I don’t know of any studies indicating that the average IQ-score in Botswana has increased. Remember, the development there is quite recent, but it has been well-governed since independence in 1966.

        As I say some of the good governance is undoubtedly down to cultural factors. Bear in mind that when you have one tribe inhabiting and running the show, there is no problem with authority, who wields it, what symbols mean, etc. Look at the UK as an example: it was better-governed when it was more homogenous, with much less crime. Complexity in make-up generally means more to go wrong, more difficulty in finding commonality, etc. Social stability is not only possible in countries where there is higher intelligence; if there is sufficient understanding of the relationship between governor and governed, peace is possible. Look at relative stability in other hominid communities.

        I don’t know all of the social factors in India or China. It would be necessary to look into the demographics of the area. Do you happen to know the caste geographical distribution in India?

        One of the problems we have in the West is that people who live here from places like Africa are simply not accustomed to the relatively lax enforcement of law. They form gangs in order to have a sense of belonging within a very strict power relationship. In Africa, there are very few gangs, at least, I was never aware of any during my years there. Tribal affiliation took the place of the gangs we now found among Third-World people in the West.

    • mayamichaels

      Hi Richard – can you give your stats source. Interested. Thks

      • Richard

        I don’t remember all of them. There is something here on engineers (http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/ravensiii.pdf) and something more general (https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/african-cognitive-ability.pdf).

        The UK scores are predictable using averages and simple population proportions. So, for instance, if you have ten percent of a population being sub-Saharan African you can base their score at 70, and then factor that in. Of course that is not exact, since they are a self-selecting group; in other words, they may differ from the group average simply by virtue of having decided to leave home (Africa). However, one of the interesting things about this – and one we don’t understand – is that it appears populations tend to the norm of that group. So, for instance, if you have indigenous British parents with IQ scores of 125, the chances are that their children will score at the median of indigenous British, which is 100. We know that evolution takes place, but not the exact mechanism of how this is transmitted. The fear is that each IQ score increase takes a very long time to accumulate, and requires very isolated breeding-patterns.

        In South Africa, the average for mixed-race people is 85, exactly half-way between 100 (white) and 70 (black). In other words, there is transmission of intelligence, but a mystery of mechanism, as described above.

        It looks like the same genes that govern for intelligence come in “packages”. For instance, Ashkenazi Jews, with the highest average IQ-scores, also have much higher than average breast-cancer, Tay-Sachs disease, certain forms of leukaemia, etc.

        It is largely accepted in the scientific community that there is a difference in IQ-scores based on ethnicity, but the usual debate about nature/nurture responsibility occurs. As our understanding or genetics improves, expect the “nature” side to receive more recognition.

        • mayamichaels

          Thanks for the detailed response. I would have thought that with the relatively limited stats available in SA it would be difficult to put such a clear score on IQs. Obviously there are studies available.

          • Richard

            Yes, quite detailed testing was undertaken. One of the interesting things revealed during the 1960s testing was that people who self-identified as “Afrikaner” had lower IQ-scores than those who self-identified as “English”. There are many reasons this might be the case, and one is the relatively high rates of miscegenation among the Boers during their time of trekking into the interior, when they procreated with indigenous women. In that we make the assumption that IQ differences were the same then as now.

  • SHOOT THE BOER

    Such pure rubbish by this writer. Don’t you know that South Africa belong to the majority people who are black? We didn’t want European Rule because they brutalize us and killed our children. ?Now your complaining over black rule, well if you don’t like it then leave and go to Europe or America.

    • Evolution stopped at the neck

      You black’s desire everything we whites have , the irony is it only stays desirable as long as it stays white . The moment you blacks move in , well …

      • SHOOT THE BOER

        WELL YOU STOLE LAND AWAY FROM NATIVE PEOPLE IN AFRICA, AMERICA AND AUSTRALIA. NOW YOUR WHINING. BOOHOO BLAME GOD FOR YOUR PEOPLE’S DOWNFALL.

        • Dave West

          The downfall of white South Africa was only due to pressure from other white countries threatening embargoes. Arabs were enslaving black Africans for centuries before whites stepped foot in sub Saharan Africa. Before whites came blacks tribes were taking land from other blacks, at least when white people take land it becomes productive.

          • Good point. Arab-Islamic slavery is one of the main reasons for Africa’s lack of development in an historic context. By concentrating on European and American crimes of slavery – which were real – we’ve ignored black and Arab slavery, with the result that more are enslaved today than were at the height of the European slave trade. Estimates of the size of Arab slavery historically are enormous – going from 17 million to 60 million to even 200 million. A figure in between is more likely to be accurate. We need to bear in mind European and American slavery added up to about 6 million. The problem is, by ignoring the realities these figures present we are allowing – even condoning – enslavement today across the world. For a start all Muslim countries involved in the slave trade need to confess to their crimes as the Europeans and Americans have done. But it’s worse than that – the Arabs castrated millions of African men and raped millions of African women. They annihilated entire populations – there has to be an historic reckoning for these atrocious barbarities, which unquestionably constituted genocidal destruction for an incredible number of Africans. One of the only ways to stop the brutalisation of Africans by Arabs and Muslims is to make them face up to their crimes.

        • vieuxceps2

          I understand the Zulus are recent immigrants into southernmost Africa and that they stole land from the “natives”too.That seems not to matter. Is it ‘cos they’s black?

      • Joel Durston

        What a lovely bloke you are, viewing the world as ‘you blacks’ and ‘us whites’.

        • Evolution stopped at the neck

          You’ve got some serious reading to do to understand how different the races are . Then you will realize that for humans to coexist peaceful it is probably best to keep them separate . Maybe you should read ” a Troublesome inheritance ” by Nicholas Wade and ” The 10,000 year explosion ” by Gregory Cochran .
          Ps. Did you see the person’s name I replied to ? How is that for a lovely bloke

          • Joel Durston

            I prefer to judge people for their intelligence, wit and character – things they choose and work for – rather than what skin colour they happen to be. They’ve got no choice in that, so it’s ridiculous to criticise it.

          • Evolution stopped at the neck

            The most fascinating subject that I came across is the story of us , humans , how we evolved in different environments and how it affected our genes . The reason why this is not discussed openly is because of one single aspect that makes it toxic , intelligence . If we accept the world as it is and understand how societies work , social capital , ect. , we can build better societies . All I can say is , multiculturalism will not work . There is a library of information out there and then you will realize that people can not choose their intelligence and to a great extend their character . Skin colour is an indication where someones ancestors evolved which is not insignificant .

          • Joel Durston

            Alright, have your apartheid. I – like the vast majority – am quite happy living with black, white, yellow or whatever.

          • Evolution stopped at the neck

            Creationist 2.0 !

          • vieuxceps2

            Yes,but are the black yellow (or brown) happy living with you? In England today,and even more tomorrow, this will become ever more important.

          • Joel Durston

            I’ve never had any anti-white abuse and I’ve had generally friendly relations with other races. So yes, it’s fair to assume they are happy living with me. Why would they not? (Other than thinking I’m a prick perhaps – but that’s different).

          • vieuxceps2

            Lucky old you. Obviously never lived in Rotherham or Rochdale or Oxford or Luton or Slough. You keep off the Underground and resist the urge to walk along the streeets of Woolwich. No children in Birmingham schools either, I’ll wager…..

          • The Hun

            Can you imagine if someone would comment here with a name like “shoot the black”?

    • Evolution stopped at the neck

      well , well , well . Up voting yourself

    • Mike

      Unfortunately the majority in those countries like Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) and even S.Africa were sold the lie by Mugabe or Madela that once they had independence they could share the white mans apparent wealth and live in mansions and drive around in flashy cars.

      Due to a low IQ their simple arithmetic skills were sorely tested when they couldn’t figure out that in a country where the ‘rich ruling whites’ were only 1% of the population, by the time they share out that BMW 3 series, they’ll be lucky to a wheel nut rather than the whole car.

      Even worse, in S. Rhodesia where there was health care, shelter, jobs and food for all under Ian Smith, now under Mugabe they have a vote of sorts (enforced by Mugabe’s thugs) but have no jobs, no shelter, no health care and AIDs is rampant.

      I certainly have no problem with one man one vote but try telling that to a person dying of starvation or with AIDs in Zimbabwe today !

    • Lapsed self-loather

      The San “bushmen” consider themselves “black” do they? I only thought that were the Bantu invaders, coming to collect their spoils from the prosperity brought by the white man?

    • Ed  

      You can’t just say “Black”, that makes no sense. Are you Bantu? Zulu? Xhosa? The Zulu and Bantu don’t belong; they emigrated into SA after the Dutch. You should eject them, too.

      Or maybe you’re just being silly.

    • Richard

      How about a population exchange? You take back all the millions of illegal immigrants who run to the rest of the world to escape African oppression, starvation, ,etc., and we’ll take the few million whites. Just as long as you end it there, and don’t keep invading other countries.

  • Mike

    Are we really concerned with something that is not our business ? Not really as they wanted self rule, got self rule and have messed it up. In the scale of evolution we have the west in 2014, Africa is around 500 years behind the west in cultural, social and governance terms and in the Islamic states, they are more than 1000 years behind the west.

    Leave them all to evolve on their own without interference from the west but isolate and confine all the unsavory aspects to their regions. When they are at a similar level of social evolution, they can then join the west.

    • Richard

      They are starting to arrive here, that’s why. Their problems become our problems. Haven’t you noticed what’s going on in our cities these days?

  • AJAX

    The African tribes will do to South Africa what they’ve done to Rhodesia now they’ve got control of it = #2 of the British Imperial lion’s cubs dead.

    & the cubs of Canada & the USA are in real trouble now also =/

  • carl jacobs

    Threads like this make me laugh when I think of Europeans lecturing Americans about race. Woe to Africa, for it is black and the white man has discarded the white man’s burden. The white man has retreated back to his own country where he may bask in his evolutionary superiority. What after all is Africa but confirmation of his own racial predominance? Now perhaps the superior race could occupy its time figuring out how to reproduce itself. Birth rates below replacement don’t exactly help to maintain the IQ balance in the world.

    But what do I know? I am a Creationist 1.0 foolish enough to think that God is no respector of persons.

  • Shorne

    Goodness me there’s nothing like an article like this to bring the racists (and no I don’t pronounce it waycist) ranting out of the shadows.

    • Evolution stopped at the neck

      I can assume that you hate science then ?

      • Shorne

        The Nazis claimed some of their theories were based on ‘science’.

        • Evolution stopped at the neck

          The name calling is getting old , Nazi , racist , supremacist . Soon you lot will have to accept the truth , then we can debate what will be the most sensible way to build a society . This whole thing of forcing people together , you’re fighting nature , guess who’s going to win .

          • Shorne

            I didn’t actually call you a Nazi but if you are embracing the term I won’t argue with you.

          • Evolution stopped at the neck

            ” If I used the word I wanted to my comment would not have been printed ” Which part of name calling must I explain to you

          • Shorne

            Go ahead and explain.

        • Richard

          The Nazis also liked the music of Strauss, doesn’t mean he was a Nazi.

          • Shorne

            Strauss’s music wasn’t used to kill people, not even Richard’s.

          • Richard

            Well, maybe Death and Transfiguration 🙂

    • vieuxceps2

      Oh Shorne, you are out of date. It’s not “racist” any more,love, it’s neo-fascist or anti-progressive.Racist indeed! Went out with the ark, dear.
      By- the- bye,they call themselve realists nowadays, No shame, have they?

      • Shorne

        Well if I’d used the word I wanted to my comment would not have been printed so I had to make do with ‘racist’

    • Richard

      A wonderful idea, Shorne, is for you to go to Africa and live there. How else can you really speak about it? Go on, put your money where your mouth is! No good just being one of these armchair theorists, is it? Skulking behind your dykes and being protected like that? No, no, go out and live your theories!

  • davidofkent

    Since independence at various stages from various Western countries, many African countries have fulfilled the expectations of the rest of the world, by going steadily downhill. Actually, on occasions it has been a rush to get to the bottom (e.g. Zimbabwe). Still at least they are their own masters (poor attempt at irony – must try harder).

  • ADW

    It’s interesting to compare the media’s treatment of South Africa and Ira. Both formerly had a brutal and suppressing minority that favoured a minority tribe (Whites and Sunni respectively). Both fell from international pressure – sanctions and invasion. And in both cases the majority of the population ended up worse off than before. Yet the media bemoans the Iraq invasion as a disaster but the fall of apartheid as a triumph. Why? We know why, of course. And in neither case will the media admit that the problem is cultural, not racial,or anything else: a majority in both countries have no interest in Western notions of democracy, the rule,of law and human rights, instead they are hell bent on tribalism.

  • ADW
  • Naes1984

    Other than its horrific AIDS rate, Bostwana remains the only model of what an African country can achieve. It was a country that waited for independence until 1966 and din’t kill its golden goose (the western owned mining industry) out of a misplaced sense of revenge. It has the highest per capita income of Southern Africa. It has always elected a center right government and has prospered as a result. Near as I can find out, it hasn’t had sectarian violence on a large scale, or coups, or civil wars- a properly boring country. Meanwhile, it borders the absolute disaster area known as Zimbabwe and the slow-motion train wreck known as South Africa.

    • Richard

      And of course it is inhabited by one tribe.

      • The Hun

        Mainly one tribe, but read about their treatment of the Khoisan (bushmen).

        • Richard

          Yes, tragic. But the Bushmen have been ethnically-cleansed pretty-much from the whole subcontinent. There is room only for one race, as is the African way.

      • vieuxceps2

        A neat and timely rejoinder.

  • a girl

    But it’s not really one year after Mandela, is it? He’s been gone politically for a long time. And what about the legacy of his murderous, psychotic ex-wife? Too much hagiography for that family, altogether.

  • Ron Todd

    Bloated corrupt obsessed by race. South Africa or us after Labour win the next election?

    • Richard

      In about twenty years the UK and South Africa will be identical, if Labour wins again.

  • alabenn

    The white people living in Africa are under a delusion that they are actually African, they never will be, they are European immigrants always have been, always will.
    The only reason the black rulers in Africa allow whites to stay is because without them the continent would grind to a halt.
    If they ever become capable of maintaining the complicated mechanics of an industrial society by themselves, the whites will find they actually are European and will be forced back from whence they came.
    The good sportsmen might be given honorary status, a bit like Mo Farrow here, but they will never be able to call Africa home.

    • Ed  

      That’s silly. Might as well throw the Bantus out; they migrated south a thousand years ago, and don’t belong in SA either.

      • alabenn

        The Cape was almost uninhabited when the white men arrived, after the British took control, other non whites came for the stability, and what was compared to other regions of Africa mainly a paternal administration.
        Now almost without exception Africa is a cesspit of ethnic rivalries, white people will be eventually driven out, non white people do not govern as white do now.
        Britain is heading the same way, white people are making their own existence a debatable point.

    • Balderdash! Africans themselves are no longer true Africans. Where are the heirs to the pharaohs? To Carthage? The ‘African’ identity many Africans adopt is a recent invention. Parts of Africa were very significantly advanced 2,000 years ago. That is ignored by Africans, who insult themselves by denigrating their own past.

  • 3x4_34

    I particularly do not like the comments of a poster who calls himself Shoot the Boer. His nom de plume shows that he tends towards violence and has a low IQ; both of which are unwelcome on a civilised website such as the Spectator. Moderators wouldn’t allow a nom de plume, for one second, if it was owned by a white person who called himself Shoot the Blacks.

    • EricHobsbawmtwit

      He’s probably a troll.

    • Richard

      Careful about the IQ: you might get people from the Telegraph article about Watson selling his Nobel prize over here! Imagine having the audacity to say that IQ is hereditary, and that there is a genetic basis to it 🙂

    • You’re not postmodern enough! He’s supporting diversity!

  • SHOOT THE BOER

    ALL OF YOU BOERS COMPLAINING ON THIS BOARD. SOUTH AFRICA BELONG TO BLACK FOR MORE THAN A THOUSANDS OF YEARS. IT’S TIME FOR YOU WHITES TO WORRY ABOUT YOUR LANDS IN EUROPE AND KEEP OUR PEOPLE FROM MOVING TO EUROPE WHILE WHITE AFRIKAANERS SHOULD SEEK REFUGES IN EUROPE, CANADA OR THE U.S.

    • Thanks for that. Learn a little history – and you’ll find the current black population were third to arrive in South Africa – after the whites and the ‘aboriginal’ inhabitants. Blacks – just like whites – are colonisers. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

  • Shorne

    ” I have myself entertained and expressed on the grade of understanding allotted to them by nature, and to find that in this respect they are on a par with ourselves. My doubts were the result of personal observation on the limited sphere of my own State, where the opportunities for the development of their genius were not favorable, and those of exercising it still less so. I expressed them therefore with great hesitation; but whatever be their degree of talent it is no measure of their rights.”

    Thomas Jefferson in a letter about black people

  • Meltonmark

    – Both promote ‘demographic representivity’. This is the belief that at
    every level of employment, the percentage of the races should be the
    same as those in the total population –
    Exactly what is happening in the West with gender and race quotas to ensure Dem Rep. and with the same disastrous consequences.
    Incidentally, Mandela was a terrorist, nothing more.

  • Roy

    “as bleak as it has been since the arrival of democracy”. Since when did Mandela bring in democracy? The crowd running the show seem as if they can’t ruin the country fast enough. They seem more in-line with North Korea, and as far from manifesting a business model for the country and a democratic political ideal as it’s possible to get.

  • Richard Baranov

    Some friends of mine who are South African have brought land in Namibia. they love their country but are convinced that it will all kick off and then it will be deadly for whites to stay.

    • Richard

      PS: Boer (from Dutch “farmer”, not “Boar”, the shooting of which has fewer ideological implications and less economic impact)

      • Richard Baranov

        Sorry, didn’t notice the incorrect spelling, to much reliance on spell check and I don’t look up when I type, have to watch the keys, never mastered touch-typing.

    • EricHobsbawmtwit

      It will be deadly for whites to stay just as soon as the people decide they’ve had enough of the ANC. It’ll be precisely the same as Zimbabwe. I have no idea why anyone either goes to South Africa or stays there.

      • Richard Baranov

        The Cape is one of the most, diverse and richest floral kingdoms in the world. If you are like me or my friends in S.A. that is reason enough to be there. I grew literally hundreds of species of S.A. plants in a large greenhouse. My friends spend their lives researching this truly wonderful place, a paradise for botanists. But when people like them leave, scientific research and preservation that benefits all will go down the pan in that country and, I have no doubt, all will be laid waste

      • Richard

        The nature is beautiful, breathtakingly so.

    • Good point. The whites were in what became South Africa before the blacks! – A politically incorrect truth.

  • Cincinnatus

    In other words South Africa has become just another sub-Saharan African nation.

    A shame but completely foreseeable and not as bad (yet) as many anticipated.

  • justejudexultionis

    Mandela apparently signed off a one billion dollar military contract. The fact that he felt able to do that when so many of his own people live in desperate poverty speaks volumes about his own incompetence and moral corruption.

  • gerronwithit

    The only surprise is anyone is surprised, but still we have to suck up the fiction of the ‘rainbow nation’. If Labour get in next general election we will be just a few years behind South Africa as we aleeady have whole areas under alien culture control.

    • quayboard

      … for now.

  • Borninafrica

    Good piece. You got it in one. That is why Buddulphs will be at my house by 10.30 this morning. This will be the second time I leave my place of birth because of a racist Leadership. Sad how adept our Government have become at snatching failure from the arms of success. Cheers guys, I’m sure I’ll return with Euros to burn on holiday. But now this is yet another Tax payer signing off.

  • Natasha Johnson

    AFRICA BEST SPELL CASTER, LIKE SERIOUSLY WOULD YOU WANNA SPEND XMAS ALONE?? WITHOUT YOUR PARTNER BY YOUR SIDE? THE ANSWER IS NO AND NO AGAIN, DON’T BE MISLEAD BY FAKE TESTIMONIES ON HERE AS I FELL FOR ONE BUT WAS QUICK TO DISCOVER AND I WAS EVEN THREATENED. DR BRAVE IS THE SPELL CASTER TO BE TRUSTED THROUGHOUT THE LENGTH AND BREADTH OF THE INTERNET AS HE RIGHT HERE IN THE AFRICA ! HIS EMAIL( bravespellcaster@gmail.com) or visit his Website (http://enchantedscents.tripod.com/lovespell/). I THOUGHT I WAS DEAD WHEN JIM TOLD ME HE WAS LEAVING TO STRAIGHTEN HIS HEAD OUT AS WE WERE HAVING ISSUES, ONLY FOR ME TO SEE HIM WITH ANOTHER WOMAN, SAME WOMAN FROM WORK HE’S BEEN ALWAYS TEXTING AT NIGHT, HE WAS PLANNING OF DIVORCING ME AND MOVING IN WITH HER, OMG! I HAVE TWO KIDS FOR HIM JANE AND FLETCHER, HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN? WHAT DID I DO WRONG? I WAS SO BLANK. THAT’S HOW I LOST JIM TO A WOMAN HE SWORE HE HAD NOTHING WITH, I WAS IN PAIN AND EMOTIONAL TORTURE FOR 2YEARS, ALL HOPE WAS GONE, UNTIL I WAS ENLIGHTENED ON HOW TO GET HELP VIA LOVE SPELLS, I NEVER REALLY BELIEVED SO I DECIDED TO TRY DR OKUBO, HE SUCEEDED IN ADDING SALT TO INJURY FOR ME AS HE SCAMMED ME OF 4500 USD, I WAS NOW ALMOST BANKRUPT, HELP FINALLY CAME MY WAY WHEN I CONTACTED DR BRAVE TUTU, HE IMMEDIATELY GOT TO WORK, DID A READING, TOLD ME WHAT WAS WRONG AND CASTED A SPELL FOR ME AND SHOCKINGLY I GOT MY HUSBAND IN DAYS! I THOUGHT I WAS DREAMING BUT NO, I WAS LIVING MY DREAM. CONTACT HIM NOW AND YOU WON’T REGRET IT.HIS EMAIL( bravespellcaster@gmail.com ),and his mobile is(+2348070370762 ) DON’T BE MISLEAD BY FAKE TESTIMONIES ON HERE. CONTACT HIM NOW AND GET STARTED,,,,,,,

  • Polly Radial

    “It loves state control and hates private business. It would like to nationalise the whole economy but economic reality stops it from doing so outright. So it proceeds by stealth, introducing laws that gradually reduce property rights and free enterprise. ”

    Sounds a lot like the Conservative party under Cameron.

    • Richard

      I think you should spend some time there to see that it’s a little different.

  • Grace Ironwood

    This is the future for the USA under Obama.

    • Richard

      Whitey is there to be sucked from. Eventually there will be no more whitey, and the bush will again reign supreme.

  • Terry Field

    As the whites cease to control South Africa, the country slides into the stone-age catastrophe the rest of the nightmarish continent continually experiences, other than those run by Arab and arab-like populations.
    So much for the filthy BBC’s ‘rainbow nation’ sick-making propaganda.

  • John Andrews

    Zimbabwe today is South Africa tomorrow, Hell,

    • Terry Field

      But who cares. The minerals and stuff will still get sold.
      Africans wanted their freedom.
      What they do with it is no concern of ours.
      We left.
      Its their problem.

      • John Andrews

        And its good for the foreign aid industry: more work.

  • English_Independence_Movement

    South Africa will certainly serve as an example.

  • JohnCrichton89

    I thought taking away the white demographics ability to have their own neighbourhoods and communities was suppose to…………. wait, what was it supposed to do again ?
    That doesn’t seem fair, eventually ‘white flight’ will become impossible. Maybe taking a stand, and, forcing black people to better themselves and their own communities is the way forward. Instead of allowing them to just jump ship after they have destroyed the societal infrastructure we leave behind as we forever flee their ‘community enrichment’.

  • Clarence Johnson

    Perchance they were not trained well under the apartheid Government ? The “boy” mentality persisted and menial trades and tertiary education was their lot. Worldwide we see the same mismanagement by leaders of all countries and daily we see the same corruption amongst our political elite who vote themselves astronomical salaries whilst the not so well off and pensioners are milked to fill the public purse…C’on stop being bigots !!!

  • Hegelman

    Does anybody know how to build a new country without a hitch and nothing going wrong?

    If so, please let me know. I look at other cases and I am discouraged.

    For instance, the USA proudly got its independence in 1783, hugely extended slavery, virtually wiped out its native population, and grabbed half of neighbouring Mexico. By the 1850s it was preparing for one of the most bloody civil wars ever fought – that is, 70 years after independence.

    Black Americans only obtained even formal equality in the 1960s – about 200 hundred years after it was declared so proudly in 1776 that “all men are created equal”. Unarmed black men are every day killed with impunity by the US police.

    South Africa could still do better than that.

    • Richard

      In the police department, black men are killed every day in South Africa, but of course there is no outcry if it is blacks killing other blacks. That of course is because it is all manipulated to suit an agenda, when it is whites who do the killing. http://mg.co.za/article/2011-05-06-police-killings-nearly-double-since-2006

      Hopefully the land-grabs won’t happen, though.

    • A-Blonde-Black-True-coconut

      Please dont try compare the US to Africa!! Very stupid its like comparing Martian rocks to apples.,

  • Hegelman

    I suspect that one year after the Romans left Britain things were a little sticky, too.

  • John Steadman

    But the British media are not interested in what South Africa has become – or, perhaps – still is. It has been liberated from apartheid, and so everything’s OK.

    • Richard

      Try having a conversation with Brits about Africa in general. It’ll take about ten seconds before they glaze over. Throw in Cape Town and they may perk up, a smile will come with the name of Nelson Mandela, but beyond that it’s all drool and vacuousness. Whatever the telly says is the truth, and of course Cape Town and Mandela are “cool”.

    • A-Blonde-Black-True-coconut

      most cant point to it on a map, as long as fish&chips and football are in the conversation you can keep their minds occupied for 5 minutes until the beer hits their gut

  • A-Blonde-Black-True-coconut

    All these westerners saying America this, Britain that…

    You have one large flaw… You compare the west to Africa. You compare Americas independence to Africas independence.

    I find it highly insulting that a westerner expects africans to be western when they are not and have no interest in being western.

    This is the big mixup, the world thinks that south african woke up in 1965 and decided to implement apartheid all of a sudden, perhaps they had some nightmare of blacks destroying their country.

    What the west fail to realize or fail to look at through their laziness is the ANC is a communist Marxist party much like mugabes ZANUPF. Whites have lived in SA longer than whites in Australia and New Zealand and have seem some common themes among the African.

    The ANC have never ever had any interest in developing SA, They have no interest in growing the country. Their operating principles are still that of a Marxist ideology.

    They blame everything on whites, they steal to the tune of R300 billion which vanishes $30+billion and people in these comments sections think that its normal?

    Please for 20 years the only $hit that was fed to the west by large corporations was how utopia now in black hands was far better than the past when the reality is its WORSE for ALL.

    You look at crime, corruption, education, there is NOTHING in the NEW SA which is better. Every police minister has been involved in corruption, the President rapes someone, steals billions but never gets his day in court

    Everything under the government in SA is bankrupt. The ANC in true communist style has even censored the media through their new bill. They supply other African countries but will not supply us.

    Now according to the ANC, The electricity crisis is caused by apartheid and that electricity was only in white areas which it total total non sense i have been and worked in townships, the gullible liberal whites overseas they will believe anything.

    500,000 murders in SA since the ANC rule
    blacks lifespans down
    Highest rape in the world
    no electricity
    no water
    no jobs
    BEE/AA black economic empowerment and thats perfectly fine – the work economy is european for those slow enough to grasp that. The White European stock who introduced trade and commerce to the souther portion of SA and built it up have been stripped from their jobs which built up this country and replaced by people who cant do the job. Do you hear whites overseas complain about this injustice? how can two wrongs make a right?

    All these western countries who voted against us and our rules before understand our situation and what we are/were dealing with are fools. The wheel turns and it does turn eventually.

    With mass 3rd world emigration and people wanting to blow you up in yyour countries, when the $hit hits the fan just think of how your boycotts and sanctions brought us to our knees and then when the wheel turns remember we faced the same isuse, you were just sold the tip of the iceberg for the mineral wealth that western companies wanted to access in SA and needed a mandela to hand it to them.

  • herbert becker

    “only 5 million taxpayers…” This refers to income tax. However remember VAT of 14% which affects every consumer, even the poor, unless their consumption is catered for by the so-called grey economy.

  • RH156

    11. Speciation by culture

    If the argument for Man’s special place in Nature is moved to the ground of culture, Man’s position as an organism with unique qualities which differentiate him from all other organisms undoubtedly becomes stronger, but at the cost of threatening his position as a species as traditionally defined.

    Objections have been raised to the conclusions of Everett and Gordon, primarily in terms of their interpretation of their observations, but assuming there is a fair degree of objective truth about their data, it is reasonable to ask are the Pirana teetering on the edge of what counts as fully human if behaviour is the defining criterion? It is the wrong question to ask. The right question to ask is can homo sapiens be meaningfully designated a species as a species is defined for every other organism?

    Because Man is differentiated profoundly by culture, the widely accepted definition of a species – a population of freely interbreeding organisms sharing a common gene pool – is unsatisfactory, for clearly Man is more than an animal responding to simple biological triggers. When behavioural differences are perceived as belonging to a particular group by that group as differentiating members of the group from other men, they perform the same role as organic differences for they divide Man into cultural species.

    It is worth adding that the traditional concept of a species is far from secure. It is a man-made classification which is often found wanting. For example, the North American Ruddy Duck and the European White-Headed Duck are classified as separate species. The introduction of the Ruddy Duck to Europe has resulted in widespread interbreeding between the supposedly separate species to the extent that conservationists now fear for the survival of the White Headed Duck. It is also true that a growing amount of traditional taxonomic classification is being overturned by DNA analysis.

    Another interesting trait is that members of a species will have different breeding propensities across its distribution, that is, members of the supposedly single species will breed differentially with different parts of the total species population. For example, take an animal which is common to Europe and bring individuals from different geographical parts of the continent together and it may be that those found in the East of the distribution will be less likely or refuse altogether to mate with the those in the West. These barriers to breeding are clearly not purely due to major differences in physical biology. Probably there is an element of behavioural difference which reduces the propensity to breed.

    Animals use various triggers to breed: aural, chemical, condition of feathers and so on. These are seemingly automatic processes whereby one individual responds to another without conscious thought. Even behavioural triggers such as mating rituals can be viewed in the same light. Man, although not divorced entirely from such triggers, adds conscious thought to the process of mate selection. Does that not put Man in an entirely separate category to all other organisms, namely, the one organism who can potentially breed freely across the entire species population? Potentially yes, but in practice no for Man’s capacity for conscious thought and decision making does not mean his breeding is not constrained by the triggers which control other organisms, especially behavioural. For example, most people choose mates who are of the same race as themselves even when they have ample opportunity to do otherwise.

    Even at the level of biology I wonder if Man is quite as discrete as he imagines. To the best of my knowledge no one has tried to create a cross between a human and a chimpanzee or a bonobo – I sincerely hope no one ever does. But putting aside any natural revulsion, would it be so surprising if such a cross was possible? Would it be any more of a intra-species leap than say the production of a mule or a liger (lion/tiger) through the mating of different species? I would not wish to bet against it.

    As for the future, genetic engineering may break down distinctions between species, for example, by genes from one species being implanted into another. Lastly, genetics and/or cybernetics may lead to modifications of human beings so substantial to create what are to all intents and purposes unambiguously separate species of Man with vastly differing abilities. There may come a point where the concept of a species becomes redundant.

    12. Race and Man

    The most potent of human behavioural triggers are racial differences for they exercise the strongest control over the group in a territory where different racial groups exist. Race trumps ethnicity where the ethnic clash is one of people of the same race but different ethnicities. Place a significant population of a different race into a territory where ethnicity rather than race is the cause of unrest and the ethnic factions of the same race will tend to unite against those of a different race.

    Nothing demonstrates the natural tendency of human beings to remain racially distinct than the remarkably low rate of inter-racial breeding even in circumstances where there is every opportunity for it, most particularly in the great cities of Western Europe and North America, where the populations are increasingly varied and the prevailing elite ideology positively encouraging of such liaisons.

    Even societies which have had very racially mixed populations for a long time display a remarkable ability to maintain retain racial distinctions over very long periods of time – Brazil is an excellent example of this, with social class being very much graded by skin colour. To argue that racial difference is not important to the choice of a mate is as absurd as arguing that the attractiveness of a person is irrelevant to the choice of a mate.

    In Freakonomics Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner cite a study made of a US dating site (the full story is on pp 80-84). The site is one of the largest in the US and the data examined covered 30,000 people equally divided between San Diego and Boston. Most were white but there was a substantial minority of non-white subjects.

    The questionnaire the would-be daters had to fill in included a question choice on race as “same as mine” and “doesn’t matter”. The study compared the responses by white would-be daters (those from non-white were not analysed) to these questions with the race of the emails actually sent soliciting a date. The result in Levitt and Dubner’s words was:

    “Roughly half of the white women on the site and 80 percent of the white men declared that race didn’t matter to them. But the response data tell a different story The white men who said that race didn’t matter sent 90 percent of their e-mail queries to white women. The white women who said race didn’t matter sent about 97 percent of their e-mail queries to white men.

    “Is it possible that race really didn’t matter for these white women and men and that they simply never happened to browse a non-white date that interested them?”

    Or, more likely, did they say that race didn’t matter because they wanted to come across especially to potential mates of their own race as open-minded?” In short, around 99% of all the women and 94% of all men in the sample were not willing to seek a date of a different race. How much stronger will be the tendency to refuse to breed with a mate of a different race?

    Another way of testing the desire to remain racially separate is to look at social class and inter-racial breeding. The higher up the social scale a person is the less likely they are to have a partner of a different race – if you doubt this try to find examples of the rich and powerful who have a partner of a different race. Those who have the most choice overwhelmingly choose members of their own racial type, despite the fact that they have the protection of their wealth and position to shield their spouses and children from the effects of racial discrimination.

    The experience of imperial Rome nicely demonstrates racial exclusiveness as a historical phenomenon. Despite the racially mixed population, all the evidence we have suggests that Romans of higher social status (the only Romans we have any substantial knowledge of as individuals) rarely took non-white mates (the same applies today: in white-majority countries the higher the status of whites, the less likely they are to have a non-white partner.) Even the Bible has the story of Moses choosing a black wife and meeting with resistance on the part of his people. (Numbers chapter 12)

    If sexual desire will not commonly override the natural disinclination to remain racially separate nothing will.

    The fact that humans have external racial differences which are sufficiently distinct to allow people throughout the world to broadly categorise an individual into categories such as white and black is in itself indicative of the innate human tendency to breed with those who are racially similar, even though for several thousands of years large human populations of different racial types have existed in close proximity. If human beings did not have an innate preference for those who racially resemble themselves, humanity would have bred itself into something approaching a uniform racial type, at least in those parts of the world which were not very isolated – different races have had regular and numerous contact with each other for at least three thousand years. The alternative explanation to an innate tendency is the truly fantastic one that Man everywhere spontaneously developed cultural barriers to breeding which had nothing to do with any innate tendency. If anything is a social construct it is not race but the liberal idea that Man is a single species.

    Race is much stronger as a mediator of who to mate with than ethnic (cultural) difference – think of the very high proportion of those in Britain who have Irish/Welsh?/Scottish/English mixed ancestry. Nonetheless, ethnic differences are culturally potent amongst racially similar populations. For example, on either side of the England/Scotland border, the inhabitants born and raised close to the border retain Scots and English accents even though they may have lived their entire lives only a few miles apart.

    Because the tendency to mate with those of a similar race is so strong and universal, both in place and time, it is reasonable to conclude that the behaviour is innate and that cultures necessarily include the requirement for a member of the society to be of a certain racial type. The consequence of this is that someone of a different racial type is effectively precluded from full integration because one of the criteria for belonging has not been met. That is not to say, of course, that many of the habits of mind of an alien culture may not be adopted by someone of a different race. What is withheld is the instinctive acceptance of the alien and his or her descendants as members of the society. Just as no human being can decide for themselves that they are a member of this or that group, no individual can decide that they belong to this or that nation because it is a two-way process: the other members of the group they wish to join have to accept them as a true member of the group. (Stephen Frears the English film director once wryly remarked that he had known the actor Daniel Day-Lewis “before he was Irish”).

    There are also other plausible reasons why inter-racial breeding is rare. There is a widespread biological behaviour known as assortative mating. Members of sexually reproducing animals select mates by certain criteria. In that much loved laboratory animal, the fruit fly drosophila, this may be the number of sternopleural bristles; in Man it includes many criteria including racial type. Other human prime assortative criteria are size, intelligence, education and class. Some of these criteria such as education and class are more clearly linked to nurture than Nature, but even they can be direct or indirect expressions of qualities which are at least largely innate such as intelligence. I say direct or indirect because the beneficial qualities may not be in the individual, for those with superior education and high social class may lack the innate qualities of their parents or earlier ancestors and their privileged position may simply be a residue of the superior innate abilities of their parents or other ancestors.

    For the purposes of inter-racial mating, size, intelligence, education and class all come into play. There are clear average differences of size between the three major races: blacks largest, whites in the middle and Asians smallest. This would mean that on average members of one racial group would be less likely to choose another member of another racial group. The differences in IQ would have the same effect, with blacks being far less likely to mate with the other two races because their IQ is further removed from them than they are from each other. Differences in IQ will also be reflected, directly or indirectly in educational achievement and social class and hence in mating, for example, if a minority population of blacks amidst a majority white population have proportionately more people of low education and low social class than the white majority, something which should happen other things being equal because of their inferior IQ distribution, they are less likely to mate with members of the white majority simply on the grounds of education and class.

    What about genetic diversity the reader may be asking themselves, should not the great benefits of that drive people of different races to mate whenever they can? This widespread view is unsurprising because as far as the layman is concerned one of the great “truths” of modern biology is that diversity is good because genetic diversity within a species reputably protects the species from the effects of harmful recessive genes by reducing the chance of both partners in a successful mating having a particular recessive gene, while general organic diversity in an environment is supposed to ensure the stability and endurance of the environment.

    One does not need to have any deep grasp of genetics to see there is a logical problem with the idea that genetic diversity within a species is a sine qua non of evolutionary success. The genetic relatedness of breeding pairs in many species must of necessity be close because the opportunities to breed are limited. In the case of Homo Sapiens this has been true of most human beings throughout history. Man in his primitive state lived in small nomadic bands which were sparsely spread across the landscape Tribal peoples commonly exchange members (normally women) between tribes, but again that is a local exchange. Even in more advanced societies most people have lived in small settled communities and have mated with people who come from the same locality. Very closely related human beings are substantially more prone to genetic disaster if they mate, but the level of genetic diversity required to reduce the number of genetic disasters to a level in which they are not seriously harmful to the group is clearly not vast.

    A small gene pool may even have advantages. Ashkenazi Jews come from what was originally a small population group (some estimates put it as low as 500) which married almost entirely within the group and continued to do so down the generations. They have an abnormally high average IQ – six times as many Ashkenazim as Europeans have IQs of 140+. In June 2005 the Journal of Biosocial Science carried a paper by a team at the University of Utah which put forward the theory that their exceptionally high average IQ exists because of natural selection. They argued that Ashkenazi Jews had had been selected them for high IQ because historically Jews in Europe were denied many opportunities for employment and they were driven into high IQ occupations such as banking. Rushton Revisted http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=6c9fe76b-f1

    That racial type should be a requirement for inclusion within a “tribe” is unsurprising. All social animals have to have boundaries to know where the group begins and ends. This is because a social animal must operate within a hierarchy and a hierarchy can only exist where there are boundaries. No boundaries, no hierarchy, because no individual could ever know what the dominance/submission situation was within their species or at least within those members of the species with whom they interact.

    Where does “must operate within a hierarchy” come from? First the observed facts: all social animals do produce hierarchies – although these vary considerably in form – and human beings always produce hierarchies, whether they are hunter-gatherers or people populating a great modern city.

    Why do social animals always form hierarchies? For animals other than Man the answer is I think simple enough: only by forming hierarchies can social groups cohere. This is most probably because animals vary considerably in their physical and mental qualities. Observe any animal, even the simplest single cell organism, and differences between individuals within the species will become apparent. Some are more vigorous than others, some larger, some, more adventurous and so on. Individuals will also vary by age and, in sexually reproducing species, sex.

    In a solitary animal the practical consequences of differences between individuals will be decided by direct competition, most commonly by the formation of territories and the attempted monopoly of mates and food within the territory, with the best endowed animals on average being more successful.

    When an animal is social, differences in individual quality have to be resolved by something other than the methods used by solitary animals such as scent marking of territory boundaries and serious fighting because the animals have to live in close proximity. Competition for desirable goods still occurs, most notably competition for mates, but normally within behaviours which are not fatal to other members of the group or behaviours which are so disruptive as to threaten the survival of the group. The upshot of this social accommodation is the formation of different social niches into which individuals fit.

    Group behaviour is a compromise between the immediate advantage of the individual and the diffuse advantages derived from group activity. The compromise is given structure by hierarchies, whether that be a fixed biological distinction by sex or caste (for example, social bees) or a transient one due to the age of an animal. Hierarchies are built on the differences between individuals and the more rigid the hierarchical structure the greater will be the selective pressures to produce individuals in the right proportions to fill the various social niches within the group.

    Consider what would happen if hierarchies did not exist. There would be constant conflict within the group because no individual would have cause to defer to another except from fear of physical harm and such fear is a blunt and very limited instrument of social control, whether it be of humans or animals. It is a strategy more suited to the solitary animal than the social one.

    Hierarchies also make sense in terms of the development of social animals. Social animals are ultimately descended from asocial animals. The movement from asocial to social animal is presumably akin to the evolutionary process whereby a parasite is converted to a symbiotic partner. It is a process of gradual behavioural accommodation.

    Social animals on the bottom rung of the social animal ladder may do little more than associate together at certain times. The next rung up and the animal frequently associates with others of its kind. One more step and the animal forms more or less permanent groupings. And so on until we reach the ultimate social animal: Man.

    The gradual evolution of social behaviour of itself points to the need for hierarchy, because at each stage of the evolution the natural overtly selfish behaviour of the original solitary animal has to be modified. That modification will only come through natural selection working on behavioural traits which favour more complete socialisation.

    What about human beings? Are they not capable of breaking the biological bounds which capture animals? Does not their immense intelligence and possession of language place them in another category of being? Could Man not simply decide not to behave in a non-hierarchical manner? The fact that human beings have never done so is of itself sufficient evidence for all but the most ideologically committed nurturist to decide that human beings cannot do it and to conclude that the forming of hierarchies is part of the human template. However, to that fact can be added another, the dominance/submission behaviour which every person witnesses daily not merely in positions of formal dominance and subordination such as the workplace, but in every aspect of social life.

    13 An analogy with computers

    In assessing what Man is, an analogy with computers can be made. As hardware, a particular model of computer is practically identical to every other computer which is classified as the same model. But the software available to every computer of the same model is not identical. They may run different operating systems, either completely different or different versions of the same program. The software which runs under the operating system is different with different versions of the same program being used. The data which is input to the computer varies and this in turn affects the capabilities of the computer.

    It clearly makes no sense to say every computer of the same model is the same even if the computer is loaded with the same software. But of course not all computers are of the same model. They vary tremendously in their power. The same software will run at very different rates because of this. Storage and memory size also vary tremendously. Some computers cannot run programmes because the programmes are too large. We may call all computers computers , but that is to say little more than that all animals are animals, for computers range from the immensely powerful super computers – the homo sapiens of the computer world as it were – to the amoeba of the simple chip which controls lights being put on or off in a room depending on whether someone is in it.

    Are the circumstances of computers not akin to those of Man? Do not the racially based differences in IQ correspond to the differences in power of older and newer computers? Do not different languages represent different operating systems? For example, think how different must be the mentality of a native Chinese speaker (using a language which is entirely monosyllabic) to that of a native English speaker (using a polysyllabic language) simply because of the profound difference in the structure of the language. A language will not merely impose limits on what may be expressed it will effect the entire mentality of the individual, from aesthetic appreciation to social expression. Is not the experiential input analogous to the holding of different data?

    Read more at http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/iq-and-society/

  • Adel

    This article is very enlightening, if slightly one-sided. However; please ignore the comments below the article. They are mostly irrelevant to what’s in the article and go to show why all countries still have their
    challenges and why South Africa still has as bright a future as any.

  • George C

    There is just so much irony and hypocrisy in post-apartheid S Africa.

    My God it’s so sad yet so funny when stereotypes are proven true again and again!

    LOL!!!

    THERE IS NO FUTURE FOR SOUTH AFRICA. CRY FOR HER………..

    • Hunkashoo

      How many countries have to be destroyed to prove that blacks are sub-human?

  • berrak mermerci

    as we all see all about intelligence ,and its related to genes,they should give back country to white people for their own future

Close