There is a well-established link between low IQ and social problems, and many sociologists believe that a low national IQ is connected to the problems a society experiences. Blacks in Africa have an average IQ of 70, which is considered border-line retarded, and the continent has always been plagued by poverty, war, genocide, crime and a host of other ills.

THE AGONY OF AFRICA

By H.A. Scott Trask (2003)

Most whites know modern Africa, if they know it all, either through television nature programs, or through luxury vacations at exclusive game lodges. The tourists play at going on safari and dining on marinated gazelle, washed down with a South African Cabernet. It’s all very comfortable, and the sunsets are beautiful, but it is hardly the real Africa. For a brutally honest depiction of the 95 percent that is dangerous and dirty and decrepit—though often still beautiful—we turn to Dark Star Safari, a chronicle of a journey through the heart of a continent of failure.

Three years ago, Paul Theroux, who is known for his brilliant travel writings, traveled overland from Cairo to Cape Town. For months, he rode on buses that reeked of body odor, rumbled across axle-breaking roads in the back of a truck through bandit-filled deserts, slept on filthy mattresses in insect-infested hotel rooms, warded off packs of beggars and thieves, turned down prostitutes and meals of rancid goat meat, sweated under a scorching and merciless sun, and met hard-working Africans who had long-since despaired of their continent and whose only hope was to emigrate.

Mr. Theroux had worked as a Peace Corps teacher in Malawi from 1963-64, and as an instructor at Makerere University in Kampala, Uganda, from 1965-68. These were the years immediately after independence, when hopes were high, and the colonial patterns of life had not yet succumbed to African leadership. He knew that “all news out of Africa is bad,” but this only made him want to see for himself. Moreover, he wanted again to taste and feel Africa. This is what he found:

“Africa is materially more decrepit than it was when I first knew it—hungrier, poorer, less educated, more pessimistic, more corrupt, and you can’t tell the politicians from the witch doctors. Africans, less esteemed than ever, seemed to me the most lied to people on earth—manipulated by their governments, burned by foreign experts, befooled by charities, and cheated at every turn. To be an African leader was to be a thief, but evangelists stole people’s innocence, and self-serving aid agencies gave them false hope, which seemed worse. In reply, Africans dragged their feet or tried to emigrate, they begged, they pleaded, and they demanded money and gifts with a rude, weird sense of entitlement.”

Mr. Theroux does not expect things to improve. Often the only things that seemed to work were left over from European colonists. The ferry he took across Lake Victoria was built by the British in 1962; its original engines, boilers, and generators were still running.

According to Mr. Theroux, the worst part of Africa is the cities. “Whenever I arrived in an African city, I wanted to leave.” “Urban life is nasty all over the world, but it is nastiest in Africa.” “None of the African cities I had so far seen, from Cairo southward, seemed fit for human habitation.” “African cities became more awful—more desperate and dangerous as they grew larger.” “Even at their best, African cities seemed to me miserable improvised anthills, attracting the poor and the desperate from the bush and turning them into thieves and devisers of cruel scams.”

“In Egypt, every wall attracts dumpers, litterers, [crappers] and pissers, dogs and cats, and the noisiest children.” “The heat in Khartoum, with its sky specks of rotating hawks, left me gasping.” Khartoum was so dangerous that the American counsel general did not even live there, but flew in from Cairo during the week. Addis Ababa was “dirty and falling apart, stinking horribly of unwashed people and sick animals, every wall reeking with urine, every alley blocked with garbage,” the streets “full of loud music, car horns, diesel fumes, and pestering urchins.” Hyenas stalked the streets of Harar, Ethiopia, at night, and people howled at foreigners. Djibouti’s “oppressive heat was not relieved by the scorching breezes off the Gulf of Aden, nor was there any terrain except the landfill look of reclaimed swamp.”

“Nairobi was huge and dangerous and ugly.” There was a palpable sense of “desperation” which was “not the dark side, or a patch of urban blight, but the mood of the place itself.” He did not go out at night, for even “the wariest people were robbed.” Three FBI agents investigating the 1998 embassy bombing were robbed of their wallets and pistols and then mocked and jeered by a large crowd. Even the wild birds stole from people. Kampala was an improvement by comparison but decrepit and in decline. While there, he visited Makerere University, where he had taught, and found it a ruin—the buildings falling apart, the trees cut down, the library an empty shell.

“Mozambique,” he writes, “was not a country in decline—this part of it, anyway, could not fall any further.” Of its capital city, “It was hard to imagine how much worse a place had to be for a broken-down city like Maputo to seem like an improvement.” Even once prosperous and orderly Johannesburg was crime-ridden and increasingly ringed with teeming and angry slums. “That’s what happened in Africa: things fell apart.”

Mr. Theroux tells story after story that demonstrate the hopeless passivity of so many Africans. In the “sun-baked emptiness” of the Wagago Plains in Tanzania, he spotted a single mango tree “of modest size but leafy with dense boughs. There was a circle of shade beneath it. Within that shade were thirty people, pressed against one another to keep in the shade, watched by a miserable goat tethered in the sunshine.” He wondered why “no one in this hot, exposed place had thought to plant more mango trees for the shade they offered. It was simple enough to plant a tree.”

Mr. Theroux rode with a cattle truck on the desert road linking Ethiopia and Kenya. He described the road as “spectacularly bad,” full of “wheel-swallowing potholes,” deep ruts, and enormous razor-sharp boulders. One of the tires ripped open. “That was to be expected here—by me, anyway,” he writes. “Apparently not by Mustafa and the others, for they had no spare. They shook out junk from a burlap sack … and began amateurishly to whack the wheel, as though they had never been in this fix before.” Mr. Theroux sums up the situation: “This is not good—a breakdown in the desert where no one cares whether I live or die. I am stranded among the most incompetent and unresourceful mechanics I have ever seen.” Luckily, another cattle truck rumbled by and Mr. Theroux was able to catch a ride.

In Zimbabwe, he visited a farm run by a charming hard-working white family $22 million in debt and assailed by squatters. He spoke to one of the latter, who was from neighboring Zambia. He was furious because the government had not helped him. He needed seed, fertilizer, and a tractor. He now expected the owner of the farm to give him supplies and plow his fields. “Having invaded the land and staked his claim and put up four big huts, he now wanted free seed, free fertilizer, and the fields plowed at his bidding, his victim working the tractor. It was like a thief who, having stolen a coat, insisted that his victim have the coat dry-cleaned and tailored to fit.” When Mr. Theroux asked him what he would do if people came and squatted on his land, he exploded in rage. He would drive them off.

While in Malawi, Mr. Theroux visited his old school, hoping it had been modernized and improved. “The school was almost unrecognizable,” he writes. “What had been a group of school buildings in a large grove of trees was a compound of battered buildings in a muddy open field. The trees had been cut down and the grass was chest high. At first glance the place was so poorly maintained as to seem abandoned: broken windows, doors ajar, mildewed walls, gashes in the roofs, and only a few people standing around, empty-handed, doing nothing but gaping at me.” It seemed as if the failure of post-colonial Africa was all here, as if deliberately staged.

Also in Malawi, he visited the old Zomba Gymkhana Club, which had once been the social center for resident Europeans, mainly British. In the early ’60s, Mr. Theroux had heard members complain that if Africans were let in, they would ruin the club: They would get drunk, tear up the billiard table, women would nurse babies in the game room. At the time, Mr. Theroux considered such thoughts “rude and racist,” yet seeing the club today he realized they were “fairly prescient, for the rowdy teenagers at the billiard table were stabbing their cues at the torn felt, the bar was full of drunks, and a woman was breast feeding her baby under the dart board.” Many writers would have left out this story, as it vindicates “racist” predictions, but Mr. Theroux is too truthful and thorough a writer for that.

He asked a Malawian official to explain why the government had chased the Indian shopkeepers out of the country in the 1970s. The official explained that the Africans deserved a chance to run the shops, so they took them over; but soon the stores all failed. Twenty-seven years later, the town still had no shops. When Mr. Theroux pointed out that expropriation had backfired, another African interrupted and began mocking the way the Indians did business: “They sit there, you see, and they have these little pieces of paper, and have these columns of numbers. And one Indian is running the calculator, and another is counting the sacks of flour and the tins of condensed milk. One two three. One two three.”

Mr. Theroux explains: “What this educated African with his plummy voice intended as mockery—the apparent absurdity of all this counting—was the description of people doing a simple inventory of goods in a shop.” When he pointed this out, the African replied that his people had neither the aptitude nor the desire to run businesses. “What do we care about shops and counting? We have a much freer existence. We have no interest in this—shops are not our strong point.” Mr. Theroux, growing exasperated, asked why then had they taken over the shops. The answer was that the Africans might find a use for them some day (most were still empty, but a few had become beer bars). Mr. Theroux’s conclusion: “I had never heard such bull[crap].”

Mr. Theroux does not say this, but the real answer to his question was envy. The Africans could not stand to see successful small businesses run by foreigners, so they kicked them out and took them over. Envy of non-Africans continues to motivate Africa. The land seizures in Zimbabwe, the murders of white farmers in South Africa, and the urban crime wave in Johannesburg and Cape Town, are obvious examples (see next article for a complementary view of African thinking).

Mr. Theroux fits most Westerners in Africa into one of three categories. First, there are the tourists, usually on safari. Mr. Theroux dismisses them as “fantasists.” Then there are the “agents of virtue”—the international aid workers, whom Mr. Theroux describes as haughty, aloof, ineffective jerks who rarely stay in Africa long enough to realize the extent of their failure; and the altruists, missionaries and others, who are there to save Africa and Africans.

He met a young, attractive Finnish woman working on an AIDS project in Zambia. She had been in Africa only a short time, but was already disillusioned. “It is horrible. There is no sex education. No one will talk about sex, but everyone does it. No one will talk about AIDS, and everyone is infected. We were sent an anti-AIDS film and we showed it. But people in the village said it was shameful—too indecent—and so it was withdrawn.” Mr. Theroux asked if she had talked to them. She had. The result? “They wanted to have sex with me.”

In Mozambique, he met a naive female missionary who was running a shelter designed to get prostitutes and boys off the streets. One night she was robbed by a group of boys. She recognized them as boys she had bathed, fed, and clothed; what’s worse, they recognized her. Mr. Theroux recalled that Christian missionaries had been at work here since 1508: “Five centuries of this!”

Mr. Theroux was victim of only one crime in Africa, and it came at the very end. Before taking a four-day side trip to the coast, he left his valuables (watch, wallet, cash, air tickets, African artifacts) for safekeeping in a Johannesburg hotel strong room. He returned to find everything stolen. “That’s very Janiceburg, very Jozi,” one resident later told him.

Mr. Theroux does not absolve Africans of responsibility for their own plight, but the only Africans he singles out for blame are the corrupt and thieving leaders. His book makes it clear that sloth, lack of planning, and envy are to blame for much of Africa’s plight, but he never says this directly nor does he consider the possibility Africans may be of lower intelligence than whites.

What is to be done with the place? Mr. Theroux condemns Western governments, international organizations, and private aid agencies for making the continent’s problems worse. He believes the only solution is to pull out the whole apparatus of Western relief and development, and let Africans define their problems, work out solutions, and live according to their habits and customs. He does not doubt that by Western standards the continent will remain undeveloped and primitive, will perhaps become much more so, but it may be able to sustain itself and create a life that is livable for Africans. He seems to think that if left alone, Africans will drift slowly back to their ancestral villages and turn once again to labor-intensive agriculture. Africa would not revert entirely back to a pre-contact state, but it might go halfway.

This may be an overly romantic view. The slaughter in Rwanda/Burundi, the double amputees in Sierra Leone, the witch-burnings and black magic common throughout black Africa, and the cannibalism that has come to light in the Congo are chilling examples of what Africans can do when left to themselves. Perhaps a return to old-fashioned European colonialism is the best solution. Short of that, a policy of leaving Africa alone, with all its potential perils, may be the best realistic choice we have.

WHITE MINORITIES IN NON-WHITE NATIONS

In the coming decades, the African American population will increase significantly, especially as the U.S. brings in tens of thousands of African immigrants each year. Some people look forward to the day when Whites become a minority in America, hoping that this will usher in a new era of diversity, fairness and good race relations. However, when an ethnic group becomes a minority, it hands over political control to other population groups, and who then have complete power over them. The smaller a minority group is, the more it is at the mercy of the majority. Although it is always a risky proposition to become a minority, it is especially dangerous when other ethnic groups have long-standing grudges. We can see the results of this in the recent history of nations such as Zimbabwe and South Africa, which are sobering examples of what happens to Whites when they are ruled by a non-White majority.

ZIMBABWE – 23 YEARS OF BLACK RULE

By Arthur Kemp (2003)

Zimbabwe — when it was ruled by whites and known as Rhodesia — was the most prosperous nation in southern Africa. When black rule began in 1980, the country had excellent railroads, good highways, and clean, well run towns. It was rich in gold, chromium, platinum, and coal, and Rhodesia was such an agricultural success it exported food. It has now been reduced to a shattered ruin, facing famine, with whites and black dissenters murdered and tortured.

It is fashionable to blame the country’s failures on the man who has been president since 1980, Robert Mugabe. Even the famous white South African liberal Dorris Lessing writes of his “arbitrary cruelties,” and tells us “crimes have been committed in the name of political correctness.” Mr. Mugabe is undoubtedly a bad character, but so are most of the people who rule African countries. It is possible he hastened Zimbabwe’s decline but decline was inevitable once blacks took over institutions built by whites.

In the eyes of the world, black rule is so fine a thing it must never be spoiled by describing it accurately. The press therefore ignored the thievery and anti-white hatred of Zimbabwe’s new government. It looked the other way when Mr. Mugabe’s North Korean-trained Fifth Brigade killed thousands of Ndebele tribesmen for failing to support their new president from the Shona tribe. When, as early as the mid-1980s, the United Nations reported that the Mugabe government was as greedy and corrupt as any in Africa, there was silence in the West. Mr. Mugabe’s latest antics — driving white farmers off the land, and killing and muzzling political opponents — have finally forced a reluctant world to recognize him for the brute that he is.

There seem to be two additional motives beyond his usual avarice and cruelty behind Mr. Mugabe’s current campaigns. Since his government had pillaged every other source of wealth, including the mining sector, the 4,000 or so white farmers who continued to be the backbone of the economy were the only source of prosperity still available for “redistribution,” that is to say, appropriation by Mr. Mugabe’s friends. At the same time, Mr. Mugabe appears to have been deeply envious of the world’s adulation of Nelson Mandela next door in South Africa. By making one final and dramatic “anti-colonial” gesture, and by consolidating power beyond the slightest threat, he seemed to think his fame would reduce Mr. Mandela to insignificance. Whatever the motives, in early 2000, Zimbabwe launched a program of violence and ethnic cleansing against whites, and began systematic terror against black Zimbabweans who dared to oppose the government.

ETHNIC CLEANSING

The campaign against whites has been simple but effective. Truckloads of self-styled “war veterans” — the vast majority of whom are far too young to have fought the white regime in the bush war that ended 22 years ago — show up at white farms, where they camp out, get drunk, threaten the farmer and his family, and beat up black workers. The official fiction is that this is a spontaneous movement of Zimbabwean peasants who have lost patience with the refusal of whites to give up land they “stole” from blacks, but the invading convoys are clearly supported and supplied by the government. The police refuse to evict the “war veterans,” and the government has ratified the occupations by issuing decrees to revoke white ownership.

Most farmers have managed to get out alive, but 11 have not. The first two to die were David Stevens and Martin Olds. Their murders, which took place in 2000, set the tone for the ethnic cleansing that has followed. David Stevens, who shared profits with his workers, was a member of the opposition party, Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). On April 15, 2000, Mugabe-supporters attacked him on his farm in the Macheke area, about 60 miles east of Harare. He managed to escape to police protection, but the mob of “veterans” stormed the police station and abducted him in view of the several officers who did nothing. The blacks dragged him into the bush, where they tortured him and shot him at point-blank range with a shotgun. They then mixed his blood with alcohol and drank it. Mr. Mugabe himself approved the murder, saying Stevens “had it coming to him” because of his work with the opposition.

Martin Olds, the second farmer to die, was alone on his farm 400 miles southwest of Harare. He had sent his wife and two children to relative safety with friends because of death threats. He told the local police about the threats but they did nothing. At dawn on April 18, 2000, hundreds of armed men arrived at his farm in a convoy of 14 cars and a tractor trailer. They attacked the farm house but the 42-year-old former soldier held them off with a rifle and a shotgun. He telephoned his mother, who called the police four times but they refused to intervene. At one point a rifle bullet shattered his leg. He radioed to friends: “I’ve been shot and I need an ambulance.”

Farmers rushed to his assistance, but were fired on when they approached his compound. They reported that many of the blacks were drunk. Police, who had set up a road block outside the farm, would not let an ambulance through. Mr. Olds splinted his own leg and went on fighting, wounding several attackers. The two-hour gun battle ended only when the blacks set his house on fire and forced him out. They beat him to mush and then shot him twice in the face at close range. The “war veterans” then got into their vehicles and drove away.

His widow, Kathy Olds, fled to England with their two children, a suitcase, and £60 in cash. His mother should have done the same. Nearly a year later, 68-year-old Gloria Olds died in a hail of bullets early one morning as she opened the gates to her house. Her attackers also shot her three dogs.

On December 12, 2000, a gang of “war veterans” gunned down another farmer, Henry Elsworth. He was a 70-year-old cripple, hobbling on his crutches when he was killed in Kwekwe, 125 miles southwest of Harare. His son Ian, who took five bullets in the leg and groin during the attack, said his father had received many death threats in the months before the murder, and had even left the country briefly in the hope tensions would subside.

Terry Ford, the tenth white farmer killed, had given up resistance and was actually leaving his property after an attack by 20 “war veterans.” Other “veterans” stopped his car, forced him out, stood him up against a tree, and executed him. Many other whites — men and women — have been beaten, threatened, and intimidated.

The self-styled leader of the farm invaders, the late Chenjerai Hunzvi, was a prominent Mugabe supporter, who personally lead militants onto more than 1,700 farms. He actually did fight against the white regime, and liked to go by the name of “Hitler.” He was a member of the Zimbabwe parliament, and at one time was probably the second most powerful man in the country. No one worked harder to drive whites off the land. In May 2000, Hunzvi publicly urged his countrymen to seek out “British passport holders” — whom he called “ruthless, cunning people” — and force them out of the country.

“Hitler” was only following government policy. In April 2000, Mr. Mugabe told a television audience that white farmers were “enemies of the state.” In October, he elaborated on whites: “These crooks, really, we inherited as part of our population … We cannot expect them to have straightened up, to be honest people, and an honest community, all told… Yes, some of them are good people, but they remain cheats. They remain dishonest.” On August 18, 2001, Zimbabwe’s Vice President Joseph Msika explained that “whites are not human beings.”

Anyone who tormented whites or helped drive them out was therefore a great leader. In June 2001, shortly after Hunzvi died of AIDS, the ruling party politburo, headed by Mr. Mugabe, declared Hunzvi an official national hero. He is buried in Zimbabwe’s Hero’s Acre. In his funeral tribute, Mr. Mugabe said the dead man’s “leadership was particularly inspiring in that it came at an historic time.”

No doubt because he can hardly believe the British would abandon their co-racialists to death and dispossession, Mr. Mugabe is convinced Anthony Blair’s government is constantly plotting against him and is responsible for many problems. Mr. Blair has, in fact, said a few mild things against Mr. Mugabe, but has not lifted a finger to prevent outrages against whites, almost all of whom are of British stock, and many of whom also hold British citizenship.

BLACK VICTIMS

There is no doubt Mr. Mugabe wants to expel whites, but the vast majority of his victims have been black. The non-partisan Zimbabwe Human Rights Forum has drawn up a list of 142 Zimbabweans killed in political violence since 2000. Only 11 were white, and almost all of the remaining 131 were supporters of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). Mugabe thugs have also killed another 115 black farm workers. Their crime is to have opposed the campaign against whites.

Many blacks who worked for white farmers were happy with their jobs, and knew ruin would follow the land grabs. Very few blacks can operate a modern, commercial farm, and when whites are run off production grinds to a halt. Any black worker who shows the slightest hint of support for whites or for the opposition MDC becomes an “enemy of the people.” The “war veterans” have operated like Maoist Red Guards, forcing farm workers to attend political rallies where they were made to identify MDC supporters. The Mugabe thugs then beat the opposition supporters or make other workers beat them. The farm invaders also love to make people sing songs in praise of Mr. Mugabe and his party for hours at a time. They have burned some farm workers out of their homes and looted many others.

In the Karoi district, black workers reported more than 1,000 cases of assault by Mugabe gangs in the two-month period of June and July 2000 alone. The police did nothing. After farmers and black workers complained, the local police chief, Superintendent Mabunda, responded with threats: “Do you want war? If you want war, I will bring troops and we can have war. I think we will have war today.”

A huge number of blacks lost homes, jobs, and access to schools and medicine, as the “war veterans” rampaged through the country, shutting down farms. Many once-prosperous farms are now looted, overgrown wrecks, and food production has plummeted. Many of the high-ranking blacks who have officially taken possession do not even pretend to farm. They live in the cities and come out for picnics.

According to the Zimbabwe Agricultural Welfare Trust (ZAWT), an organization that helps blacks suffering from the chaos of Mr. Mugabe’s polices, between February 2000 and the end of 2002, about 1,300 commercial farmers were forced to stop farming. An estimated 200,000 farm workers have lost either their homes or their jobs since the farm invasions began, and this figure does not include wives and children. The majority of displaced workers have nowhere to go. Countless thousands are now scattered around the farming areas, sometimes simply camping along roadsides with no possessions. They join the estimated 600,000 “internally displaced” people in Zimbabwe. It is not well known that a few prosperous blacks have lost farms. Anyone identified with the opposition can be treated just like a white.

The economic consequences of raping the countryside have been immense. While it is true that southern Africa is suffering from drought, there is no doubt that the food crisis now facing Zimbabwe is the result of Mr. Mugabe’s land policy. When whites could still farm freely, Zimbabwe was the breadbasket of southern Africa, and exported a range of food products. Now there are only an estimated 350 commercial farmers left, many operating under impossible conditions.

The catastrophic drop in food production means that an estimated eight million of Zimbabwe’s 13 million people face starvation, according to the UN and other international bodies. Corn meal — the staple food — bread, milk, sugar and other commodities are scarce, and long lines are common. In the Masvingo district, a BBC reporter was shocked to find Zimbabweans scratching in the dirt looking for roots to eat. Other journalists have found Zimbabweans eating rats, river silt and poisonous plants in order to fill their stomachs.

The entire economy is starving. Tobacco, once the leading export product, was largely grown by white farmers. Now, hard currency shortages mean gas stations run dry. Finance Minister Simba Makoni admits the country is bankrupt. “No one is investing in the country, nor is there any likelihood anyone will, and there is no foreign currency available to import food,” he says, in a rare display of government honesty. Food relief — the United States is a major donor — is distributed along political lines, further consolidating Mr. Mugabe’s power.

WHITE INSTITUTIONS

When black rule began, Zimbabwe still had all the institutions of Western government whites had set up, and although Mr. Mugabe has essentially dictatorial powers, he has not yet completely destroyed these institutions. For example, Zimbabwe still has elections, in which political opponents run for office against the ruling Zanu-PF party. In the early years, Mr. Mugabe could afford to hold elections with relatively little vote-rigging because he and his movement were still popular. Now he rules through force and intimidation, and opposition politics is a dangerous career.

In connection with the June 2000 parliamentary elections alone, Mugabe supporters murdered more than 30 political opponents. Dozens of opposition politicians have been arrested, assaulted, or had their homes attacked. Human rights groups charge that during the elections there were more than 19,000 cases of politically-motivated violence and torture. Since the vote, Mugabe thugs have killed another estimated 60 to 80 opposition supporters. The elections themselves were spectacularly corrupt, but still left opposition parties with 48 percent of the 120 contested seats (30 parliamentarians are directly appointed by Mr. Mugabe, so the MDC has 57 of 150 seats).

Another gift of white Rhodesians to black Zimbabwe was a tradition of press freedom, a tradition Mr. Mugabe has gradually snuffed out. During 2002, the authorities threw two journalists in jail, detained 32, and assaulted five. The offices of the Daily News, the one remaining independent paper, have been firebombed three times in the last two years. In May, police forced the last foreign correspondent, Andrew Meldrum, onto a plane and expelled him for publishing “false news.”

A once-independent police and judiciary are yet more casualties of black rule. According to the Amani Trust in Harare, which monitors human rights abuses, the police have been purged of anyone suspected of disloyalty to the regime, so that the force is now effectively another Zanu-PF militia. This is why appeals for help from whites or political opponents are fruitless, and why attackers are not prosecuted. The army and the Central Intelligence Organization — the Zimbabwe secret police, which is accountable only to Mr. Mugabe — are just as partisan. At a political rally in 2000, then Zimbabwean defense minister Moven Mahachi explained how to handle the opposition: “We will move door to door, killing … I am the minister responsible for

defense; therefore I am capable of killing.”

All public employees soon learn where their primary loyalty must lie. In June 2001, Mr. Mugabe’s foreign minister, Stan Mudenge, told trainee teachers: “As civil servants, you have to be loyal to the government of the day. You can even be killed for supporting the opposition, and no one would guarantee your safety.”

Judges, respected and independent when they were Rhodesian, are now tools of the regime. Many magistrates are Zanu-PF-appointees or are too intimidated to act against the government. In March 2001, the government forced the country’s chief justice, Anthony Gubbay, into early retirement after he ruled against the seizure of white-owned farms. Other judges who tried to take a stand have resigned after threats to their lives and families. Courts have issued at least two orders to the authorities to clear farm invaders off private land, but the government paid no attention.

A Zimbabwean High Court judge, Ben Hlatshwayo, ignored an order by his own court barring him from moving onto a farm confiscated from a white family. In December 2002, Mr. Hlatshwayo moved onto the 900-acre farm anyway, accompanied by a police escort. While the government ignores the courts at will, it uses the law as a weapon against opponents. The MDC leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, is on trial for allegedly plotting to assassinate Mr. Mugabe, and could be put to death if found guilty.

The causes of Zimbabwe’s misery are so clear that many people continue to risk death to oppose Mr. Mugabe. In early June, the government sent tanks into the street to put down what was to be a five-day general strike called in the hope of driving Mr. Mugabe from office.

Ben Hlatshwayo had conveniently issued an injunction against the strike, and police arrested Mr. Tsvangirai for the capital crime of treason. Police dispersed demonstrators with live fire, tear gas, and water cannon. There were hundreds of injuries, but miraculously, no one was killed.

INTEREST AND ADMIRATION

Although Zimbabwe’s measures against white farmers are destroying the country, and have been met with universal condemnation in the West, Africans look on with interest and admiration. Most ominous is the reaction in South Africa, which has had a less well-publicized campaign of murdering white farmers. In August 2001, South Africa sent its agriculture minister to Zimbabwe to discuss “helping understand farmer settlement,” and in October 2001, South Africa’s Deputy President, Jacob Zuma, said Mr. Mugabe had “convincingly explained his land policies.” South African Labor Minister, Membathisi Mdladlana said in Zimbabwe on January 11, 2003, that his country “had a lot to learn from President Robert Mugabe’s program of land reform.”

Many African nations have been supportive of Mugabe’s programs. A meeting in Angola in December 2001 of African heads of state from the 14-nation Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) unequivocally backed Mr. Mugabe’s leadership, and refused to impose sanctions of any kind.

Particularly worrisome for white South Africans is the “Amendment to the Land Restitution Act” promulgated by the government on May 9, 2003, and likely to pass easily in the ANC-dominated parliament. It is an almost perfect copy of the Zimbabwean farm seizure legislation, and will give the South African Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs the power to take urban or rural land without any judicial process if it is “in the interests of land reform.” At present, land can be “redistributed” only by court order and if there is an agreement between the current owner and the claimant of the land. The ANC clearly intends to follow the Mugabe path.

Although observers from Europe and the United States dismissed the March 2002 presidential election — won handily by Mr. Mugabe — as a fraud, most African heads of state have endorsed the results. The Organization of African Unity (OAU) observer team in Zimbabwe reported that “in general the elections were transparent, credible, free and fair.” By African standards, of course, the election was entirely as it should be: it kept the incumbent in power. A wide-spread view of Mr. Mugabe was expressed in New African magazine, which is read all over the continent. Its May 2000 cover story was unequivocal: “Mugabe is Right.”

Africans everywhere seem to love Mr. Mugabe. Last September 12, after addressing a session of the UN General Assembly in New York, he accepted an invitation to speak at New York’s City Council chambers, where he gave a long talk about his land policies to a dozen or so members of the City Council’s Black and Hispanic Caucus. Charles Barron, a former Black Panther, and the council member who had invited Mr. Mugabe to City Hall, hugged him and held his hand aloft like a victorious boxer. No council member protested the visit.

South Africa offers Zimbabwe material as well as moral support, providing seed, fertilizer, fuel and transportation aid. The state-owned South African electricity and oil companies, Eskom and Sasol, supply Zimbabwe on credit.  The cost is borne by South Africans, of whom the largest number of paying customers are white. The continuing cost of ANC support for Zimbabwe has been reflected in the currency markets; the South African rand lost 25 percent of its value in 2000 alone, and has declined steadily ever since. The country’s annual inflation rate is more than 250 percent. Mr. Mugabe will probably succeed in driving whites out of the country. Some he will force out physically, and others will leave voluntarily as Zimbabwe sinks further into Third-World misery.

There was a time, not so long ago, when whites could not have been treated this way. In 1866, Emperor Theodore of Abyssinia (now Ethiopia) imprisoned a number of British subjects, claiming Britain was not showing his regime enough respect. Diplomacy failed, and the emperor took his hostages 400 miles inland to the mountain fortress of Magdala. Under orders from the prime minister and Queen Victoria, Sir Robert Napier equipped an army of 13,000 British and Indians in Bombay, loaded the men and nearly 30,000 head of livestock (including 44 elephants) onto a great fleet, and sailed across the Indian Ocean to Massowah on the Red Sea coast. It took three months to march the men through the parched, mountainous wilderness to Magdala, where Napier reduced the fort and rescued the hostages. Emperor Theodore committed suicide.

That was a time when Britain — and the white man — were not to be trifled with. Other nations took note, just as Namibia and South Africa are now taking note of Britain’s spinelessness as Mr. Mugabe drives whites off the land. Action in defense of one’s people is strictly a question of will, which the British once had but now do not. They could arrange a “regime change” in Zimbabwe with one 20th of the men they sent to Iraq, but the British are now incapable of using force to defend race and heritage.

Zimbabwe teaches several lessons. Two are all too familiar: blacks make a mess of Western institutions, and some will brutalize whites if they get the chance. South Africa will meet the same fate; it is only a matter of time. But losing southern Africa to savagery is far less important than the fact that Britain, the United States, and all other European countries are letting it happen. If the British cannot bring themselves to save their Zimbabwean cousins from white-hating barbarians, they cannot be counted on to save themselves either. If immigration continues, and dispossession comes to the home islands, there will be no mother country to ignore their pleas for help.

ZIMBABWE UPDATE (2010)

Since the above article, events have gone downhill for Zimbabwe. According to wikipedia, by 2006, Zimbabwe’s total population is 12 million. The life expectancy was the lowest in the world, 37 years for men and 34 years for women. 20% of the population ages 15-49 was infected with HIV. By 2009, inflation in the nation was a staggering 231 million percent, and large food surpluses had turned into a severe food crisis. By 2010, more than 90% of White farmers had lost their lands, more and more White businesses were being seized, and most Whites have left the nation. This is an ominous example of what happens when Europeans become a minority surrounded by a non-White majority.

However, Zimbabwe is not the only incidence of Whites experiencing major problems when becoming a minority among non-Whites. South Africa is another, even more ominous example.

SOUTH AFRICA UNDER BLACK RULE

by Gedahlia Braun (1998)

South Africa is now ruled by blacks; the only prosperous country on the continent has been handed to them on a platter. While the country has not sunk overnight into the morass of the rest of Africa, and while most of the dire predictions of the white right did not come to pass, a dispassionate view of the last four years gives one no confidence that South Africa’s future will be fundamentally different from that of other black-ruled nations. Virtually every trait that makes one skeptical of black rule — dishonesty, deviousness, incompetence, corruption, unreliability, and callous indifference to human suffering — manifests itself daily.

When I first visited South Africa in 1986, after a decade in black Africa, it was at the end of the apartheid era. The contrast with the rest of Africa was stunning: all of the amenities one associates with the modern world — from telephones to potable water to public toilets — were plentiful in South Africa.

Most of the apartheid legislation was still in place, though much of it was becoming a dead letter. Apartheid’s ostensible goal was an exclusively white South Africa, with most blacks living in nominally independent tribal “homelands.” Those living in South African townships near whites were “temporary sojourners” and thus were not, for example, allowed to own businesses, as this would give them a degree of permanence.

Influx Control, limiting the migration of blacks into urban areas — white or black — had already been scrapped. The pass laws, however, were still enforced. These laws, which were probably the most determined attempt at white control over blacks, required blacks to carry a kind of internal passport: any black male in a white area after dark without the proper endorsement in his book could be arrested and taken to special courts. It was the extension of pass laws to women that supposedly led to demonstrations and the “Sharpeville Massacre” of 1960.

Contrary to accepted wisdom, I believe that many blacks knew and understood the reasons for these laws. While many blacks no doubt saw the pass laws as onerous, it is not uncommon for someone to suffer on account of a law but still understand the reasons for it. If I am a heavy smoker, I will suffer on a long flight without a cigarette, but may nevertheless admit that there are good reasons for the prohibition. Black men, as a group, are trouble — they are violent and prone to criminality — and the pass laws were designed to control their movements. (A phrase never far from white consciousness was swart gevaar — “black danger.”)

If today there were a way to get young men off the streets of Soweto after dark, I am sure the vast majority of its peace-loving residents would approve enthusiastically. Indeed, the head of one of the most influential think-tanks in South Africa recently told me that a group of his black employees had said that the only way to deal with the problems of the “new South Africa” was to “bring back the pass laws!”

The major watershed event in recent South African history came in February 1990, when the last white president, F. W. de Klerk, announced that the black liberation organization, the African National Congress (ANC), was to be unbanned, Nelson Mandela released from prison, and all remaining apartheid legislation abolished. This led to four years of “negotiations” during which the whites could do little but give in to the demands of the ANC. The results were the one-man-one-vote elections of April 1994, in which the ANC won just under two thirds of the vote and a corresponding proportion of the members of Parliament (MPs).

WHITE NEIGHBORHOODS

Probably the most significant direct effect of black rule has been the dramatic rise in crime, primarily black-on-white. With the abolition of the Group Areas Act, which had designated specific neighborhoods for specific racial groups, blacks began moving into white neighborhoods. This was slow at first because, I would guess, many blacks could not believe whites would allow it. My neighborhood near central Johannesburg, which was still substantially white as late as 1995, is now overwhelmingly black.

What are the consequences? A few years ago, it was difficult to find a parking space on the street at night. Now, theft and vandalism are so bad that you simply cannot leave a car out at night. Rubbish is everywhere. Few people — white or black — feel safe walking after dark. In short, we have what follows any transition from white to black. Why haven’t I moved? For one thing, my income is limited and moving is expensive. Second, I’ve lived in close proximity to blacks in Africa for twelve years; as individuals, I do not dislike them. Third, I don’t have children.

Another change since black rule has been the growth of the black taxi industry. In 1986, public transport was still segregated; blacks had separate buses that ran between Johannesburg and the townships. Some time in the 1980s minivans began appearing, taking blacks anywhere they wanted to go. Originally hailed as precursors to the development of large-scale black businesses, the industry soon degenerated into competitive tribal cabals that dealt with rivals in the way they knew best: by killing them. One consequence, however, was that blacks had easy access to white areas hitherto out of bounds, which paved the way for the invasion that eventually occurred.

PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT

Even though the Western media grudgingly acknowledge that post-apartheid South Africa has seen an enormous eruption in crime, virtually no one attempts to explain it. I believe the reasons for it are psychological, and that probably the most important consequence of doing away with apartheid was its effect on black psychology.

Interestingly, most Africans recognize racial differences. For example, by two militant black American psychiatrists, William H. Grier and Price M. Cobbs, in their book Black Rage: “The fact of the matter is that black people are inclined to regard the white man as superior. There are examples without number in the patois and the everyday behavior of millions of blacks which speak for the fact that they do indeed feel that the white man is intrinsically better.” (p. 191.)  This idea bothers few Africans. Ask any African why blacks can’t, for example, make airplanes or computers and he’ll look at you as if you were foolish for asking, since the answer is obvious: “The white man has the brain for it and we don’t!”

Perhaps because of this, among themselves, blacks often seem consumed by a need to feel superior and to achieve ‘status’. From a black point of view, the best way to do this is to make someone else (feel) inferior to you, since if he is inferior you must be superior. This helps explain much of the callous and often brutal behavior of black nurses, policemen, school teachers and the like: When they find themselves in even the most petty positions of authority, many blacks lord it over their underlings in the most extravagant manner.

When blacks saw the white man dismantling the mechanisms of apartheid, and in general deferring to black wishes, they asked themselves: “Why is he doing this? It’s certainly not because we deserve it.” The obvious answer was that the white man was foolish, weak, and frightened, and this diminished the fear, respect, and even awe that facilitated white control. Black criminal predators have a bully mentality, naturally preying on the weak. Fear in others incites them as blood to a shark. And fear is precisely what they detect in whites. The result is that potential black criminals, long kept at bay by their own fear, were let off the leash — with wholly predictable results.

Even aside from violent crime, one indication of the level of lawlessness here is that one will see more people flagrantly running red lights in one day than one is likely to see in a lifetime in America. Also, since the end of white rule, the likelihood of a black man being arrested for such ‘minor’ offenses as openly urinating in the street is zero.

In general, blacks tend either to follow rules slavishly, not grasping the possibility of exceptions under any circumstances, or to simply flout the law. One might regard this as a typical manifestation of the apparent lack among Africans of the concept of gradation: something is either on or off, all or nothing; therefore, once they start breaking laws they tend to break them all.

I believe a similar change in black psychology has occurred in the United States. From 1969 to 1973 I lived in New Orleans, in a white neighborhood, though half a block away it was black. I could walk anywhere, night or day. By the mid-1980s, however, things had changed dramatically: Everyone had stories about black-on-white crime, and areas that had for years been white were being abandoned.

What caused this turnaround? In the early 1980s, New Orleans got its first black mayor. My conjecture is that the increase in crime was disproportionately black-on-white, and was associated with decreasing fear and respect for whites brought on by access to political power. Dinesh D’Souza makes a related point in his book, The End of Racism:

“These pathologies have existed in the black community since slavery, but they have been restricted and contained both by white-imposed discipline and black-imposed norms enforced by churches and local community institutions. But those institutions have been greatly weakened since the 1960s, and in the new environment of social permissiveness and government subsidy, black pathologies have proliferated.” (p. 37.)

Black criminal propensities were previously held in check by slavery, segregation, apartheid, and strict tribal custom. Remove these constraints and pathologies assert themselves.

Another factor contributing to the rise in crime is the extent to which the newly africanized South African Police Service itself engages in crime. The police will stop an innocent black driver and tell him his car is stolen and must be confiscated on the spot. When the hapless owner goes to the township police station he discovers that his car has vanished! Given the level of police incompetence and corruption, there is no practical recourse. To my knowledge, this sort of thing occurs almost exclusively in black areas, presumably because in white areas there are still white policemen whose presence is sufficient to deter it.

Not unlike black nurses and black school teachers, black policemen are on the whole pretty useless. Since 1990 or so, the previously white higher echelons, which kept the rank and file in at least a state of semi-discipline, have also become black. In general, Africans simply cannot manage. They are incapable of running any large establishment and lack the discipline, organization and cooperation necessary to control crime. Although this may sound harsh I believe they also lack the necessary morality. Police will obviously be more effective if they are morally outraged by crime and feel, viscerally, that it is bad. I would doubt there are many African police, at any level, who feel this way.

In passing, I would note that one of the more remarkable spectacles in the aftermath of the black crime epidemic is that “liberal” politicians are so vociferous in complaining about it! No one ever points out that these same people were themselves instrumental in bringing about the very conditions that gave rise to the entirely foreseeable results they now condemn. They are also the ones whose wealth protects them from the effects of black rule, and are the first to flee the country.

THE NEW CONSTITUTION

To understand the recent changes in South Africa, one must realize how firmly Western liberal egalitarian ideology has taken root at the top levels of society. In many cases I do not think the leaders really believe in what they espouse, but are so in thrall to Western political correctness that they flout many of their most deeply held customs and traditions.

For example, one of the first things the newly created Constitutional Court did was unanimously to declare capital punishment unconstitutional. Nelson Mandela defended this by saying that the white government had unjustly executed many blacks, implying that if capital punishment were left on the books, the new black government would feel compelled to follow the white example! Persistent calls for a referendum on this question have been ignored.

The black elite is radically out of step with the man in the street. There is widespread approval of the township vigilantes who administer on-the-spot capital punishment to thieves caught in the markets — just as is done in Nigeria or Kenya. No one doubts what the results of a referendum would be.

Africa is a male-dominated continent. Women are there to serve men’s needs, to bear and raise children, and to take care of the home. This subservience is nicely illustrated by the fact that Daniel Arap Moi, the president of Kenya for the last 20 years, has never appeared in public with his wife and nothing whatever is known about her; it’s as if she didn’t exist. Nothing could better illustrate the place of women in Africa.

Yet in South Africa, the constant refrain is that the country is now a “nonracist, nonsexist democracy.” The ANC insists that a third of its Ministers of Parliament be women! An MP of my acquaintance tells me that many of these women are illiterate and hopelessly ignorant. Further idiocies are found in attempts to integrate the armed forces sexually, as in the U.S. In addition, South Africa now has probably the most liberal available-on-demand abortion laws in the world, even though this goes very much against the African grain.

Given that the black elite has ridden roughshod over ordinary blacks’ sensibilities, one might ask for evidence of black resistance to these moves. Such a query assumes that Africans are in the habit of protesting things they don’t like, and yet nothing could be further from the truth. Blacks have a sheep-like mentality, are overawed by authority, and are therefore easily cowed.

However harsh it may sound to say so, blacks are, in many ways, child-like, and this is illustrated by the often superficial quality of their emotions. They are easily provoked into violence and mayhem but, like chameleons, they can turn completely docile the next moment. A recent incident is perhaps revealing. I was driving in heavy traffic, and cut in front of a black taxi. As luck would have it, we met at the light and the driver shook his fist at me, cursing me in anger. I raised my hand, acknowledging fault. Instantly, the anger became a broad (and, I believe, genuine) smile of friendship. This kind of instant transformation is common.

PUBLIC SERVICES

When I was in Johannesburg in January 1986, the mammoth Johannesburg General Hospital was for whites only. “Jo’burg Gen” was very impressive. The nursing staff was white, as were the medical and administrative staffs. It was clean and well-run. The previous white hospital, near the city center, served blacks.

What has happened under the “new dispensation?” Conditions have deteriorated dramatically. Patient infection rates have skyrocketed and theft of supplies is rampant. Discipline among the nearly all-black nursing and maintenance staff is virtually nonexistent — they simply will not work. Patients sometimes go without clean sheets. A rabbi friend, a chaplain at Jo’burg Gen, says it is not uncommon now for patients to die because of nurses’ incompetence and indifference. I have seen for myself that cockroaches have untrammeled right of access.

There was recently a call by the Minister of Health, a black woman, for entering classes of medical students to reflect demographics — for 76 percent to be black regardless of merit. From a black standpoint, this makes perfect sense. Western medicine is, to Africans, the white man’s witchcraft rather than a disciplined body of knowledge and practices. Blacks think of a medical “degree” as a magic talisman with which they can heal the sick and become wealthy and powerful. Since this piece of paper in and of itself has the power to heal, it doesn’t matter how you get it; it certainly doesn’t matter what abilities or aptitudes you may have or what, if anything, you have learned in order to get it.

Was the old system of segregated hospitals morally justified? Needless to say, the vast majority of Americans would find the idea morally indefensible, but after twelve years in black countries it struck me as the merest common sense. Considering the demographics of South Africa — five million whites and over 30 million blacks — was it possible for the minority to provide medical care for blacks equal in quality to what they provided for themselves? Given that all the resources, aside from manual labor, would have to come from this small white minority, it seems obvious that it was not.

Do Whites have an obligation to assist Africa? I believe that African nations manipulate white guilt.  In an extraordinary example of this, Nelson Mandela recently told international investors that industrialized countries “owe us that support, not as a question of charity, but because we are entitled to it. Our region was subjected to the most brutal form of exploitation in the colonial era which robbed us of our resources.” Even a few blacks can see the breath-taking chutzpah of such a remark. One had this to say in a letter to the editor of the Johannesburg Star: “The industrialized nations owe us nothing. To say that they are morally obliged to invest in our shaky region is preposterous. Without them the riches of Southern Africa would never have been discovered, and could never have been turned into wealth.” I would agree.

Separate schooling had the same rationale as separate hospitals. If blacks were capable of establishing an educational system they would have done so — as have the Indians. Most blacks are capable of some learning and some as much as any white, and the task of educating them was undertaken by the Afrikaner government and missionaries. Just how many blacks received such a basic education I do not know, but I do know that the black schools under apartheid were infinitely better than the general chaos and mayhem that passes for “black education” now.

Nevertheless, the official bogeyman has long been “segregation.” No one ever seems to point out that demographically “integration” is a nonstarter, since there are not enough whites to go around. The underlying assumption is that whites are so superior that a mere handful of them in each class will transform the travesty that is black education! (Americans thought something roughly similar back in the 1950s.) Many blacks think the reason whites are educated and they are not is that whites have a secret formula they use to educate themselves, which they selfishly refuse to divulge to blacks!

I recently asked a young white teenager in Cape Town how many blacks were in his school. About 40 percent. So how is it? Not so bad, he said. But it turned out that he was just being “polite.” His parents were looking for another school. Why, I asked, if his school was okay. “It’s not,” he said. “It’s chaos.” Theft and violence were the norm.

It is often asserted here that blacks do less well because less money is spent on them. Evidence from the United States has consistently shown that this is not the case. More money has had very little effect on the performance of black students in Washington, DC, Kansas City, and any number of other cities. The Afrikaners’ assumption (including that of the architect of apartheid, Hendrik Verwoerd) that money spent on education must match the ability of its recipients to absorb it may have been substantially correct.

Within a few years most government schools will be overwhelmingly black, replicating the conditions in the townships. As in the United States, affluent whites will go to private schools and only the poorest will attend government schools. South Africa is thus becoming an unattractive place for middle and lower class whites, who are the very people with virtually no chance of leaving.

Universities face similar problems. Witswatersrand University (“Wits”), in Johannesburg, has traditionally been the leading university in South Africa, and deservedly so. But the push, for at least the last ten years, has been to turn it into an African university, that is to say, one with no standards, very little teaching, no significant research, and that issues meaningless paper degrees. The paradox is striking. Blacks go to Wits because it is white. Yet these same students (or at least a very vocal minority among them) and the black government are doing their best to turn white universities black, which they cannot fail to know means their ruin. Indeed, one suspects that it is the very contrast between white success and black failure that they wish to eliminate.

It is apparent that the ANC is intent on acquiring power at every level and exercising it without restraint. One strategy is to create mega-municipalities incorporating all surrounding cities and towns. Greater Johannesburg, for example, has large areas that are still predominantly white. If they stayed independent they would retain power and influence. Therefore, the ANC has transformed the area into four huge municipalities, each having a large ANC majority.

One such prosperous white area is Randburg. Until recently it had excellent emergency services, but since amalgamation with the large black township of Alexandra, it has been unable to provide its usual level of ambulance service both to itself and to the much more populous township. Combined with the newly-introduced presence of black bureaucrats, the predictable result is that neither Alexandra nor Randburg now have proper emergency services.

One of the few relatively bright spots in South Africa is the white-run press. It has retained most of the independence and freedom it enjoyed under apartheid, although black journalists who report on corruption are severely rebuked by the authorities, who accuse them of being whites’ lackeys, etc. A second bright spot, also a holdover from the previous regime, is the mostly still-white judiciary, which retains an independence that is virtually unheard of in black Africa. Gradual replacement by more compliant black judges — who won’t understand that a court can go against the government — will eventually end this check on government power.

Perhaps the single most important constraint on the ANC government so far has been the influence of international corporations. Nelson Mandela has been told, in no uncertain terms, that if he wants foreign investment he had better forget about nationalization, keep government spending down, control labor unions’ wage demands etc., all of which are contrary to the ANC’s natural tendencies, which are to see government as an infinite trough from which all can feed. The government is the natural ideological ally of the socialist- and communist-led Confederation of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu). Cosatu has already pressured it into accepting a labor bill highly favorable to workers and unfavorable to employers, as well as affirmative action laws that virtually force businesses to increase black employment at all levels.

In this ideological tug-of-war between labor interests and overseas investors, there seems little doubt that the wrong side will eventually win, though this probably spells doom for the South African economy. Should that not influence President Mandela and his chosen successor, Thabo Mbeki? Unfortunately, it will not. The country and its black majority may become dirt poor, but high-ranking government officials are unlikely to suffer. Africa is full of countries where the people starve and the leaders drive Mercedes.

WHITE ATTITUDES

There is unquestionably great uneasiness among whites. Many are leaving and many more are thinking of leaving. Accurate figures are difficult to come by because many migrants simply go on a “visit” and never return, but the number who would leave if they could must be considerable, especially among those with school-age children. Black rule plus draconian affirmative action makes many whites feel there is no future for them.

At the same time, there is no doubt that whites will continue to dominate the economy for the foreseeable future. The case of Zimbabwe is instructive: In spite of a much smaller white population and a militant black government constantly threatening white interests, there is a never-ending chorus of complaints to do something about “white control” of the economy, 18 years after “independence”!

One also hears more and more about black disaffection. I know a young “street-wise” black woman who always seems to know the “township scuttlebutt.” Around the time of the 1994 elections, she was spouting the usual rhetoric: Whites had stolen their country and now they were going to get it back. Four short years later, with none of the grandiose promises fulfilled, her tune has changed: “Oh, it’s these foreigners who are causing all the problems!” Who are these foreigners? Black immigrants from neighboring countries. They are the cause of all the crime, are taking all the jobs away from South African blacks. And so on. The solution? “When the [white] National Party comes back into power they will throw all these foreigners out!”

My own view is that South Africa will gradually sink towards the level of the rest of the continent, though it is unlikely to reach the same depths, given a continuing white presence. Black disaffection with black rule is to be expected as is the case throughout black Africa.

But South Africa, due to liberal ideological influence, is a bit like America, where blacks systematically vote for blacks no matter what. South Africa stuck to this mold when it elected an ANC government in 1994 by a nearly two-thirds majority. I once thought that disappointment with black rule might lead to a black backlash by the 1999 national elections, but I have been largely disabused of that idea. If blacks had the sense to vote against the current government they would not have elected it in the first place.

Nevertheless, as I say, I hear repeated stories about blacks lamenting present conditions. A Romanian woman who supervises 60 black workers says that all she hears is how bad the government is, how much better the white government was, etc. So one cannot completely rule out increasing numbers of blacks voting for whites, in spite of the numerous factors militating against this. After all, the colored (mixed race) majority in Western Cape Province has twice elected a white provincial government, which is an example of nonwhites voting for whites.

One thing that counts against this exercise in common sense is black superstitiousness — they readily believe that others can “see” who they are voting for inside the booth — which makes them easy to intimidate. My “scuttlebutt” informant recently confirmed, unprompted and with eyewitness testimony, what I had heard during the 1994 elections: that blacks were constantly threatened that if they didn’t vote ANC their houses would be burned down, etc., implying that “someone” would know — by magic — how they voted. Add to this the typical black awe of authority and you get manipulability.

The almost limitless credulity of blacks means that many will be suckered into believing that a black government will make them rich — that they will own the houses, factories and farms of their employers. This is associated with the common black failure to understand the nature of wealth creation: To them it is just sitting there waiting to be taken, not something that requires sacrifice, hard work, discipline and foresight. All of this explains why blacks vote for blacks.

South Africa should, of course, be a lesson for America. Both countries are making the same mistake, which is to assume that there is no such thing as racial differences. It is this mistaken assumption that prevents recognition of the fundamental paradox of black-white relations. Blacks want to live in white neighborhoods, go to white schools and hospitals because they are white. Yet these objects of their desire will remain desirable and superior only as long as they remain white. A few blacks can live in a white neighborhood or go to a black school without seriously affecting it, but as soon as their numbers approach predominance, the very things that made the blacks want to go there cease to exist and blacks find themselves in the very situation they sought to flee: black slums, broken-down black schools, hell-hole hospitals, etc.

Blacks can enter into these white structures only if their numbers are controlled; but that is impossible so long as everyone assumes that the very idea of fundamental racial differences is somehow shameful and morally abhorrent. To bring about any real racial progress this assumption must be irrefutably — and, most of all, publicly — shown to be the profound and pernicious fallacy that it is.

SOUTH AFRICA UPDATE (2010)

The leaders who arranged for the transition to black rule, F.W. DeKlerk and Nelson Mandela, were rewarded with a Nobel Peace Prize for their accomplishment in 1994. Since then, South Africa has become the rape and murder capital of the world, with the highest rates of such crimes. Ironically, in 2001, F.W. DeKlerk’s ex-wife was stabbed and violently strangled to death by Blacks. Between 1994 and 2009, over 3000 White farmers were murdered by Blacks, their deaths often involving horrible mutilations, and hate crimes against Whites are growing. One example is the case of veterinarian Dr. Paul Meyer, kidnapped from his farm and slain by Blacks, execution-style in 2010. His wife, who was nursing at the time, was badly beaten.

There has been a massive, forced exodus by Whites from all the traditional Afrikaner rural areas for two reasons: the widespread farm-confiscations by the government, and the ongoing violence targeting White Afrikaners families in the countryside and rural villages. More than 380,000 of the displaced Afrikaners now live in shacks and tents. The situation gets very little coverage in the Western news media, and Western governments have little, if any, help to offer to the Whites who are under threat.

By 2007, South Africa was estimated to have a 47 million people. The white population was less than 10% of the population, estimated at 4.3 million. Newsweek reports that 800,000 Whites had left since Africans gained the vote, and many more would leave if they had the means. Like Zimbabwe, South Africa is a chilling reminder of what happens to Whites when they become a powerless minority in a majority non-White nation.

THE STORY OF AMY BIEHL

Although Africa is fraught with problems, it is very difficult, if not impossible, for many people to understand the true causes behind them. We naturally have compassion for the Africans, and certainly would not wish their hardships on anyone. However, it is important that we do not allow our emotions to interfere with our judgement.

One example of refusing to recognize the realities of Africa is the story of Amy Biehl. She was a talented, intelligent and naive exhange student at a mainly Black university in South Africa. She arrived there in 1993 as an exchange student from Stanford on a Fulbright Fellowship working on her Ph.D in Political Science. She hoped to fight apartheid, which she was passionately opposed to, and spent much of her time registering Black voters in South Africa’s first all-race elections. These were scheduled for April of 1994, and would hand over political control of the country to its Black majority. By fighting White “racism”, she hoped to help those she saw at its Black victims.

On August 25, 1993, Biehl was driving through Cape Town, when a mob of Blacks attacked her car, pelting it with stones and smashing its windows. They had just returned from a political meeting, and were shouting “One White settler, one bullet!,” a popular political slogan. Biehl was struck in the head with a brick and, bleeding heavily, dragged from her vehicle. As she tried to flee, stumbling, across the road, she was surrounded by a throng of Blacks who repeatedly kicked, stoned, and stabbed her. The fatal wound, among many, came from a knife, buried to its hilt, that entered under her ribs and ended in her heart. She died beseeching her tormentors for mercy, but receiving none.

Of the dozen attackers, four were arrested and convicted, but were released from prison less than 5 years later, on the grounds that the motive for her murder had been political. The court found that the killers had believed that her death would help end apartheid. As one of the killers testified: “We were in very high spirits and the White people were oppressive; we had no mercy on the White people. A White person was a White person to our eyes.”

Amy Biehl’s parents, who shared her liberal views, travelled to South Africa for the trial. What was the reaction of Amy’s parents to the gang of Black murderers who had danced and chanted around the defenceless body of a dying White girl as they kicked and slashed the life out of her? Rather than demand punishment for the killers, Amy’s father forgave them, encouraged their release, and shook hands with them after the trial was over. Mr. Biehl told reporters: “We hope they will receive the support necessary to live productive lives in a non-violent atmosphere. In fact, we hope the spirits of Amy and of those like her will be a force in their new lives.” Amy Biehl’s parents created a foundation to continue her work in South Africa, and hired two of the killers to work for them. Two of the other freed killers were subsequently accused of rape, a common occurrence in South Africa, but fled prosecution.

Amy Biehl’s story has become a legend for liberals, her story seen as a meaningful sacrifice to the noble cause of racial harmony and multicultural democracy. American school children are still taught her story, with the “lesson” of Amy’s life being that “a single person can make a difference.” Secretary of State Madeleine Albright praised Amy Biehl’s “sacrifice”, which showed “that racial justice and racial harmony were ideals worth fighting for and living for and, if need be, dying for.” People like these seem to be blind to the nature of Africa and its inhabitants.

THE “BRING ME MY MACHINE GUN” CAMPAIGN

By Allison Barrie (2008)

South Africa, meet your next president. Jacob Zuma, the 65-year-old “100 Percent Zulu Boy” and new leader of South Africa’s ruling African National Congress (ANC), has garnered the popular support of communists and young people. Women’s groups may be sounding off over the values of the polygamist president-to-be, but Zuma is no stranger to controversy. In the most recent installment on his path to the South African presidency, one that could be mistaken for an episode of HBO’s “Big Love,” Zuma took his fourth wife over the weekend. Zuma has an estimated 20 children by six different women. His eldest wife, Sizakele Khumao, has renounced her “first lady” status in favor of his new 33-year-old wife. A former wife, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, is South Africa’s foreign minister and a potential political rival. Another wife killed herself in 2000.

Despite Zuma’s removal as deputy president of South Africa after fraud charges two years ago, and subsequent corruption and rape charges, the ANC announced this week that the party will support his candidacy for the national presidency. During his rape trial, Zuma took a “short skirt” excuse, claiming it was his duty as a Zulu warrior to have sex with a woman if she wore a short kanga (an African wrap), and that he could not leave her “unfulfilled.” Zuma told the court that he knew the woman was “clearly aroused” by the fact that her kanga was “quite short” — meaning knee-length.

“In the Zulu culture, you cannot just leave a woman if she is ready,” he explained. According to his defense team, Zulu men have sexual primacy over women. Therefore, he could not be guilty. “To deny her sex, that would have been tantamount to rape,” Zuma claimed. The accusing woman, who was 31 and HIV-positive at the time of the incident, is the daughter of one of Zuma’s now-dead liberation-war comrades. She alleged that when she went for advice in late 2005 to the home of the man she had known since childhood and had always called “uncle,” Zuma forced his 250-pound frame upon her. During the subsequent trial, thousands of Zuma’s supporters congregated outside the courthouse, chanting “kill the bitch” and pelting the accuser with rocks as she arrived each morning. She was given police protection due to death threats.

At one point, Zuma was caught attempting to bribe the victim’s aunt with an offer of two cows and a new garden fence in exchange for persuading the victim to withdraw the allegations. But was Zuma, the former head of the National AIDS Council in a country where one in seven citizens are HIV-positive, and aware of the woman’s HIV-positive status, concerned about unprotected sex? “I had a shower afterwards,” Zuma explained after announcing that he had chosen not to use a condom. In a country where, according to human rights groups, a woman is raped every 26 seconds, Zuma was found not guilty. His accuser has been granted asylum in the Netherlands. Zuma’s throngs of supporters, who refer to him as simply “JZ,” dismiss the rape and corruption allegations as plots masterminded by government intelligence agents to prevent his rise to power.

Zuma has also been accused of taking bribes in a defense-contract scandal for which he still faces trial, as well as charges of consorting with criminals, prostitutes and corruption. Despite claims that the judiciary is independent, he will have significant influence over his own prosecution as the head of the ANC.

A recent KPMG auditing report alleges that the man at the center of the defense-contract scandal, fraud convict Schabir Shaik, spent over $21 million on Zuma’s children, including allowances, cars and cash payment for a wedding. The report also suggests that Shaik and his companies footed the bill for Zuma’s household and travel expenses. Zuma faces 16 charges, including one charge of racketeering, two counts of corruption, one count of money laundering and 12 counts of fraud.

Ironically, Zuma’s problems have only increased his support among the poverty-stricken and the oppressed.

Under President Mbeki, discontent has escalated in the black population. Most South African blacks still live in shocking conditions, with one person murdered every 20 minutes and unemployment at 90 percent in some townships. In his striking political comeback, Zuma, who often wears a traditional cowhide robe and Zulu shield, led his thousands of supporters Tuesday, many from the Young Communist League, in preparation to succeed Mbeki as the new ANC leader.

Zuma left home at 16 and joined the ANC as a foot soldier for the armed wing of the liberation movement, Umkhonto we Sizwe or “Spear of the Nation.” At 21, he was arrested for conspiring to overthrow the apartheid government and served 10 years in prison alongside liberation hero Nelson Mandela — as well as his rape accuser’s father — in the notorious jail on Robben Island just offshore from Cape Town. Zuma has signaled his intent to “Africanize” the country, and there rumors he plans to seize some white-owned South African farms. In neighboring Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe’s “Africanization” land-reform policies have brought famine to his country through the seizure of white-owned farms. Thirteen years after emerging from apartheid and starting down the path of Mandela’s “Rainbow Nation”, South Africa, Africa’s superpower and largest economy now embarks down the road of “Bring Me My Machine Gun.”

WHY IS AFRICA POOR?

By William Robertson Boggs (1992)

Black Africa is the poorest part of the world by far. The 41 nations of sub-Saharan Africa produce no more wealth than the tiny country of Belgium, which has only one forty-fifth as many people. Numbers like these mean that Africans live in misery so desperate that Americans can scarcely imagine it. Every year, thousands of Africans die of starvation. In bad years, hundreds of thousands starve. Even in tropical parts of Africa untouched by famine, as many as one third of all children die before the age of five. One in a hundred births kills the mother. Malaria, sleeping sickness, hepatitis, leprosy, and AIDS are rampant.

Nevertheless, the population of Africa grows faster than that of any other region of the world. The total number of children, grand children, and great-grand children that the average American woman will have is 14. The equivalent figure for the average African woman is 258! Despite the ravages of disease, starvation, and inter-tribal warfare, Africa’s population increases by more than three percent a year. At that rate, populations can double in 20 years.

In the last dozen years, per capita GNP has fallen every year in Africa. By 1989, per capita food production in Africa was only three quarters what it had been in 1970. In 1985, an estimated 25 percent of African pre-school children suffered from acute protein deficiency. Only five years later, an estimated 40 percent did. It is not as though Africa has been neglected by white countries. Since the 1960s, they have poured more than $300 billion in aid into the continent. Tanzania, a favorite target for Scandinavian largess, received $8.6 billion between 1970 and 1988 — more than four times its 1988 GNP. By that year, Tanzania’s annual per capita GNP was a pitiful $160, lower than at independence in 1961.

Obviously, it is much easier for undeveloped nations to copy the tried and tested technology of nations that have gone before. They need not invent telephones or electric power generators. They need only install and maintain what Europeans have invented. Africans cannot or will not.

Often African “leaders” are outright pirates whose only interest is in enriching themselves and their cronies. Zaire’s Mobutu Sese Seku is perhaps the worst. He has been in power since 1965, and has looted the country of an amount estimated to be between two and ten billion dollars. Either figure would make him one of the richest men in the world. He owns chateaus or estates in France, Belgium, Switzerland, and Ivory Coast. He has 11 palaces in Zaire itself, including one in his home village of Gbadolite that is so lavish it is known as the Versailles of the Jungle. Mr. Mobutu likes to be called “Messiah,” and has worked up a personality cult for his hotel-maid mother that rivals that of the Virgin Mary.

Zaire, which is blessed with diamonds, gold, silver, copper, and uranium, should be one of the richest countries in the world. The World Bank has calculated that from 1973 to 1985, per capita income fell by 3.9 percent every year, and is now one tenth what it was in 1960 when the country became independent of Belgium. Zaire has not built a hospital in 20 years. In the ones that still remain, nurses and doctors must be bribed to do their work. Road maintenance is so primitive that the 1,100-mile drive from the Atlantic to Zaire’s eastern border that used to take two days now takes three weeks. In the rainy season, the trip may be impossible. Reliable electricity and plumbing are hazy memories from the colonial past.

When African governments are not openly plundering their people, they are simply incompetent. Sierra Leone, which should be rich from its gold, diamonds, and fertile farm land, is nearly as much of a disaster as deserts like Chad or the Central African Republic. The currency, the leone, has been so unstable that farmers smuggle their produce out for sale in Ivory Coast. In 1987, diamond traders found they had to pay so many near-worthless leones for diamonds that they began to withdraw currency from banks by the truckload. When this happens, most governments simply print more banknotes. Sierra Leone, which has its currency printed in England, didn’t even have enough money to pay for paper and ink. Currency disappeared, and the economy temporarily reverted to barter.

Why, then, is Africa poor? For anyone who has looked into the question, there seems to be little doubt that Africans have brought misery upon themselves. Whether it be in Africa, Haiti, or Washington, Africans show little evidence of an ability to organize and run a modern economy. Just as blacks have made wastelands of those parts of the United States in which they are a majority and over which they exercise authority, so have Africans desolated a continent bursting with riches.

Of course, it is not permissible to conclude that this is because of natural, genetic handicaps from which blacks suffer, so anti-white arguments inevitably rush in to fill the explanatory void. Blacks the world over, whether they live only among themselves or among people of other races, are said to lead lives of failure and misery only because whites have oppressed them in the past and continue to oppress them in the present. It makes no difference that this explanation falls apart under scrutiny; it is the only one that is permitted because the alternative does not conform to current political dogma.

There can be no pleasure in saying so, and we wish it was not the case, but the facts point to one conclusion. Whether in Africa or America, Haiti or Great Britain, blacks are poor because they are, for the most part, incapable of lifting themselves from poverty. Africa is poor, just as Harlem is poor, because it is populated by Africans.