2006 October 29 Sunday
About A Fifth Of South African Men Have Committed Rape

Modern Tribalist Adam Lawson points to reports of a study which found about a fifth of South African men have committed rape.

Johannesburg- One in five South African men has committed rape at least once, according to a study reported Tuesday. The figures, described as shocking in news reports, were compiled by the Gender Health Research unit of the country's Medical Research Council.

Of the 1,370 males between the ages of 15 and 26 years that were interviewed, about 8 per cent admitted to sexually violent behaviour towards their intimate partners, while 16,3 per cent said they had raped a non-partner or participated in some form of gang rape.

Note: The "16,3" is 16.3 percent but with a continental style of denoting a decimal point. The figure reported might underestimate the portion that has raped. Consider that they interviewed males between 15 and 26. Some might eventually commit a first rape even if they haven't done so yet. Some might not even commit their first rape until after the age of 26. Some might not admit to having raped or might not consider a past sexual encounter as rape even though in Western countries what they did would be considered rape.

Add in the men who rape intimate partners with those who rape strangers and the result gets up to pretty close to a fifth of all African men.

Also noted was an overlap of 44 percent of men raping non-partners and intimate partners. The mean age at which respondents first raped a woman was 17.

What percentage of all South African women have been raped? Is it more or less than half?

Women in particular should seriously reconsider if you have any thoughts of visiting South Africa. It is a very dangerous place.

Speaking of reconsideration, the political Left is always slow to learn - kinda like George W. Bush. Anti-apartheid South African novelist Andre P Brink has lost faith in the post-apartheid black regime of South Africa.

In his latest article, Brink wrote in answer to ambassador Noma-sonto Sibanda-Thusa, that "during the first 12 years after our first democratic election, I tried to convince everybody inside and outside the country who doubted the new South Africa, that the negative aspects of the transition were only temporarily and superficial coincidences. Today I cannot say that any more".

On August 24 he strongly criticised South Africa's "new elite" in the same daily, saying their actions were "directly related to the increase in violence in the country". "Their first priority is apparently to fill their own pockets and those of family and friends and to abuse their positions, even if they have to step on the victims of murder, rape and violence and telling those who dare protest to shut up or leave," wrote Brink.

Given the choice between shutting up and leaving I suggest to South African whites that they leave. In fact, even if they can keep talking they ought to leave. Start working on what you need to do to establish yourself somewhere else. For South African farmers Brazil is a good option. Some South Africans (and not a few Americans) have profitably set up farming operations in Brazil.

World Cup fans probably shouldn't plan on attending the World Cup in 2010 - unless it gets moved.

THE distinguished anti-apartheid novelist André Brink has shocked many of his politically correct countrymen by warning that football’s World Cup, coming to South Africa in 2010, threatens a “potential massacre which could make the Munich Olympics of a few decades ago look like a picnic outing”.

Brink, whose novels were banned by apartheid governments and who has twice been nominated for the Booker Prize and shortlisted several times for the Nobel Prize for Literature, is no everyday scaremonger.

Looks like the 2010 World Cup will be educational for many.

When the whites are driven off the farms South Africa will know hunger like Zimbabwe does.

Since 1994 well over 1,600 white farmers have been killed. Sources inside SA tell The Zimbabwean that while the government blames criminal elements for their deaths it is doing next to nothing to implement badly needed land reforms that meet black aspirations without destroying the agricultural sector.

Last year, a leading South African businessman said: "In Zimbabwe, it was government policy that created the conditions in which 10 farmers were killed. In South Africa lack of government policy has led to the conditions in which 1,600 white farmers have been killed. It is part of the same movement."

But in Zimbabwe, the infinitely smaller number of white farmer deaths created uproar all over the world. About South Africa there has been no such outcry.

Black anger is growing and armed gangs carry the message to the stoeps of European owned farms.

Twelve years after Nelson Mandela was made SA President, some 40,000 whites dominate all aspects of food production. They still own the best land.

1600 white farmers have been killed. But only 40,000 whites are running food production. That death rate ought to be high enough to start a serious stampede of the 40,000. When that happens watch for starvation on the scale in which it is seen in Zimbabwe.

Update: Rian Malan is another white novelist who opposed the apartheid regime. Malan thinks South Africa is going down and whites are finished in South Africa.

Malan's memoir of growing up in the apartheid, My Traitor's Heart, painted a devastating picture of the brutalities of the regime and, only two years ago, he was hailing the first country as a veritable "paradise".

Sliding towards decay

But in the latest edition of Britain's The Spectator magazine, Malan concluded the country was now sliding towards decay.

"We thought our table was fairly solid and that we would sit at it indefinitely, quaffing that old Rainbow Nation Ambrosia," he wrote.

"Now, almost overnight, we have come to the dismaying realisation that much around us is rotten."

Malan identified what he calls the purging of whites from the ranks of civil service as the root cause of the decay.

"There won't be a civil war. Whites are finished. According to a recent study, one in six of us has left since the ANC took over and those who remain know their place."

People like Malan were foolish and deluded themselves about what black rule would be like.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2006 October 29 06:10 PM  Civilizations Decay

Wunderlust said at October 29, 2006 7:31 PM:

What are the reasons for this? I ask because..I know a lot of African people and I know that South Africa is extremely dangerous so is Nigeria, but those countries are way skewed if you look at the murder rates of some other countries in Africa they very very low.

I will use murder rates an example...I included some other predominately black countries to get an idea of the
variation in murder rates, but I think we should look at other African nations, and also other black nations. Then I will compare them to some European countries as a control...These were all in the year 2000 or around that time.



the rate of murder decreased from 15.55 to 12.87 per 100,000 population


According to the INTERPOL data, for murder, the rate in 1999 was 16.32 per 100,000 population for Namibia


According to the INTERPOL data, for murder, the rate in 2000 was 7.95 per 100,000 population for Tanzania


According to the INTERPOL data, for murder, the rate in 2000 was 7.89 per 100,000.

South Africa 51.39
Ghana the rate per 100,000 population in 2000 was 2.48
Senegal According to the INTERPOL data, for murder, the rate in 2000 was 0.33 per 100,000
Ivory Coast According to the INTERPOL data, for murder, the rate in 1997 was 2.34 per 100,000 population
Barbados 7.49
Dominica 2.74
Jamaica 33.69

http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/s..._survey/ 7sc.pdf

Russia was over 22.
Belarus 10.3
Finland 2.86
France 1.78 (notice this is the most racially/ethnically diverse country in Europe).
Germany 1.7
Latvia 10.03
Lithuania 10.01

Saudi Arabia .51

I guess my question would be is what is the cause of all this violence in South Africa when it is much much lower in the surrounding countries...although the murder rate is still high in some...others are lower than Eastern Europe. We even have this kind of crazy disaprarity in black countries in the Carribean. Jamaica as compared to Dominica (not the Dominican Republic, different island) and Barbados. Hell Dominica is more safe than, so is Sengal...Finland. LOL

Randall Parker said at October 29, 2006 7:48 PM:


Don't have an answer at this point. Instead I'll start with some questions.

The first question I'd ask about African countries is how well do the various governments collect death rate causes?

Next, do the murder rate reports for those countries happen to map well with results from international crime victimization surveys? Ron Guhname has recently posted a list from the International Crime Victimization Survey of the percent of people who report having been burglarized in the last year. I bolded the African nations.

Tanzania 19.0
Uganda 11.7
Zimbabwe 10.7
Botswana 10.4
Paraguay 8.2
Costa Rica 7.3
Tunisia 7.2
Bolivia 6.7
South Africa 6.3
Columbia 6.0
Argentina 5.5
New Zealand 4.3
Indonesia 3.9
Australia 3.9
Denmark 3.1
England/Wales 2.8
Egypt 2.6
Italy 2.4
China 2.3
Philippines 2.0
Belgium 2.0
Poland 2.0
Netherlands 1.9
Brazil 1.9
USA 1.8
North Ireland 1.7
Sweden 1.7
India 1.4
Switzerland 1.1
Spain 1.6
Scotland 1.5
Portugal 1.4
Catalonia 1.3
West Germany 1.3
Japan 1.1
France 1.0
Austria 0.9
Norway 0.7
Finland 0.3

Those are burglary rates - which do not map perfectly to murder rates. Still, data to chew on.

Randall Parker said at October 29, 2006 8:12 PM:


A lot of factors affect reported and actual crime rates. For example:

1) Urban populations commit crime at higher rates than rural populations. I think greater anonymity is one of the causes. This probably partly explains why less urbanized southern blacks commit crimes at lower rates than more urbanized northern blacks in the US. So does Botswana have a lower urbanization rate than more industrialized South Africa?

2) Functional and non-corrupt criminal justice systems help. Bad criminal justice systems with lots of government corruption (e.g. Russia) hurt.

3) A sense of high civic responsibility helps make crimes get reported and for people to be willing to testify when they witness crimes. This all lowers crime rates. These qualities vary in different regions.

4) Higher incarceration rates help lower rates.

5) Discouraged victims who think the cops won't do anything don't report. Hence the need for victimization surveys.

6) Some governments lie.

7) Some governments simply lack the apparatus to collect all the crime reports.

8) Government rules vary for which crime reports are for real crimes. Does a domestic disturbance call generate an assult report if the woman won't press charges against the man? Do only prosecutions count for some types of crime?

9) Murder is considered to be one of the more accurately measured crimes. But is that true in all countries? Probably not in Iraq right now.

Wunderlust said at October 29, 2006 8:15 PM:

Haha these stats you posted would imply that your property is much more safe in S.African than most of Africa. :-) I guess your car stereo is quite safe, maybe your life is not??

I agree that they might not be good at collecting data but the best you are going to get is the UN and Interpol...so...I would be the Carribean data (just from having been to the Carribean) is pretty accurate for murders. Africa I have no clue.

I would also guess that France is very accurate and although we are mostly talking about Africa, that really stood out to me considering it has more nonWhite minorities than any country in Europe, but has a crime rate murder rate that is very low, lower than Germany and even a Scandanavian country. I would expect from recent news though that property crime would be quite high...judging by the propensity of vehicle burings. :-)

All and all I think that if crime in South Africa is that outrageous by other bantu countries (and other African and black nations) who are close in distance and genetic relationship do not (at least appear) to have high rates of murder...uhm...there are other factors at work that I do not think are often glossed over because it is convient to do so...

Randall Parker said at October 29, 2006 8:34 PM:


First off, South Africa has more than one black ethnic group. Forget what some of the groups are called. Wonder if they differ substantially in their criminality. My guess is yes. Lots of ecological niches in Africa. They must vary in what alleles they selected for in terms of behavior.

France: I vaguely recall (and even think I've posted this) that the majority of French prisoners are Muslim. They aren't behaving well. Though the French government does not allow reporting of crimes to the public by race/ethnicity/religion. Gotta keep the masses in the dark. Currently 112 cars are getting torched in France per day.

I'm confused by your "that I do not think are often glosssed over" phrase. Did you mean the "not"? Also, what factors do you have in mind?

The UN and Interpol rely on national governments for reporting on crime rates. But the victimization surveys are at least sometimes done by researchers who do not work for governments.

BTW, I was amazed by New Zealand's position on that list. Is this due to the Maoris?

The US gets lower burglary for a couple of reasons: Criminals might get shot if owners are at home. Also, incarceration rates are about tops in the world (maybe even higher than Russia - haven't checked lately).

The US has a very high level of criminality. That we have middling crime rates yet high incarceration rates demonstrates that. I think that loss of status by blacks is part of the cause. Immigration, automation, and international trade have all lowered the status of manual laborers and that has hit blacks hardest. Hence higher criminality. Too many of them can't find non-criminal ways to achieve acceptable status.

Randall Parker said at October 29, 2006 8:43 PM:

Ron Guhname has also published a short excerpt from the International Crime Victimization Survey for percentage of population who report being victims of "assault with force":

Zimbabwe 6.7%
South Africa 4.6
Botswana 3.7
Uganda 2.4
Indonesia 1.1
China 0.9
Philippines 0.4

Wunderluster said at October 29, 2006 9:10 PM:

I don't want to make this post too long...because I believe long post are kind of pointless, but...

1) What I know about S.Africa is as follows.

-A lot of crime is between rival tribal groups.

-The President, Mkume (sp) has been praised by the international financial community for his strict adherance to neo-liberal economic guidelines, but this also result in a reduction in spending. Almost 15 years after Aparteid ended many blacks still do not have access to capital, decent education, even good sanitation, and no AIDS medicine. Many still live in the little shanties in the townships they lived in before. Many of the more well connected blacks (especially due to tribal affiliation) through corruption have moved up and gotten wealthy, etc...but most people are not that fortunate.

Even with the extensive affirmative action they have put in place, many are hardly in a position to take advantage of it, you have to have a base level of skills and education. Many blacks are becoming disenchanted with the ANC and this "new S.Africa". They thought freedom would bring overnight economic equality and it has not, and can not so the unemployment rate is ridiculous, I read for blacks it is over 50% (some few years ago). It is not shocking that crime would be high.

-Also a lot of crime is caused by foreign black Africans that have moved in from places like Nigeria and they actually victimize local native blacks and run drug operations. I also know that Zulu have some of the highest rates of crime as compared to other blacks (which considering thier history as warriors who would willingly run righ into British and Boer bullets, this is not shocking.

You have a large population of people who were taught to be and act inferior and to be dependent for over than 3 centuries then you say to them...okay you are politically equal, so act that way. It doesn't quite work that easily. It has not even been 1 generation since apartide ended so...so it is a race. At no point in the past or in the present have blacks and whites in S.Africa been equal in any indicator, the gap in living standards were ridculously wide. So now you have a situation wehre if white are running (increasing in per capita standard living each year on average) blacks have to run even faster to catch up, with limited tools available to them to do so and for some reason people expect this to happen as soon as possible, when the reality is this might take several generations.

-This is like people in America who look at all black ills and forget that in the 1950's over 50% of blacks lived in poverty. In the 1920's there were no public high schools for blacks in many states (Viriginia being one). In 2005 less than a quarter of blacks live in poverty...by 2000 most were termed "middle class" by American standards for the first time in history. This was basically in 1.5 generations since the end of the civil rights moverment, that means that many blacks in America have parents and grandparents who lived under Jim Crow. It seems as if people expect blacks to be equal instantly after maybe 300+ years being taught to be inferior and have this reinforced by the government and just run so fast they reach parity with whites in one generation. I have always thought that was ridiculous. The trend of inprovement is still upward (educational achievement, small business growth, home ownership, etc), not stagnant or reversing so lets give it another 100 years. I mean 100 years to change 300 years of crap existance and culture I think is quite fare.

2) As far as the points you have outlined about crime I do not disagree. The rest I have to look at tomarrow...time for bed. :-) So the Mrs. has ordered so it will be.

Randall Parker said at October 29, 2006 9:31 PM:


You offer the standard liberal interpretation and I think the standard interpretation is wrong. It does not account for a number of factors.

Blacks in the US became far more criminal around the time they were granted more equal rights. Why should that be?

Koreans and Taiwanese lived under Japanese colonial rule. When they came out from under that rule they did not become high crime and high social dysfunction peoples. Instead they created economic wonders. Why should that be? Why didn't they say they were represeed for a long and time and hence time to have illegitimate kids, commit lots of rape, not get educated because they were poor, etc, etc?

The liberal explanation for racial differences is a mythical story. It drops all historical context that doesn't fit with the story's plot. I can point to more examples of races and ethnic groups oppressed in various ways that did not respond by becoming high crime and high unemployment rate and low discipline and low education failures. If the Jews were failures the story would be that Europeans discriminated against them for centuries and hence they are failures.

Wunderluster said at October 30, 2006 3:44 AM:


I'm not a liberal, I generally vote republican, and I'm pretty much consider myself a libertarian. I think you should study history a little more...not trying to be insulting but to compare the two populations is apples and oranges.

Koreans and Taiwanese were under Japanese rule for less than 50 years. During that time the Japanese were harsh to them but it was not so long that they lost their identity and morals, they definately did not turn into a slave class. They were second class in the Japanese empire, but they were not made slaves. They were educated by the Japanese. Infastructure was built, modern electrical systems, postal systems, the list goes on. Look into the history of Taiwan and Korea during colonial times. The Japanese did not need ignorant subserviate slaves. They needed industrial workers and soilders. Very different. Look at Taiwan and Korea before the Japanese colonization. They were backwaters of Asia, Korea was a failed state. Taiwan was very rural and inferior to the mainland of China in many ways...it was very fuedal. After WWII, Taiwan was actually superior in technology to the Mainland (as the KMT who occupied the island found out).

After WWII, Taiwan had hardly been touched and after the KMT fled to Taiwan after losing the Chinese civil war, they got massive aid from the United States during the Cold War. Korea got the same after the Korean war. It's infastructure was devasted (unlike Taiwan) but they got massive amounts of foreign aid not only from Japan but the United States as well for a long period of time, decades.

They were also not democracies. This was in a way a benefit, as both developed military dictatorships who were focused on economic growth and self defense. Anyone who feel out of line ended up disappearing, in prison, etc. Criminals were punished harshly. It was not until a firm middle class developed in both places in the late 1970's, early 1980's did they take to the streets and protest for more rights and reverted to democracy. The average person at that time was educated, could read, had a good living standard. That took over 20 years in Taiwan, and a little more in Korea.

Another fact is they also did not have to deal with discrimination, people blocking them from education, access to capital, crap schools in urban ghettos that were underfunded, etc. These places were faily ethnically homogenous or at least there were no visible minorities who can not assimilate. IN Taiwan the "Shan Di ren" (mountain people) were poor, are still poor, and still discriminated by the Han Chinese...but they are so few in population and live mostly on reservations it does not matter to the majority.

Jews, come on Randell, you are very smart...you know better. Jews in Europe were discriminated against, at times much more harshly than others, we all know that. What did not happen to Jews is they were forced to give up thier culture, they were not allowed to read and write, they were not allowed to practice their religion, etc. What I am saying quite simply is that they were not broken. they were not reduced to "farm animals". In fact their position, although bad, was adventageous because due to the fact they were not Christian or Muslim gave them opprotunities to do things even poor Europeans were not allowed to do...such as banking and trading with Muslims. Both were obviously lucrative...so much so that they were feared and hated for their weatlh on top of being "Christ killers" but when they had to leave a country and go to another, they left with thier culture in tact and they often took capital resources with them (and more importantly education and skills). You can't compare this...

You can point to more examples of oppression? I believe you can. Can you point to another group who is a visible minority, stripped of their traditional culture, had it forcably replaced with a culture that prized ignorance and dependence, had legal government discimination set against them for 100 years after slavery (such as lack of access to education, lack of access to capital) that does better than African Americans? If you can than that will be quite interesting and I would have to conceed something...

Wunderluster said at October 30, 2006 3:59 AM:

You know I thought I found someone that my criteria...the Irish, but not really. They are not visible minorities and they were oppressed, even enslaved at times, on their island. The British were a minority and never erased their culture, not reduced them to chattle...that would not have been very adventageous to the British...the only thing the British seemed to do is eliminate their language (in the East) but not really who they were.

I would also point to several black countries were treated very much like the Irish, in Africa who, although poor, do not have high crime rates. There is more to this than simple oppression. If I took you and made you my slave (and I was a different race so you really stood out) and did to you what was done to African Americans or maybe to South Africans for 20 years and in that time you had a family and I releaed you, I doubt it would change you much. If I did it to your family for 300 years, to the point where they had no ancestral memory of before...well I think your family line might turn out a bit different.

Stephen said at October 30, 2006 4:37 AM:

My partner's mother is South African (albeit from more left leaning english stock rather than right leaning dutch heritage). Anyway, her sister still lives in SA and came for a visit a few months ago. I asked her how things are going in SA (expecting to hear that the place was going to hell), but I was surprised to hear this 58yo conservative white woman reply that she was quietly confident that SA will not go the way of every other post-colonial African country.

She said that politics had evolved from race v race to a more tractable issues based debate - in fact she said that the ANC was gaining white voters from the old afrikaans National Party because it was targeting issues that crossed racial lines such as gangs etc. On the down side, she said that infrastructure is less than it should be, but this was because the SA government had a smaller tax base (flight of white capital), but had to provide real services to all the population instead of just token services to blacks.

That said, her family keeps their money in the UK 'just in case'.

Time will tell.

Wunderluster said at October 30, 2006 5:29 AM:


I have heard something similar from a Afrikaaner I used to work with here in the states. Not much of the white population has actually left since the end of apartied, maybe 3% or so, to my knowledge. This is to be expected. NOt just due to the rise in crime but also just due to the fact I am sure many people were scared of any change in power, and also many would never want to live under the rule they have long felt inferior to themselves (no matter the result). This guy told me many whites are joining the ANC and leaving the more rightest parties, but for the Afrikaaner farmers in the rural areas (staunch right wingers).

South Africa has some serious problems though. Crime has actually be decreasing in recent years, slowly, but the trend is downward. HIV is probably the bigger one. As you mentioned they have big problem is funding. Low tax base, even when the white population was at its maximum there would not have been enough tax revenue to create equal facilities for blacks, but then again that was never an issue, because they wanted to do so. It is not an issue of wanting an education for many, it is an issue of having a school locally in many cases. Having fresh drinking water, medical care, housing, etc.

Also South Africa is lauded by the international finance community for not spending outrageously on social programs, which allows them to get aid...I think this thinking is flawed though. So do economist like Jeffery Sachs and William Easterly. The issue of foreign aid is very very complicated though. Let's just say the IMF and World Bank have some flawed policies which defy some basic economic principles...{more info on that check out the book "The White Man's Burden..." by Easterly, and Globalization and Discontent by Joseph Stigliz).

Big Bill said at October 30, 2006 5:50 AM:

Foreign aid really isn't necessary in Africa. They have wonderful soil and vast mineral wealth. They also have many people. What they lack, if anything, is honesty, diligence, and intelligence. Money cannot solve these problems. With an aveage IQ of about 75 they have hundreds of millions of retarded people who are largely uneducable. Aid to Africa is generally a waste.

Assuming it is even possible, bringing Africa up to first world standards is a century-long effort, requires that Africans accept their inferiority, and that they submit to management by more intellgent peoples. As long as they insist on being in charge, however, any aid money sent to Africa will continue to be stolen and transferred to unnumbered Swiss bank accounts. The Nigerians estimate that some 4-5 billion dollars has been stolen in recent years by the Wabenzi. I see no reason to waste more.

Don't misunderstand me, Africans are generally friendly, gregarious, outgoing, happy-go-lucky people. Unfortunately that is not sufficient to feed oneself or one's race.

Omer K said at October 30, 2006 5:57 AM:

Cruel Intractible Reality... Foreign Aid to Africa = HeadStart on a global scale.
Best to do the cheaper more headache free thing... ignore africa, or set up some form of micronutrition program, beyond that its like burning money.

Omer K said at October 30, 2006 6:06 AM:

Don't misunderstand me, Africans are generally friendly, gregarious, outgoing, happy-go-lucky people. Unfortunately that is not sufficient to feed oneself or one's race.

Posted by Big Bill

Well, Id disagree there. I honestly can claim to be ignorant of the minutae of Africa's population in the past (apart from a reading of Thomas Sowell's books where I pick up a random fact or two). However at some level Africans are capable of feeding themselves. The problem is they have been allowed to cross a population barrier, aka breed more prodigiously because of colonialism. Obviously when colonial control disappears they will revert back to their potential.

It sounds brutal I know, but my point is with a lower population rate/lower concentration of people/less or no urban centers they would be perfectly capable of providing for themselves. In a sense one could say this is a type of White Man's Burden.

Wunderluster said at October 30, 2006 6:18 AM:

LOL...wow I think I will defer to the Nobel prize winners on this issue, none of which agree with the last two post, such as Stiglizt.

Also at Georgetown U., Carol Lancaster would probably not agree either.

First off most of Africa has horrible soil. I don't know where you get your info, but you should read more. Africa is not even close to overpopulated. In the entire continent there are 800 million people a place the size of North America and Europe combined with still some space...that is hardly overpopulated.

Nigeria is a corrupt crap hole, but that is not all of Africa. Botswana, Mosambique, Sengal, Ghana, and Uganda had made very good gains. Botswana is wealthier per capita ($10,500 (2005 est.) than a host of countries in Eastern Europe and South East Asia, mainly because of the diamond industry, but not just that, they don't just mine diamonds...there industry is value added, controlling the industry vertically. This is important. Commodity prices fluctuate a lot, and are unreliable, unless you aer dealing with fossil fuels. Every heard of the "natural resource trap"? Should look into that. Also look into how it applies to multiethnic states. (Easterly did a lot of work on this). As well as comparing economies that have colonial export economic systems. He talked about how the Carribean had a higher stand of living than New England in the 1700's, due to the sugar cain but how that same crop kept them from developing a diverse economy, which eventually put them behind(using real economic data).

If you look at the word of Carol Lancaster and William Easterly. you will see that:

"any aid money sent to Africa will continue to be stolen and transferred to unnumbered Swiss bank accounts."

Are complete lies. Only 10% of the aid ever gets to a country like Africa, much of it is lost in beauracracy, according to the World Bank...before it ever gets to a country. Once there much of it is spent on crap projects many African nations don't need or want.

What the international community expects from Africa is something that Taiwan and S.Korea could do. They expect African countries to be democracies with great ethnic/lingual diversity and develop economically quite fast.

Most of East/South East Asia used the "Strong state" theory of development. They were permitted to do so during the cold war, this is no longer acceptable to the international financial community. If you follow this path much of the AID and also FDI will be cut off. If an African dictator did what Chiang Kai Shek did in Taiwan or Park did in Korea to the locals and how they blocked almost all import (to cater to infant industries) and focused on exports in order to produce economic growth he would be a pariah on the international stage. They would be taken to the World Bank on charges of dumping and illegal tarrifs, etc. The world is quite different since the Cold War. What was important then is to have these countries on our side, so we basically subsidized their growth, those days are gone. Some got in other the wire, other who did not get independence till the late 60's were screwed.

Wunderluster said at October 30, 2006 6:38 AM:

If you look at Transparency International...a recognized resources used by many organizations you will find that some countries in Africa are very corrupt but they are nowhere near the most corrupt, nor do they all occupy the bottom levels of corruption. For example Sengal is really no more corrupt than China.


Bob Badour said at October 30, 2006 7:29 AM:
Can you point to another group who is a visible minority, stripped of their traditional culture, had it forcably replaced with a culture that prized ignorance and dependence

China. Cultural revolution.

Omer K said at October 30, 2006 7:40 AM:

LOL...wow I think I will defer to the Nobel prize winners on this issue, none of which agree with the last two post, such as Stiglizt.


I read globalization and its discontents... though he DOES make some good points, Stiglitz strikes me as a micro-manager economist...instead I prefer Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics.

Milton Friedman endorsed the Bell Curve by the way... which should make you wonder. Also as with every other facet of life, economists are under the taboo which will give them an incentive to keep their mouth shut if they believe that I.Q somehow matters in any way whatsoever. This makes them a biased place (just like virtually everywhere else) to look for searchers of the truth.

Even so, there is always the Econlog.econlib.org blog where they are accepting of I.Q as a factor.

I wouldnt doubt some of the poverty is caused by cultural influences and corruption. But even here we have to realize that culture is at least partially influenced by innate tendencies.

...etc etc etc...

Omer K said at October 30, 2006 7:48 AM:

One final point. In its heyday when socialistic tendencies were all the rage, lots of countries adopted socialism in Africa and Asia. However the only place where success of any sort was achieved was East Asia - Taiwan.

Milton Friedman in his "Free to Choose" Video series says if they instead opted for free markets they would be even MORE successful. You have to wonder why Africa didnt prosper under socialism...

Though its not anything scientific...for what its worth this article embodies my views more or less..

At the time, every patch of jungle with a colonel and a band of torturers had a Five Year Plan for economic development: Uganda on the march. Taiwan, almost uniquely, had results. I saw the steel mill in Gau Sheng, the Jin Shan reactors. On a story for the Far Eastern Economic Review, I interviewed a few of the directors. Some Harvard, mostly MIT. Taiwan is now a serious high-tech manufacturing power. Russian can’t make a decent personal computer.
(End Excerpt)

Wunderluster said at October 30, 2006 7:55 AM:

For everyone: I mentioned Botswana before, I found a pretty good report on them:



Believe it or not, 1949 (beginning of communist rule in China) - 1976 (end of the culture revolution) did not make Chinese non-Chinese. The Cultural Revolution lasted about 1966-1977, you really think 10 years of government serious persecution is enough to erase cultural attitudes acquired over 5,000 years? I have been to Taiwan and Mainland China and I can tell you that the Mainland Chinese are still very much “Chinese”. Yes they have lost some manners and maybe some work ethic in some areas, but that is really superficial.

I would argue more that this is probably true in Russia...because Communism lasted much longer and the people who remember "before" have long died. In China they were very much alive, and many more came from Hong Kong and Taiwan. These areas invested major amounts of FDI and "technical skills" into the Mainland. Russia did not really have this cultural bridge. They were the major investors in China until the early 1990's.

Chinese also never had a culture of ignorance. You may think that communism is an ignorant ideology. I would agree, however even now in China they still say "there are gold in books" something said by Kong Fu Zi (Confucius) long ago. They were "studying" communism in SCHOOLS, Obviously there was a cultural continuity. Chinese still believed strongly in education until the Cultural Revolution, hence the “student Red Guard” they were ‘students’. 10 years of working on pig farms and closing schools does not change a culture. After Mao was gone Chinese went back to school.

Chinese were also not minorities in China. Han Chinese are 94%+ of China's total population. They were definitely not being oppressed by a racially or culturally separate group. It was all Han on Han disaster.

I think the story would be very different if Han Chinese were forced into ignorance for hundreds of years by a repressive group that was different from them racially. You just can’t compare the two circumstances.

Wunderluster said at October 30, 2006 8:16 AM:


"One final point. In its heyday when socialistic tendencies were all the rage, lots of countries adopted socialism in Africa and Asia. However the only place where success of any sort was achieved was East Asia - Taiwan.

Milton Friedman in his "Free to Choose" Video series says if they instead opted for free markets they would be even MORE successful. You have to wonder why Africa didnt prosper under socialism..."

When I said Strong State, I was not talking about socialism. Socialism does not work.

Taiwan, Korea, and to a less extent Singapore and Malaysia were pretty much dictatorship, in that they allowed little to no political freedom but did promote economic growth. They also did something the WTO will not allow today. They focused on export led growth, while at the same time blocking imports and focusing on import substition until their domestic business could be competitive internationally. They often forced land reforms, they had high savings rate which they used for internal investment, often pressuring banks to make "questionable" loans to local industries. On top of getting massive amounts of aid from the West and Japan.

None of this would be accepted today if an African nation did this. It was only acceptable because we needed them for the Cold War to be on our side, so we basically subsidized their development.

I am not saying they did not do some things to help themselves. Obviously thrift, obviously worked hard, obviously sought education, but this trade surplus that developed and the aid allowed them to build schools and to develop industries to employee people.

You can want education all day long and want to work all day long but that is only meaningful if their is opprotunity there to do so.

I would say free markets are good. The problem is markets are only as good as their inputs, when markets are inefficient you will have corruption. When markets are inefficient due to weak financial institutions you will have problems. When markets are inefficient because your chief resource is agriculture but foreign nations subsidized their goods undercutting your price and then have unequal trade deals that basically dump this on your domestic market that is a problem. That is not a good market.

In fact, Stiglizt has said if you add up all foreign aid, it would be nothing compared to the windfall in profits from Western nations and Japan allowing markets to work and not subsidizing their domestic farmers.

To the West free trade is usually..."buy everything we sell, and we will buy a pitiance from you".

That is not letting the market work.

If these nations can not make profit and have excess capital for investment they can not build schools, roads, etc. Most of east asia got this from colonization or Western or Japanese subsidization they did not do this indepedently. China did it by heavy investment from Taiwan and Hong Kong as well as profits from agriculture (they reformed this areas first in the late 1970's).

If you look at Botswana they are able to create this infastructure due to excess revenue generated from diamonds, not much due to FDI. If countries in Africa can't do this, it doesn't matter how uncorrupt the government is or how democratic they will not have economic growth. This is also why the Doha round is such a big deal right now.

Wunderluster said at October 30, 2006 8:58 AM:


I would also say Milton is not specialized in international development. Westerly and Stigliz are...


Stiglitz has won a noble prize for his work. Both worked at the World Bank for many years. Stiglitz is somewhat of a micr-manager, I agree, however Easterly is not, but they both agree on central points, just disagree on how to fix them.

As far as IQ I won't even go into a discussion on that, being that there are a lot of issues surrounding IQ that make it an unproven science. There is no general agreement in the psychiatric and psychological community on what is really measuring, how variable it is, if it can be changed, if it is a symptom or a cause, etc. Much of the research I have seen is too easy to fall under criticism, has shoddy research techniques, and little peer review. Much research is also funded by some questionable shady (outright scary people). This is problematic at best. At worst we can not change it, so I want to focus on what we know is wrong and what we can change.

Botswanans to my knowledge supposedly have low IQ's but the average Botswanans is quite wealthy by global standards and they are doing very intelligent things with their economy. So their IQ level is not really hurting them. Will they produce rocket scientists and perfect human cloning? Maybe not...but that does not mean living in absolute poverty is acceptable either. If they can accomplish these things than other nations in African can as well. That is what I do know. We also know what the problems are on the ground…the argument in the economic community is how to fix them, not that they do not exist.

Wunderluster said at October 30, 2006 9:42 AM:

I apologize to you all, I shall take my league. I checked out some of the blog rolls for this site.

Vdare and this one http://westernsurvival.blogspot.com/

Uhm...yeah I get the picture. Nice disguise, but same old movie...I've seen it before.

You know, while I was an undergrad, I believe the first year, I had to read a book on the immediate aftermath of Colonialism, there was a lot of focus on France and the UK.

French society was in upheaval and had the war in Algeria, but I think it was more traumatic for the British. The loss of Empire.

Western civilization has been hegemonic in the world only about 500 years, and I think it will be for a while still, but that hegemony is in decline. This is not necessarily bad or strange to me, it is a natural cycle. I think in our lifetimes we will definitely see a global shift in power...actually we are seeing it now. In my work with WTO issues I definitely see it.

I actually welcome the change. I do not fear it. I think we need to "get in where we fit in" to coin a Southern phrase. This is not the end of the world. For many old Brits the end of empire was the end of the world...they talked as if Britain would fall to pieces and the world would collaspes. It did not. Not even close. The new shift will be painful if you attempt to stand in the way of the tsunami instead of ride it. I am a proponent of globalization, and I find the opposite to be, quite simply, bad for business. There will be social upheaval and for some it will be psychological painful I am sure, and it is to be expected...but it is not the end. If anything it is the beginning of post-nationalism, which I view as an evolution in and of itself.

We just are not going to see eye to eye on much and blogs are usually a reflection of the owners views...which definitely are not mine, nor that of my friends and family. I also do not believe it reflects the ideology of the average American. Thank God for that. I do not fear the future. I do not want to appear a troll. I will take my leave. Thanks for the conversation.

Bob Badour said at October 30, 2006 10:52 AM:
I do not fear the future.

Congratulations. Is there a point to saying you don't fear stuff that nobody fears much?

I do not want to appear a troll. I will take my leave.

Does this mean you prefer to surround yourself with those who agree with you? While I would prefer your posts were shorter and backed up with some empiricism, I don't see any reason why you should leave.

Omer K said at October 30, 2006 1:48 PM:

The problem is you seem to consider us closet 'hatists'. This is throwing the baby out with the bath-water. There is no room for thinking on the margins. In other words whereas SOME of the people who read sites like Vdare are hatists and MANY of the people who read sites like Amren are hatists and MOST of the people who read sites like...say... stormfront (?) are hatist not all are.

If you want to restrict African Blacks from coming to America and the reason is African Blacks have a 6-10 fold violent crime rate (like rape which this topic is about) it doesnt make you a hatist... it makes you a rational being who is concerned that his wife, daughter, or daughter's daughter will be raped in the future.

Of course theres a grey area that Vdare will readily attest to... for instance if we let in a lot of, say Jews or E Asians (Im south-Asian myself as you may or may not guess from my nick) then we lose higher level jobs if they happen, on the average to be smarter than 'us' (by 'us' I mean Caucasians here). Naturally its not that easy to make the case because having smarter people around increases the economy at a whole...but some people, rightly or wrongly, would prefer to earn 30,000 in a top job than 32,000 in a 'near the top' job. Are they hatists? Maybe. As I said its a grey area.

The of course you have the unequivocal hatists themselves. Perhaps people who, while they wouldnt take part perhaps, have no problem with a holocaust of sorts happening again. But the seamless way one category flows into the next is my point here.

However most people in all three categories are somewhat against blacks because unlike the other categories which may breed resentment they provide services as well. The Blacks seem to be unequivocally bad in the sense that they commit crimes and live off of welfare.(both of which the others do not).

Life is tough. Theres no rhyme and reason. Your solution seems to be to deny the facts so we dont have to face our own internal and societies inconsistences. This might SEEM like a good answer, but it has hidden costs as well (See EndNOTE*). For instance this blind egalitarianism leads to a burgeoning welfare state because we can NEVER EVER say people are even PARTIALLY responsible for being on a low place on the Totem Pole of life (I say partial because I BELIEVE it is partial, not to placate you. For example, read some of Thomas Sowell's books to see even factors that can keep a people down, though hes far from the whole story). We can NEVER EVER stop immigration from Africa which will increase crime and an underclass because we are all alike inside.

(Another problem of blind egalitarianism is to lead people in the middle to be pushed towards hatist sites or even hatist points of view... in life we choose not between utopian choices but what is available ergo if we put a taboo on discussion instead of a free market, people will be pushed to hatist people because they are the only one who speak even half of a very important truth).

This is not to say when we talk about reality problems will DISAPPEAR. But they will be attenuated greatly. Differential sexual preferences and proclivities and indeed even saving and thrift rates between the more intelligent races (and criminal differences to a lesser extent) will still cause friction. But my point is it is a lower level of friction.. massively lower in the sense that the reason we are so concerned with racial matters is the BLACK (and perhaps Muslim?) crime rate and welfare rate. The differences between the problems caused by the more intelligent (of course on average) races interacting is on an order of magnitude lesser than with the mentally ungifted and the intelligent.

In summary, no one really wants you to leave, though we may get frustrated or angry at you if we sense you are being Politically Correct. So far I havent been either.

*END-NOTE (Another problem of blind egalitarianism is to lead people in the middle to be pushed towards hatist sites or even hatist points of view... in life we choose not between utopian choices but what is available ergo if we put a taboo on discussion instead of a free market, people will be pushed to hatist people because they are the only one who speak even half of a very important truth).

Steve Sailer said at October 30, 2006 2:01 PM:

I never believed all the white southerners' sob stories about a big rape outbreak in the defeated South during Reconstruction after the Civil War, the kind memorialized in "Gone with the Wind" and "Birth of a Nation." But then the same thing happened after the fall of apartheid in South Africa.

Randall Parker said at October 30, 2006 5:53 PM:

Omer K,

Regarding people who make $30k who are at the top versus those who make $32k who are lower down: Clearly people will prefer the former for a couple of reasons:

1) People have hard-wired desire for higher status. This is something that most economists just don't want to deal with. They want everyone to support an economic system that maximizes average per capita GDP. The internationalists among them want to maximize world per capita GDP. I got news for them: Most people do not think that way and pretending otherwise is as wrong as pretending that communism is compatible with human nature. I favor keeping people more split up into separate societies with separte status hierarchies precisely so that more people can be on the top of more hierarchies.

2) Some assets (e.g. land) are in fixed supply and go to those who have the most money. Imagine an America with a quarter of the per capita income but where your own income only went down 25%. You'd be able to afford a very nice ocean front house in Imperial Beach or Laguna Beach or Santa Barbara.

I've come across a study or two of college student surveys of whether they'd prefer to make more money total or more than others but less than would be the case in a different economic system. The majority preferred the latter system. Anyone know where to find links to such studies?

Randall Parker said at October 30, 2006 6:15 PM:


Okay, let me get this straight: You shifted from Rasfarengi to The OneWhoKnows to Wunderluster. Then as Wunderluster you pretended to have just wandered onto this blog and suddenly to be shocked that I have VDare and AmRen on my link list and attribute differences in national average behavior to genetic causes. Never mind that we've discussed IQ research in private and I've taken the time to give you links to research papers on psychometrics research.

Cheeky devil!

Oh, and the standard liberal "haters" tripe. It is such hard work to persuade by evidence and reason and so this is what you shift to?

Omer K said at October 30, 2006 6:40 PM:

Warning: Devil's Advocate type post.

Yeah agreed more or less. I did say its a gray area. But in actuality the picture may get murkier when you realize
'Mr. Near the Top' gets to Lord it over 50 other people lower down in the hierarchy. Maybe the economist's concept of a trade-off is involved here, in the sense that 'Mr. Near the Top' wont like it for a mere addition of $2,000, but would grudgingly accept it for $4,000 (even if he doesnt know it at the time)? Meaning the economist's concept of Marginal Utility is at work

For instance, The Africans throw out all non-africans in year 1, but in year 10 try to get them to come back. This implies a trade off. Nor is this behaviour limited to Africans, though it might apply more strongly to them. Catherine the Great in Russia threw out the Jews and then induced them to return, giving a secret message to her border officials not to ask immigrants for their religious status etc etc simply so Jews could come back in. Id bet a similar history could be drawn from the Jews other experiences around Europe and also from the Chinese experience in South East Asia.

To veer off-topic ever further... it would be interesting to speculate how this process has affected the Jews evolutionarily. There was a rather famous paper recently (I forget the name) that argued that the Jewish high level of intelligence was caused by evolutionary pressures from being forced into niches of money-lenders and financiers. Makes sense. (Askenazim Jews have an I.Q of between 107-117 depending on which researcher you ask).

But to take its logic further.. The Jewish intelligence profile is lopsided...they are absolutely STELLAR in some ways and humdrumly normal in others... this would suggest a form of mutual symbiosis had formed between Jews and their residential hosts. In year 1, Hosts want Jews there because Jews do their banking so well. In year 10, people are pissed off because all the bankers are jews...then jews are expelled... wait a decade...start process all over again.

The interesting thought Im trying to convey which I have not seen speculated anywhere before is that FROM THE JEWS POINT OF VIEW this is mutual symbiosis as well. Thought Experiment: Jews could go off and make their own country, but when they did they have too many natural bankers but no natural engineers and architects.. and no society can be without engineers. And the irony is this situation was probably caused by Jews being forced to operate in niches in the first place!

I guess the Human Condition itself is meant for upheavals every once in a while

Kenelm Digby said at October 31, 2006 3:52 AM:

Botswana only has a relatively high GDP per capita dur to the revenues from foreign owned and foreign managed diamond mining concessions being distributed amongst a sparse population - not much genius needed there to create a prosperous economy.
The enormous HIV positive rate seen in Botswana doesn't say much for the average IQ level in the country.

Randall Parker said at October 31, 2006 3:59 PM:

Omer K,

Regards Jewish IQ and natural selection: See my post On The Evolution Of Ashkenazi Jewish Intelligence.

On trade-offs and what people would be willing to pay for: But how to make it exact and guaranteed? I figure if we set thresholds for immigrants (e.g. minimum IQ of 140 and degrees in engineering or sciences) we could get a pretty good trade-off. But I can't prove what the net benefit will be to everyone else.

I'm seeing rising housing prices and thinking that in many regions of America more people are a net negative. If they are dumb they just take up space and cost money. If they are smart they bid up the price of housing even higher. We've wasted far too much prime real estate by letting in dummies. So now all people compete.

Look at the price of wood. It'd be a lot cheaper if the population was half its current size. If the world population was half its current size oil would be much cheaper and the environment would be far less polluted.

mike said at October 31, 2006 6:55 PM:

Could any honest person have predicted that post-apartheid South Africa would have worked out any less miserably than it has? South Africa's decline into being just another African country will be a significant object lesson to the rest of the world regarding the failures of multiculturalism and "racial reconciliation."

How long will it be before South African blacks realize they are actually worse off under their own leaders than they were under apartheid? I don't know, but I suspect it won't be too long after whites start the large-scale abandonment of South Africa to the Africans. Anybody who thinks sub-Saharan Africans have what it takes cognitively to make a westernized, industrialized country, like South Africa, function effectively is deluding themselves.

Engineer-Poet said at October 31, 2006 8:54 PM:

You're assuming they'd settle for low-status positions in a healthier economy.  This sounds great to economists, but it isn't how humans are wired socially.

nz conservative said at November 2, 2006 12:16 AM:

I wouldn't trust that figure for New Zealand burglaries. For example, in New Zealand most people don't have deadlocks on their doors, while in Britain everone does. Burglary rates are on the increase though.

Crime rates do a lot from region to region, so maybe I have a skewed opinion. Crime rates are about two-thirds higher in the upper North Island than in the South Island. Most of the Maori and Polynesian population is located in South Auckland and Waikato, and these areas have the country's highest crime rates.

Also, as has been pointed out, some counties have better reporting of crimes. Small western countries like New Zealand, Switzerland and Finland tend to have very efficient, user-friendly, centralised bureacuraries that keep very good (if politically correct) statistics on crime.

I suspect that in some countries, a lot of domestic violence goes unreported.

Rob said at November 4, 2006 8:23 PM:

I don't think he's Rasferingi, not crazy enough. Though he does confuse US and African blacks frequently.

Engineer-poet, I saw a NYT article (maybe by Kaplan) that most Zimbabwean blacks preferred white rule, but they didn't at the time, and if things got better, they'd kill whites again. Possibly American blacks who feel discriminated against here would be willing to pick up the White Man's Burden. They have 15 or so points of IQ on Africans, and maybe look enough like the natives to reduce resentment.

What got me in the article "...alcohol abuse and educated mothers were associated with both partner and non-partner rape." Educated mothers? Is this the downside to empowering the women to improve the third world? Maybe wunderluster is right: The black communities of the world have to have a huge fraction of the population imprisoned to have any chance of functioning, even in poverty. Even as a matter of disease transmission.

I know, you think 20% how can that work? Easy, unemployment is over 20%, so the economy(lump of labor fallacy, I know, but these are low skill countries) does not need 20% of them.

I often wondered why the Brittish brought Indians (the coolies) to build things in Africa with all those Africans around to exploit. No one's ever quite explained it to me. Here's my try: the Africans could not learn the skills to do anything as complex as working on a railroad.

A summary of Wunderluster:

SA has higher murder rates than other African countries. Most violence is black on black crime. The Zulu are violent and dumb. Unemployed blacks dedicate their time and energy to crime, instead of more productive activity.

Taiwan, etc got rich with repressive dictatorships: Blacks need to be under martial law, with harsh punishments for crime.

African Blacks lack the minimum abilities to take advantage of affirmative action.
Anyone have numbers on SA/US technical vs. clerical work numbers? It is much harder to hide bad technicians than to hide bad Human Resources and DiversityTraining Managers.

Most SA blacks have not managed the basic improvements to their living space that are a common sight in other areas of the third world.

There are so many blacks in SA that the whites (tax base) could not provide facilities for them. Why the blacks can't do it, well they are..? There are no lessons here at all for countries where the tax base is declining relative to the burdens. None at all. What? Are you a racist?

Africa has poor soil: Just look at Zimbabwe, the whites must've taken all the good soil with them to Mozambique.

Africa is not overpopulated: But agriculture can't support them. Only people/area count for overpopulation, not any measure of carrying capacity.

Some African countries are poor because they have few natural resources, others, because they have a lot. Somehow, this does not apply to Botswana(white, Indian, or Asian managerial class, maybe?)

Africa did not have "Strong States" with governments that were brutal and repressive enough to develop them. No mention of Idi Amin and the Ugandan miracle(oh, wait, there was no miracle)

Africans had their cultures destroyed, and replaced with one that valued ignorance. African countries have great linguistic(cultural) diversity.
Oh, almost forgot: Diversity is bad in Africa. But all these culturally diverse African peoples, they all prize ignorance.
Despite loving ignorance, they want education, which whites don't provide them. It seems Africans can't educate Africans either.

But, he does think that Africa will get rich and powerful: globalization hurts Africa, but is good for everyone else.

Countries like to send goods to Africa, but don't want anything in return. This makes Africa poorer.

Post a comment
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
Remember info?

Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©