A man in the UK wrote this to me. See my answers below:-

Hello Jan,

I’m happy that there is a sensible voice out there for the far right. I unfortunately, don’t agree with your scaremongering.

If things do pan out the way you describe, didn’t we create it in the first place? You’ll find we did by suppressing the Africans. You can easily see how the resentment gathers, just look at this site. Imagine what they thought when we kicked them out of Sophiatown and created Triumph as an example.

I can understand why they would want revenge but currently they have been more tolerant that the far right. Look at ET! What a fool. That guy should of been put away for life. He tried to use scaremongering and nearly brought us into civil war.

There are extremists in all societies and there will be loads of people with great resentments towards an individual with white skin. We’ve got to see past that and try as a COUNTRY and not as white people to move things forward else I’m unfraid, we’ll still be in this pickle. With that sort of opinion you are no better than the ANC and what you are talking about will become a self filfulling prophecy.

As an ending note, I will be visiting this site more often and do like what you are trying to achieve here, though it’s not of the same opinion as I. The best of luck.

Looking forward to your correspondence.

Regards,
John Parker

[Hi John,
You raise a series of deep questions here, and make no mistake, I am debating some of these thoughts with MYSELF.

Firstly, I don’t think I’m scaremongering. The signs are clear. Things are going to come to us. I’m just ahead of many people, pointing out the trends before this hits us like a train. There is plenty of evidence pointing out that we are going downhill.

But you raise the question: Did whites bring this on themselves?

That’s a deep question. The views you express are the “typical Liberal” type of views. And I have always been open-minded towards the Liberal viewpoint – make no mistake.

I believe, that it is not for ME, to oppress another human-being. But, I grew up in a system which was that way.

Then… one has to ask oneself, now why did the system evolve that way? And that in itself, is a deep set of questions.

Let me point out to you up front, that Liberalism, of the sort you espouse, has not brought one iota of good in Africa in the last 50 years. Zilch. Yet, in the prior decades, things like Colonialism and even Apartheid brought development which has never been matched – ever.

So I think one is sitting with two essentially different approaches: The one theoretical and highly moralistic. The other which is practical, and which actually works.

Can immoral things work? Well… yes… because maybe there are deeper factors at work.

S.Africa in particular has a fascinating history. S.Africa, for the last 150 years has been torn between two forces: Liberalism Vs Nationalism. Liberalism as espoused by the English/British/American viewpoint. Nationalism as espoused by the Afrikaner.

I can see how it is the Apartheid came about and how this country became the mess it did.

The way I see it is this:-
The British, with their world-empire view, wanted to be nice people and didn’t want to oppress the blacks.

The Afrikaners had their own culture and religious outlook and they just wanted (like the original Americans) to get away from British rule. The Afrikaners became “an African tribe”. As a White tribe, they lived among Blacks, and they interacted and fought with them, as the blacks do among each other. But, this White tribe, soon got the upper hand, and could dominate completely. But the Afrikaner motivation always was: SELF RULE. Afrikaners want to live by themselves and do their own thing.

The British saw, especially when Gold and Diamonds were discovered, that soon the Afrikaners would control much of Southern Africa. So the British, especially Milner, decided to break their power before they became too strong.

Hence the Boer war. The British won. So Liberalism won. But, in this battle between Liberalism and Nationalism, the British forced the Afrikaners to do something they did not want. The forced the Two Afrikaner republics and the Two British Colonies to merge into one country called S.Africa.

The Afrikaners then continued their “war” clandestinely, and managed to wangle their way to the top. But now, instead of ruling their two little countries, they now ruled an even larger area.

As always, the Afrikaner really just wants his country, so they created Apartheid. The blacks get some land, the whites get theirs.

Apartheid could have worked. Apartheid DID give blacks some self rule. They did have countries, they did have Govts, etc. You cannot deny this. These things existed.

But the blacks could not succeed with that. So, many blacks, instead of living in the rural areas, went to the cities which fell in the White country – which is NOT where they were supposed to live. They were supposed to go and develop their own countries in their own homelands. But they could not… and so they returned to the cities.

And that’s where Apartheid fell down.

Now history is fill with irony. Robert Mugabe today is doing exactly what Apartheid did. He is forcing urban blacks to live in the country – and he is also failing.

Why is it that White people can farm and prosper and black people cannot? The blacks under Apartheid could not develop their rural areas, and the blacks under Mugabe still cannot – and neither can blacks do that anywhere in Africa! Its simple – when white people leave – things collapse.

I would have been a Liberal, and I would have had the same views as yours, but for one simple fact: These black people are incapable of doing many things which other races do with relative ease.

So you cannot apply the same logic to their situation because they cannot make it work.

Let me make another simple point. Consider this:-
If under Apartheid, blacks could not rule their own homelands, then how, after Apartheid, will they be able to rule the whole country? Are the failures of the blacks under Apartheid’s Homeland system, not 100% proof that they will fail when given a bigger task?

If you take a child, and give him an arithmetic test, and he fails. Would you expect to give that same child a HARDER arithmetic test and then expect him to succeed?

Do you see what I’m getting at?

Liberalism aside, these people, are a problem all by themselves. Their own societies collapse. Their own ability to rule themselves is weak. These people are barely capable of feeding themselves when left to themselves.

This leads to so many problems. And how does one solve this problem? Let me tell you – they cannot solve their own problems. They can’t.

They’re like children, they have to be led. When they are led, and organised – which is what Colonialism did – then they prosper. Take away that leadership, and they collapse.

Now, once they collapse, they enter into a vicious spiral of hell. You can see this in many black African countries. Once they collapse, all hell breaks loose. They can fight among each other for decades leaving them even worse than before.

One could argue, with 20/20 hindsight, that Whites should never have colonised Africa. True. Then, Africa today would have had ZERO infrastructure, and the blacks would be running around with spears, living in huts, etc. You could argue that morally, this was the right thing to do.

And maybe, Liberalism is actually a way of achieving the same thing. Give them self rule and leave them to self-destruct. Come back in 100 years, and those that are left (because many will die off from lack of food, AIDS, etc), and in 100 years time, most of Africa will contain blacks living in huts, hunting with spears, etc.

But if you look at history – across the world – the strong conquered the weak. The able, created thriving societies. The strong live, and they take control of the weak and the stupid. Colonisation was natural. If England did not do it, the Chinese would have (and they may yet).

I DO understand the root concept and logic of Liberalism:
We need friends, we must live together, we must not make enemies out of black people – not to mention the moralistic point of view of leaving them be – setting them free. If they die, then so be it, its not on our heads.

But I also see the other side, which is, that with a little bit of intervention, that a failed continent could become a continent with promise. But it might require white/asian leadership of blacks.

Many decades ago, people used to speak of “The Black Problem” – and that is really what it boils down to. There is such a thing. If you leave blacks alone, in Africa, they will go nowhere.

But stop for a second. We’re talking here about White Liberalism towards blacks. What about Black Liberalism towards Whites? Is there such a thing? I actually think not.

I think Blacks will *NEVER* admit their own weaknesses. They will want to maintain a facade of “equality” even though they know in their hearts they are not our equals in ABILITY. So now, we whites will be “oppressed” by having to live under their system. We will have to suffer their non-achievement.

Take a look at the 200 White farmers from Zimbabwe who went to Zambia and in a few short years transformed the economy of a country 1 1/2 times the size of France. 200 White people… living among 10 million or so Black people… totally changed EVERYTHING. But, the Black Govt is now EMBARRASSED by this. It slapped 17.5% taxes on them, and forced them to pay their black workers wages which were more than 10 times higher than the wages they paid the blacks in Zimbabwe. Now those white farmers will be ruined. And when they are ruined, Zambia’s economy will go back down again.

Can Blacks ALLOW Whites to SUCCEED?

I say they CANNOT allow Whites to SUCCEED because they will see it as a threat.

Deep down, that Black Inferiority complex will force them to destroy the whites.

The Whites in Zimbabwe nearly knocked Mugabe out… throught their clandestine influence in the MDC.

We are stuck here in Africa with two groups of people with completely different levels of skills and ability, and we have a problem.

In normal biology, among herd animals, one sees a pyramid structure. The males battle with each other for superiority and a rank structure comes into being. The strongest lead.

Now one has this same structure among humans. The clever and the brave rise to the top. The few control the many. Our society is driven by the few elites who have gained their rank through their struggles and now they lead society. The success of that society is dependant upon the cleverest and bravest leading it.

What does one do in Africa where the cleverest and bravest might be the few whites? Natural law would dictate that they should rise to the top to lead society because they are the “most fit” to lead it – not so? Ergo, Colonialism was a success because it worked according to “the natural order of things”.

Now you come along, kick out the whites, and put some incompetants at the top BECAUSE they are black. We decide that Whites leading Blacks is IMMORAL, therefore, Blacks should lead themselves because they are the majority.

We suppress the whites with talent – because they are white, and we promote blacks who don’t have much talent – because they are black.

How will this society survive? The incompetant are now leading… Will it prosper? Can it prosper to the same extent as the previous order? I say it cannot, and it will not.

But what about the Whites who are more competant? How must they live and survive in a society of incompetance where they can see things going wrong and do have the ability to fix it, but they CANNOT because they are white. Is this also not oppression? They are not allowed to rise according to the natural order of life? They can do battle, like the animals, and they can rise, but they are not allowed to – because they’re white.

Well, I say, the whites must break away and do their own thing. I say: If its immoral for Whites to oppress Blacks, then its immoral for Blacks to oppress Whites.

So why not then part company?

And finally John, let me tell you this: Even though Post-Colonial Africa is largely a big fat failure… it is not as big a failure as it should have been. Why? Because Africa has been propped up for decades with billions and billions of dollars of foreign aid. Africa gets $25 billion annually and it is not enough.

My point is, that if things were left “to nature”, all of Black Africa would have collapsed into a complete heap within about 3 decades – and that would include S.Africa.

My point is that foreign aid makes blacks appear to be more compentant than they really are. Colonial Africa never got foreign aid. Colonial Africa had to finance itself. It got ZERO HELP. And yet, with ZERO FINANCE, it succeeded and achieved far more than post colonial Africa could, even with tens of billions of foreign aid pouring into it.

I am all for Liberalism, but as I see it, Liberalism is missing something. Liberalism does NOT take into account things like ability. Liberalism assumes, without any proof whatsoever, that all people are equal – and in the case of Africa – they are not.

While White people may want Liberalism, I do not think Liberalism exists in the black mind to the same degree. Blacks may really be striving for Nationalism.

It could be that the Afrikaners, and the Blacks, are of a completely different mindset to that which emanates from Britain and the USA.

As things stand. I am quite convinced that the Liberal strategy will be a complete flop in Africa and that in the long term, Nationalism will be kicking in.

Feel free to join my forums. You will find many white people in there who either still live in Africa or once did. Ask them their views.

But as I see it… this “Rainbow Nation” experiment in S.Africa is going to fail.

When I started this website, 4 1/2 years ago, White S.Africans were screaming me down. When I tried to have my book put in certain bookshops, sometimes White people would complain and ask that my books not be sold there! White people complained – not blacks. Whites – rich whites. Do you know what… nowadays, I even have some non-whites who visit my site regularly. Some of them absolutely hate me, but others see some of the merit in what I am saying.

I would see more hope for Africa if we could create more CONSERVATIVE NON-WHITES! Now that’s something I’d like to see more of. Those are the kinds of non-white people I could actually work with.

And I would predict that if Conservative Whites and Conservative (pro-Western) Non-Whites got together… on an UNEQUAL BASIS… AGREED TO MUTUALLY BY BOTH SIDES… then you’d actually see some success in Africa. Neither Communism, nor Liberalism, nor Socialism will save Africa.

There is one final comment I have about Liberalism. Liberalism assumes up front that you cannot win and that you must pander to the weak and the stupid. Liberalism assumes that you must suck up to everyone. I disagree with that. You do not have to be friends with everyone all the time. You do not have to kiss everyone’s backside continually. Sometimes, a man must stand up for what he believes in. Sometimes you have to be unpopular. Sometimes, the unpopular man is doing more good for the world because he is defending a crucial principle that everyone else is too spineless to stand up for.

White people around the world must stop being so wimpy. We must start standing up and defending crucial principles upon which the future of this world depends. Jan]