If you're free today, thank a white man

On 25 March 1807, King George III assented to the Slave Trade Act, which abolished the slave trade in the British Empire. On 1 January 1863, President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. These two White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant countries were two of the earliest to abolish slavery. Others lagged far behind - Saudi Arabia only outlawed slavery in 1962, at a time when the world was castigating Rhodesia and South Africa for their treatment of uncastrated blacks.

Why is there all this talk of evil white and Western oppression, when they are the ones who freed the slaves? In the thousands of years of recorded history, nobody has done as much to eradicate the scourge of slavery, as have white people. White people set everyone free. It is high time a little gratitude was shown. If it wasn't for white men, there would still be slavery worldwide as there is in Libya today.

If you aren't a slave, you should thank a white man. They're the reason you're free. Let's celebrate this anniversary of the Slave Trade Act of 1807 by thanking white men for ending so much oppression throughout the globe.

DA loses 4GW battle to ANC

Ah. Civilisation. What a wonderful word. It means no worries, for the rest of your days. Well, actually, it means:

an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.

Another thing it could mean is:

any type of culture, society, etc., of a specific place, time, or group:
Greek civilization.

I pondered these two meanings after reading of ANC supporters disturbing the peace at a memorial on Human Rights Day commemorating the Langa Massacre. Mayor Athol Trollip, of the DA party, appears to have merely stood by weakly, and done nothing to restore order at his event. I say his event, because as mayor he is responsible for events such as these. In a 4th Generation Warfare world, he lost this battle decisively.

In what ways did he lose? As a representative of the state, he failed to maintain order, which is the state's raison d'être. As a leader, he failed to project strength and instead appeared weak and cowardly. As an opposition to the majority party, his side was shouted down and drowned out.

How could he have done better? Now we come to the interesting part. First, we look at some important facts about the event as it happened, based on the Herald Live article and the embedded video:

1. The ANC used posters with ANC logos to get a lot of supporters to attend.
2. The ANC used government, not party, money to pay for the posters.
3. There was little, or even no, sign of security and police presence.
4. All attendees, ANC and DA, appear to have been poor, non-white township dwellers, presumably from Langa itself.
5. Trollip is an old white guy, who wore a button-down shirt and a suit jacket.

Trollip could have done something beforehand to prevent the chaos. He could have done something at the time to end the chaos. He can do something after the fact to turn defeat into victory.

Before the event, Trollip could have charged an entrance fee for the event. Sure, everyone in the area is impoverished. But a nominal fee tends to keep out the worst of the riff-raff, and donating the funds to a worthy cause eliminates the "greedy white guy" narrative. And if the ANC used municipal funds to pay for posters, the DA could have at least sponsored DA attendees with DA party funds to cover their entrance fee.

Trollip could also have played the same game as the ANC, putting up posters with DA logos for the event, but kept the moral high ground by using party funds instead of municipal funds to pay for them. It is counter-productive to stick to rules of decency and fair play when your opponent fights dirty. Especially when your opponent is also the referee, as is the ANC who control the national and provincial governments. When they go low, don't stand up straight and take the punch to the groin. Fight fire with fire, and pack the audience with your own people.

During the event, Trollip could have embraced the Hama model: Swift and overwhelming force to remove the threat and restore order before anyone has time to complain about the vigour of your response. Once he knew there would be a lot of opposition attendees, he should have made sure he had enough security or police to maintain order. And when the disturbance started, said men should have swiftly removed the troublemakers, preferably to be charged with whatever the South African government calls disturbing the peace. The earlier and faster this is done, the more effective it is. Removing the instigators immediately, and in handcuffs, sends a signal to the followers of the consequences. A somewhat more civilised (first definition above) version of the Israeli method of kneecapping riot leaders with a suppressed .22.

If Trollip didn't want to maintain order, but instead win the battle of recreational rioters, then he needed to embrace a different civilisation (second definition above). Ditch the upper class Western clothing and dress like your audience. Appearances count, and he definitely didn't fit in - his DA supporters looked like the ANC supporters, except in different colours, while Trollip looked like a friendless nerd. Get down in the trenches and fight: Instead of calling for order and being polite with "comrades", match their style. Tell them to "voetsek". Call them names. Speak as though he was one of the people, not the outsider he obviously is. Or at least have a deputy who can do so convincingly, since by his physiognomy I doubt Trollip is capable. This would have been more feasible if the DA had packed the audience with their own supporters beforehand.

Appearing weak as he did has a downside. Most people respect strength more than weakness, especially in non-white nations. But most people also feel sympathy for someone being bullied by overwhelming force. If the crowd feels you have a fair chance, then you must appear strong and win the physical conflict. But if they feel you are faced by insurmountable odds, then losing physically makes the opposition seem immoral. If Trollip wanted to not win the physical conflict and yet win the moral conflict, he needed to not stand on the stage watching the chaos, and instead put some skin in the game. Wade into the crowd and engage with the recreational rioters. It doesn't matter what he said, because the goal is not to calm them down. While calming them down would have won the moral and physical conflict, it's a practically impossible goal. His goal is to appear to be a brave man standing alone against an angry and violent crowd. If he comes out of it bleeding and bruised, so much the better. The optics of him standing up to bullies garners sympathy, and the moral high ground. But he has to be willing to take the punishment and pain. Again, his physiognomy makes that unlikely.

After the event, Trollip could have used the event for publicity in his favour. There is a narrative waiting there for him to seize it: ANC chair throwers disrupt peaceful DA memorial; ANC violence mars DA's respectful commemoration. Now is the time for him to go on the offensive in the media, instead of saying he won't respond to "nonsense". His non-engagement with the media leaves the narrative in the hands of the ANC, as seen by the plethora of ANC quotes in the Herald Live article, and makes him look like a snooty little wussy. Or something that rhymes with that. It's weak, and it lowers respect for him and his party. YouTube should be filled with videos of the chaos, and audio of the DA's narrative.

He could also play up the corruption and political interference aspects. If the ANC used municipal funds inappropriately, charge them criminally and sue them personally. If the police weren't there because of instructions from above, cause a ruckus about politically motivated chaos and anarcho-tyranny. Sue the ANC as a party for their disruption and any injuries. Capitalise on the existing preconceptions of the ANC as corrupt and the police as both incompetent and corrupt.

But perhaps the DA's biggest problem throughout all of this is their confusion over their own identity. Are they a party who wants to control the entire country, or are they a party who wants to espouse Western values of democracy and liberty and order and civilisation (first definition above). Because the two are mutually exclusive. With an 80% Bantu population, you can't win the country without embracing large aspects of Bantu civilisation(s). And that civilisation is African, not Western, as Huntington observed.

As I've previously said, the various nations of South Africa need to separate. They are not compatible. This does not mean that one is better than the other, for their civilisations evolved along with their people to be appropriate to their conditions. Let the Bantu have the land they won from the Khoisan by conquest, only leave the rest of it to those who want a Western civilisation.

Fun With Numbers: More on Hate Facts

A hate fact is a fact which supports an unpopular truth. Hate facts highlight the dangers of hate speech laws, in that they potentially outlaw the truth and mandate lies. This is not only Satanist, but sometimes comical, as when Indiana tried to define mathematical concepts.

Recently I published some hate facts about why the races in South Africa have different levels of wealth and achievement. I presented graphs showing IQ differences between races. Now I am presenting data specific to South Africa, and I will show that if anything, non-blacks are currently underemployed in South Africa compared to blacks.

***

Professor Jordan Peterson has more than once said a person with an IQ below 83 is pretty much unemployable. Assuming normal distributions of IQ and a standard deviation of 15 for all groups, we can estimate an unemployment rate based on average IQs for the races. Using Warburg's figures, with pumpkinperson's potentials in parentheses, we have mean IQs of:

• White 94 (100)
• Indian 86
• Coloured 83 
• Black 65 (80)

Using Infogalactic's z-table to estimate, we get the following unemployment rates if we assume all under-83 IQ people are unemployed and all over-83 IQ people are employed:

• White 23% (13%)
• Indian 42%
• Coloured 50%
• Black 88% (58%)

These figures are all 2 or 3 times the official unemployment rates from Stats SA:

• White 6.6%
• Indian 12.9%
• Coloured 22.9%
• Black 31.4%

What gives? I hypothesise a combination of under-reported unemployment by Stats SA (because as Friedrich Nietzsche said: "Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.") and employment of lower IQs than those proposed by Peterson. The reason I doubt the unemployment figures is that the white unemployment rate is similar to the unemployment rates in most First World Countries, but emigrés from SA to there report that it is easier to find work there. The reason I dispute Peterson is that I know for a fact many people in South Africa are employed merely to give them a job, not to expect anything productive from them. Anyone who doubts this just needs to drive past some roadworks, and then tell me how intellectually challenging it is to stand on the side of a road waving a red flag at every car that passes.

If we back calculate from the official unemployment figures, we can get an "official" IQ cut-off for employment.

• White 71 (77)
• Indian 69
• Coloured 72
• Black 58 (73)

The three non-black races correlate well, around 71. I postulate that the border for employability in South Africa is somewhere between IQ 71 and IQ 83 for non-blacks. But what of our outlier? Is it an outlier if it covers 80% of the population?

If the black employment cut-off IQ is in reality closer to the norm for the other races, then their unemployment rate is much higher than the official rate; disproportionately more compared to the other races. This is possible, if there are many more blacks not looking for work (if you stop looking for a job, you stop being officially unemployed), as well as if there are large rural segments who weren't included as unemployed because of the nature of their lifestyles.

Another possibility is that BBEEE and Affirmative Action have led to large disproportionate over-employment of blacks compared to non-blacks. This is definitely possible - of those flag wavers I mentioned, I have yet to see a non-black one.

Yet another is that blacks are now closer to pumpkinperson's potential IQ than the other races. This would be the popular option with the establishment, since it implies blacks were treated even worse under apartheid than is commonly believed. Or that the post-apartheid government treats them better than non-blacks...

Incidentally, Warburg used the same analogy before I did: Getting rid of whites is as dumb as listening to Nongqawuse. And Peterson gives a mechanism for Diversity + Proximity = War: Diversity leads to inequality; unequal people in proximity leads to violence.

Hate Facts which Malema won't admit are true

I have read news reports which say whites in South Africa earn more than blacks. I have read reports which claim that 23 years after the end of white rule, it is still the legacy of Apartheid which causes this disparity. I have read about politicians like Julius Malema saying whites owe all of their wealth to blacks.

Not once have I seen anyone discussing innate abilities. Not once have I seen racial disparities in IQ discussed. Not once have I seen it said that maybe the majority of the population just isn't smart enough to get a degree and do a skilled job.

Here are some hatefacts for you, in graphical form. If you want a fuller understanding, here's Jayman explaining it better than I could. Imagine what we would see if we tested more than just IQ, and looked for group characteristics in personality. Would that explain even more?

If these groups differ so widely, it is inevitable that there will be huge inequality. This inequality will always lead to unrest. Resentment will fester, and when it explodes it will be violent. As we currently see in South Africa. Riots, rapes, robberies and vicious murders abound. So how do we lower this inequality, given that the differences in abilities won't disappear for generations at least, if at all?

Divide the country! Let the people separate and group into homogeneous communities, or at least more homogeneous than they are now. The more separation, the better. Split the country as the Cape Party wish to do. Once that is done, divide the new countries into provinces and cantons and municipalities. Shift the government power to the local level as far as possible, so we have fractals - lots and lots of small political entities, internally homogeneous.

Everyone will be happier for it. And it doesn't even matter who gets which part of the country. Leave the resources to those claiming victim status. The mines. The productive farmland. Most of the tourist areas. All of the rainfall. Let them have it. Just leave the non-blacks in the dry, empty corner of the country. And let everyone live their lives peacefully.

Antifragility and the Pareto Principle

I've heard the Pareto Principle stated as "80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes", as well as "half the results come from the square root of the number of participants". Adjusting for economies of scale, this implies that the smaller and more decentralised, the better.

If we apply this to politics, we get the (originally Catholic) doctrine of subsidiarity. I can think of two examples of countries applying subsidiarity, although the first hasn't really been decentralised for quite some time now.

The USA is the United States of America. The USA were previously the united States of America. Now a singular empire, the US was originally a confederation of independent and sovereign states. It was during this phase of their history that they developed their reputation for freedom and the industrial backbone that would carry them to superpower status.

My second example is Switzerland, officially known as the Swiss Confederation. A confederation, of 26 semi-sovereign cantons, which is reportedly so loose that many Swiss don't even know the federal president's name. World-renowned for their wealth, they have also had over 200 years of peace.

Decentralising government to the lowest levels possible allows 50 or 26 groups to experiment to find the best solutions to life's problems. It gives a higher proportion of people (square root of the total divided by the total number of people) who are productive. It is a 3rd Generation Warfare solution, elegant in its simplicity.

And it is the antifragile way as well. It opens up options, has a limited downside and a large upside. If one sub-state fails, not all is lost and it takes less for it to recover. But if one sub-state prospers, all of them can learn from the knowledge and experience and wisdom.

This has worked for the largest Christian church in the world; the world's only superpower; a military so skilled even its enemies call it the best they'd ever seen; the country most famous throughout the world for its wealth; and an investor so rich he says he has "f*** you money". It's time to ask: Is decentralisation right for your country too?