My views on charity

STREET-RIOT

African migrants go on the rampage in southern Italy.

About 6 months ago I noticed a friend on Facebook was doing some kind of sponsored event to raise money for Africa. I stupidly asked her why people do fun activities like walking the Pennine Way, or stupid activities like pouring cold water over their heads, as a way of raising money. Why don’t they just ask people for money and forego the fun/stupid bit? Or even better, why not just work an extra 6 hours and donate the proceeds to a charity rather than running a marathon? My point was, why not use your time and energy constructively and raise money instead of doing something pointless and asking others to sponsor you?

My friend didn’t really get what I was saying and asked me to clarify, at which point I dug an even deeper hole for myself than the one I was already in. My explanation was rubbish and since then I have heard nothing from either her or her mother, who is actually the person in the family I know best. The latter now refuses to answer my emails. Mothers are very protective of their offspring.

So let me just lay out my views in all their horridness. Firstly, as stated above, I think that asking for money to do some activity which is either pleasurable or pointless is daft. You’re going to cycle around southern France this summer or have your head shaved ‘for charity’ and you want me to give you money for this? Look, if you are going to raise money for the aged by weeding an old person’s garden then I will gladly donate something. But the bit about me paying for you to parachute out of a plane, forget it.

Next up is the charity you are raising money for. Most experts on fundraising for Africa agree that charity has probably done at least as much harm as good. The money often undermines the work of local entrepreneurs who are trying to get a foothold in the market, or it goes to corrupt government bureaucrats and criminals who know that the worse they can make the situation, the more western money will flow their way.

Just one example. Some African criminals cut off the limbs of children in the knowledge that photos of limbless African children will move rich westerners to give more money. People who donate are therefore the cause of more amputations. If they stopped giving, the amputations would stop. Apart from this, foreign aid and charity nullify any incentive a poor country has to improve itself. After all, the more it improves, the less foreign aid and charity it will receive so better just to make a mess of your country and watch the western money flow in.

Yet it would be dishonest of me to suggest that I am only concerned about the welfare of African people. Another concern is the effect charity to Africa has on my own people, white Europeans.

I think there are already too many people in the world and there are certainly too many people in Europe, especially England. People in the environmental movement agree with this and think a reduction in the world population would be a good thing. On this planet there is already a huge demand for limited natural resources like water, food and fuel and some people are worried about climate change, allegedly brought on by human pollution. I therefore welcome the falling birthrates of native Europeans, and white people generally.

Yet the population of Britain is increasing, not decreasing. This is due to mass immigration and to the high birthrates of Muslims and blacks. For this reason we constantly need to build more housing and more green areas disappear.

I realise the falling birthrate of native Europeans means that there will be ever fewer workers to pay the pensions of our aging population and young immigrants partly fill this gap. However, there are other ways this can be managed, just as the Japanese are managing it without resorting to mass immigration. Increased efficiency through mechanisation is one solution.

Importing millions of young immigrants into your country, some of whom go straight onto welfare and stay there, only exacerbates the problem of pension funding rather than solving it. What a country needs is not young people per se but people who work, regardless of age. An unemployed young migrant is more of a drag on society than an in work 65-year-old. And even if the old-timer isn’t working now, at least in the past he has contributed to society and thus deserves to be looked after in his old age. The unemployed immigrant has never contributed anything and the country owes him nothing.

Unlike white birthrates, African birthrates are booming. In 1900 white people constituted 25% of the world population with black people around 15%. Within 30 years whites will represent only 7% of the world population and by the end of this century Africans will make up 40% of the world population, having added an extra 3 billion people. If these Africans were happy to stay in Africa none of this would matter but that is not the case; many are not interested in helping to improve their own countries; it is the West that is doing that. Instead they prefer to move to the already prosperous societies built by previous generations of whites who probably thought they were working hard to secure the future for their own grandchildren and their own people rather than the grandchildren of other ethnic groups.

Though western technology, medicine, aid and charity haven’t managed to raise the standard of living of African countries to that of western countries, they have enabled some Africans to make just enough money to pay people traffickers to get them across to Europe. After reaching Europe these generally fit, strong young men set about settling in, often on welfare, and then send for the rest of their family. So while some charity goes to fund the lifestyle of thugs, criminals and corrupt politicians the rest goes to people it was intended for but who use it, not to improve their communities, but to escape them and come to our already over-crowded continent.

As long as people are envious of the lives of others they will always want to move to where things are better and Africa will always be poorer than the West, no matter how much foreign aid and charity the West throws at it. This is because Africans are, in general, not the same as whites. James Watson, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, pointed out several years ago that the dysfunction of Africa and other black societies appears to have a genetic component, a heretic thought that cost him his job. In today’s world you are simply not allowed to say, even if you are the Nobel Prize-winning geneticist, that some racial groups might be naturally less intelligent or less industrious than others.

I see no reason to think that the greatest living geneticist was wrong on this even though some politically correct hacks in the media think they know better. I just don’t buy the idea that the West can improve Africa’s standard of living so much that Africans won’t even want to leave their benighted continent. As long as people in the West are richer, others will always want to come, no matter how far above the poverty line they climb.

Also I really don’t see why it is the West’s responsibility to pull Africa out of poverty. Why isn’t it Africa’s job? After all, if James Watson was wrong and all people are equal then surely Africans should be able to drag themselves out of poverty, just as we in the West did a century or two ago. Or is there something special in the air or the soil that makes it impossible for Africa to prosper? Why is it precisely the people who claim the West should be doing more to help Africa who are also the ones that insist that Africans are just as intelligent and just as industrious as we are? These hypocrites should just come right out and say that Africans need help because they’re not very good at running their own damn countries. And if they think this is racist and wrong, then they should explain why Africa still needs our help after many decades of foreign aid.

I have a Christian friend who sends me videos of educated black people claiming the only reason African countries are poor and backward is because of the legacy of slavery, colonialism and the stupid way European nations carved up Africa along straight lines rather than taking into consideration such things as ancient ethnic boundaries between warring tribes. Er sorry, did I say ‘warring tribes’? I meant perfectly peaceful tribes who are at one with nature and each other.

While not denying that the British treatment of other peoples probably left much to be desired, I think a sense of proportion is in order. People have to be ruled by someone and it’s not as though the options for an African peasant were to be ruled by either the British, or an enlightened local chieftain in the mould of Justin Trudeau. British rule was almost certainly an improvement on most of the black chieftains who ruled over African people.

The standard of living of most colonised people went up rather than down under British rule. And if Britain really is to blame for making Africa a basket case, is this something Africa will never recover from? While the Japanese and the Germans rose out of the ashes of the Second World War just as strong as they were before the calamity, Africa seems unable to get over the presence of half a dozen blokes in white flannel suits who brought order, the rule of law, property rights, trains and basic infrastructure to their continent.

If we are really as guilty as our educational establishment, the BBC and the Guardian seem to think, why on Earth are we now inviting millions of people who surely have a grudge against us into our countries? Donating money that will enable someone who hates us to get to Europe is like telling them you have just killed their mother and raped their sister before giving them your address and the fare to get there. Won’t these people be angry when they get here, especially when they arrive in huge numbers and we begin to teach them how evil we have been to them in the past? Either we should stop peddling the jaundiced leftist view of our horrible history or we need to cease inviting these aggrieved people to our countries.

It seems likely that Africans and Europeans have two different reproductive strategies. European women generally have just one or two children that they carefully nurture to adulthood. African women on the other hand tend to have lots of children, often by different fathers, who are mainly brought up by their siblings while the mothers go out looking for a new temporary husband. The single parent family is not a recent phenomenon peculiar to Detroit but is a feature of African life.

Richer nations have stepped in and taken it upon themselves to make sure that as few African children die as possible, without asking Africans to limit the number of children they have to just two or three, as other ethnic groups do. This is a mistake.

It was largely the white race that built the modern world and enabled everyone, including Africans, to live longer, healthier lives and for more children to survive. I find it unlikely that blacks and Muslims are going to take up the torch of human progress from whites when the latter constitute only 7% of the world population. Some people appear to believe that simply by coming to Europe, Africans will turn into model citizens. Yet common sense and all experience suggests otherwise. Blacks in America still hugely underachieve and commit a disproportionate amount of crime, despite having been in America for hundreds of years and free from slavery 150 years ago. And it isn’t just in America. Blacks have high crime rates and low levels of academic achievement wherever they are in the world. White South Africans didn’t start acting like Africans when they moved from the Netherlands and Britain to South Africa so I doubt that the Africans now moving to Europe will suddenly change their behaviour, nor will their IQ scores suddenly rocket from 70 to 100, though they might creep up a bit.

I am gloomy about the future of Europe. By making sure that no African child dies without a concomitant demand that Africans restrict the number of children they have, or that they stay in their own continent, the West is ensuring that the future of the whole world will be blacker, in both senses. Only people who assume that genes are irrelevant to a person’s character could be sanguine about these developments.

So is there a solution? The only one I can see is for westerners to stop giving foreign aid and charity to the two groups, Africans and Muslims, that are overpopulating the planet and spilling over into Europe and North America. By artificially inflating black numbers we are effectively committing white suicide.

I don’t think that even Muslims and blacks who look forward to the day when whitey has lost his alleged privilege will benefit from our demise. After all, over the last 500 hundred years it has been almost exclusively white people who have produced all the advances in any fields of knowledge you care to name. Though east Asians are now stepping up to the plate a little more, I don’t see much reason to be optimistic about blacks and Muslims doing the same.

Anyway, I’m sorry that my friend and her family disliked my views so much that they broke off contact with me. They are a nice family and we have known each other for 30 years, though we have never talked about these issues before. It must therefore have come as a shock to find out how nasty my views are, especially as I always seemed so nice.

Whether or not they understand my views, I doubt. The progressive liberal bias of the education system and the media has made it practically impossible to talk reasonably about such things.  Yet even if they understood my views properly I still don’t think they would like them. Criticising charity is very much a minority pastime and our falling out is probably due more to the incompatibility of our views than to a misunderstanding. They probably wonder now why I spent so much time talking to a Sikh woman at their son’s wedding, given my views on dark-skinned people. (I did so because she was nice and interesting and the fact that she and her family live in Britain has nothing to do with my views on either charity or Africa. In fact I am pleased that Britain took in so many African Asians when they were being thrown out of Uganda and Kenya. Apart from that, I don’t blame any immigrant for coming here. My gripe is only with the white elites who foisted mass immigration on us against our will).

While I generally think it’s best to air your views and to hell with the consequences, even if this means losing friends (I have lost one or two in this way recently), I now regret having commented on my friend’s Facebook page. She is not a political animal and does social work with disabled or disadvantaged children. She is just someone trying to do good in the world who didn’t deserve to have her good intentions questioned.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in General.

One comment on “My views on charity

  1. tamimisledus says:

    Valuable, well presented argument.
    Yes, of course, these charity supporters are well-intentioned, no doubt, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s