“Dear Mr President, thank you for inviting us to the White House today.

At the outset, I would like to acknowledge that this meeting is far more about what America could do for us than what we could do for America. I am keenly aware that South Africa has a smaller GDP than the Miami–Fort Lauderdale metropolitan area. For us, this meeting could be historic; for you, it’s just another Wednesday. We understand that South Africa holds geopolitical significance to the U.S. primarily because of our physical size and geographical location—and for little other reason.

Let me begin by addressing a topic close to your heart: the violence against farmers. While we may differ on the use of the term “genocide,” the facts are clear—farmers are among the most targeted groups in South Africa, suffering a murder rate three times the national average. We sometimes forget that our farmers employ a large number of people and, more importantly, feed the nation. They deserve to be protected and valued.

It would also be disingenuous not to acknowledge the correlation—supported by credible research—between public renditions of “Kill the Boer” and spikes in attacks on farmers. Freedom of speech exists in South Africa, just as it does in the United States. However, today, for the first time, I want to unequivocally and unconditionally condemn the singing of this chant. Effective immediately, I am banning its use by any member of my party.

Another agricultural concern is the recently adopted Expropriation Without Compensation (EWC) bill. After 30 years of land redistribution, only around 20% of arable land remains in white hands. We do not believe this is wildly disproportionate, given that whites make up 8% of the population and that our white farmers are among the most skilled and sophisticated in the world.

I will repeal the EWC legislation and implement a policy that does the opposite: we will begin a massive program to issue title deeds to the mostly black inhabitants of millions of hectares of land currently held by the state and tribal authorities. This may be unpopular with some traditional leaders, but it will give millions of people security of tenure, assets to leverage, and a path out of poverty. It will enable them to develop viable commercial farms and contribute meaningfully to the economy.

Mr President, the core purpose of our visit is to seek support for our economic development. My party has long been in denial about the importance of economic growth. I now see clearly that one thing and one thing only—economic growth—can lift individuals, or millions of them, out of poverty. Not welfare, handouts, or foreign aid. And while this must begin with our own efforts, we will eventually require massive investment from rich nations like yours.

South Africa has all the ingredients to become a prosperous, middle-class nation. We have skills, resources, and potential. We will now focus all efforts on creating a stable economic and investment environment. This means scrapping policies that hinder growth and make no sense in a market economy—empowerment laws, excessive taxes, trade barriers, and red tape among them.

Once this groundwork is laid, we would like the United States to be among the first to invest in a renewed South Africa—a country ready to compete and take its place on the global stage in the 21st century.

Mr President, all of this would be easier to achieve with your moral support and backing. While we are not a global power and cannot afford to back one horse over all others, we hope to build a special friendship with the United States—and with you.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts and discussing our co-operation further.”

*In time we will further explore on this channel the likely implications for South Africa (or the coming South Africas) of Cyril Ramaphosa choosing to go down the road of guaranteed eventual self destruction, and what that means for us.

If you only ever read one book on the Soviet Union or communism in general in your life, this has to be the one. It’s packed with real history and the amusing and tragic anecdotes about life under communism. It reminded me of the stories of my late friend Yuri Maltsev.

Malice reminds us of the fact that those who 'lead' us astray are most often deeply mediocre people. The only thing separating them from the rest of us is their lustful appetite for power and their ability to persuade their supporters. They rely on breaking our spirit, on making us believe that our efforts are futile and that change is impossible.

The question is are they evil or are they stupid? While we shouldn’t downplay the stupidity of those who rule over us, I believe they are more sinister than they are stupid. If stupidity or ignorance was the problem this would be easily fixed by handing out copies of Thomas Sowell’s ‘Basic Economics’ at government buildings around the world. If the decision makers were just bumbling idiots, wouldn’t they occasionally make the right decisions? But why is every policy these people so passionately support anti human and pro giving the state more power?

“For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” – Ephesians 6:12

Despite the monumental roles that Reagan, Thatcher and Yeltsin played in the ending of communism, the main hero of the story is Mikhail Gorbachev. I didn't think much of him before, but he probably is the greatest reformer and peacemaker of the last century.

The writing was on the wall for communism in the late 80s, but he could have extended the pain and the bloodshed if he had wanted to. Instead he chose peace. When the communist leaders of East Germany, Hungary and Poland begged him to send in the tanks to keep the farce going, he said no.

Gorbachev had been the youngest leader of the Soviet Union since Stalin when he came to power in 1985 of what was then considered the eternal evil empire. On Christmas day 1991 he resigned as an old man from a bygone era. That evening, the hammer and sickle flag flying over the Kremlin was lowered for the last time as all the republics of the USSR including Russia itself had by then seceded from the Union.

In the very last bit of the book, after thoroughly covering the collapse of communism in Europe, Malice shares with us what the white pill is. Despite decades of tyranny, it did come to an end in the end. Even though there was of course no earthly justice for the millions who perished under decades of authoritarian communist rule.

One of my favourite anecdotes from the book is when Helmut Kohl, chancellor of West Germany at the time (1989) visited Poland's newly democratically elected leader Lech Walesa. “You know,” Walesa said, “the Wall will come down soon. I don’t know when, but I really think very soon, maybe weeks.” Kohl laughed in his face. “You’re young and don’t understand some things,” he told Walesa, who was forty-six. “There are long historical processes going on and this will take many years.” The wall effectively fell the next day as all restrictions on crossing it were lifted by the East Germans and Kohl was forced to rush back to his country.

The other hopeful anecdote is of Nicolae Ceaușescu, the secretary general of the Romanian communist party and supreme leader of the country, who had unleashed untold death and misery on ‘his’ people. In the space of less than a week he went from having absolute power to being unexpectedly booed by bused in ‘supporters’ while giving a speech at Palace Square to having his hands tied behind his back and being executed by firing squad in a school courtyard on Christmas morning 1989 alongside his equally pleasant wife. The events were broadcast later that day on Romanian television. You too can see it for yourself on youtube. We must celebrate when bad things happen to bad people. The difficulty though is judging who’s bad and deserving enough to suffer bad things. Maybe we shouldn’t judge. But in the the case of the Ceaușescus that wasn’t very hard.

A quote from the book itself:

“Did they all live happily ever after when the Soviet Union dissolved? Of course not. Utopias don’t exist—but progress does, and so do victories by good over evil. They happen all the time, both personally and politically. 

    The foes of liberty are many and they are powerful—but they are not particularly impressive. They will do everything within their ability to convince others that their might is eternal, that battle against them is pointless and doomed to fail. This is just another one of their many lies. It is said that they will never give up. Yet does wanting power over others mean that they will necessarily get it, and get it easily? Does the fact that they supposedly will never give up somehow imply that their opponents should—or does it imply the opposite? Evil people surrender all the time. At a certain point the costs—in every sense of the term—simply become too high. They are not all-knowing—far from it. They are often not even particularly bright. They are not all-powerful. They are men and women, far closer to snakes than they are to gods. They can, will, and have been defeated many, many times. 

    It is possible that those of us who fight for the dignity of mankind will lose our fight. It is not possible that we must lose our fight.  

    That is the white pill.”

"The Great Divorce” is a Christian allegorical tale, where Lewis introduces a variety of characters who, when presented with the opportunity to stay in Heaven, choose instead to return to the grey town (a metaphor for hell or purgatory). These characters each have their own reasons for making this choice, reflecting various human flaws.

The Big Ghost, depicted as a burly and imposing figure, encounters someone from his earthly life, Len, who is now a resident of Heaven. The Big Ghost is consumed with resentment towards Len, whom he viewed as inferior during their life on earth. This deep-seated anger and inability to forgive manifest vividly in their interaction. Len, in contrast, displays a willingness to reconcile and offers forgiveness, embodying the transformative grace of Heaven. However, the Big Ghost's pride and sense of injustice prevent him from accepting this olive branch. He is unable to let go of his grudges and embrace the humility and forgiveness required for entry into Heaven.

The Grumbling Woman is a character who constantly complains and finds fault in everything. Her constant dissatisfaction and inability to find joy or gratitude in anything leads her to reject the beauty and peace of Heaven. She prefers to return to the grey town, where she can continue to indulge in her grumbling.

The Artist is an artist who is more in love with his artistic creations and his own fame than with the beauty of Heaven itself. He refuses to stay in Heaven because he is told that his art, while appreciated, is not needed there. His ego and attachment to his earthly identity and fame prevent him from embracing the divine joy of Heaven.

The Intellectual represents the skeptical intellectual (a former clergyman) who is so caught up in his own arguments and reasoning that he cannot accept the simple truths of Heaven. His pride in his own intellect and his need to debate and question everything become barriers to experiencing the divine.

The Bitter Mother is a mother whose love for her son has turned into a possessive and unhealthy obsession. In Heaven, she is told that she must love God more than her son, but she cannot accept this. Her possessive love becomes a hindrance to experiencing the selfless love of Heaven.

The Hard Bitten Ghost represents cynicism and a hardened, skeptical attitude towards life and spirituality. This character is emblematic of someone who, through negative experiences and disillusionment, has developed a deeply ingrained sense of skepticism and distrust. He cannot believe in anything good or joyful, even when faced with the beauty and bliss of Heaven. His life experiences have led him to a state of bitterness and suspicion. He believes that everything, including Heaven, must have a catch or hidden motive.

The Ghost with the Lizard - This character has a lizard on his shoulder, representing his sinful desires. An angel offers to kill the lizard, which would allow the man to stay in Heaven, but he is afraid and initially refuses. This character's story is unique in that he eventually agrees to let the angel kill the lizard, symbolising his release from sin, and he transforms into a more solid being, indicating his acceptance into Heaven.

We all know people like this. In fact, we ourselves are like these characters. Our stories and our flaws are not unique. I think these could rightfully be called archetypes. They illustrate Lewis's belief that hell is a state we choose for ourselves by clinging to our vices, prejudices, and selfish desires rather than embracing the transformative power of divine love and grace. For all that can be shaken will be shaken and only the unshakeable remains.

It reminds me of the Carl Jung quote: “Until we make the unconscious conscious (that is to say until we are brutally honest with ourselves about our true desires and motivations), those motivations and desires will direct our life and we will call it fate.

The book is not that easy to read and requires some concentration. The above list of characters is not complete. There are many other characters / ghosts in this book who deserves to be studied. It is a profound work. For most authors it would be considered their magnum opus, but not for a writer as prolific as Lewis.

The gates of hell are indeed locked from the inside.

Most South Africans are very familiar with phrases like “such and such group is disproportionally represented”, or “this demographic is over/underrepresented in this particular sports team or industry”. Political correctness hawks have to a certain extent succeeded in making many of us believe that every possible group or organisation should be demographically reflective of the population, even though this only happens in TV advertisements.

The pointing out of every case of perceived injustice or discrimination is the bread and butter of the typical South African politician or social justice enthusiast. The premise is that statistical disparities would not exist, were it not for unequal treatment.

The reality, however, is that disparities in the way certain groups are represented in certain fields is the norm – not the exception. Thomas Sowell has been described as ‘the smartest man on the map’.

The list below is compiled from two of Professor Thomas Sowell’s books: The Vision of the Anointed (1993) and The Quest for Cosmic Justice (1999):

International studies have repeatedly shown gross intergroup disparities to be commonplace all over the world, whether in alcohol consumption, fertility rates, educational performance, or innumerable other variables. A reasonably comprehensive list of such disparities would be at least as large as a dictionary.

However, a manageably selective list can be made of disparities in which it is virtually impossible to claim that the statistical differences in question are due to discrimination:

1. American men are struck by lightning six times as often as American women.

2. During the days of the Soviet Union, per capita consumption of cognac in Estonia was more than seven times what it was in Uzbekistan.

3. For the entire decade of the 1960s, members of the Chinese minority in Malaysia received more university degrees than did members of the Malay majority – including more than 400 degrees in engineering, compared to 4 for Malays.

4. In the days of the Ottoman Empire, when non-Muslims were explicitly second-class under the law, there were whole industries and sectors of the economy predominantly owned and operated by Christian minorities, notably Greeks and Armenians.

5. When Nigeria became an independent nation in 1960, most of its riflemen came from the northern regions while most of its officers came from southern regions. As late as 1965, half the officers were members of the Igbo tribe – a southern group historically disadvantaged.

6. In Bombay, capital of India’s state of Maharashtra, most of the business executives are non-Maharashtrian, and in the state of Assam, most of the businessmen, construction workers, artisans, and members of various professions were non-Assamese.

7. Within the white community of South Africa, as late as 1946, the Afrikaners earned less than half the income of the British, even though the Afrikaners were politically predominant.

8. As of 1921, members of the Tamil minority in Ceylon outnumbered members of the Sinhalese majority in both the medical and the legal professions.

9. A 1985 study in the United States showed that the proportion of Asian American students who scored over 700 on the mathematics portion of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) was more than double the proportion among whites.

10. In Fiji, people whose ancestors immigrated from India – usually to become plantation labourers – received several times as many university degrees as the indigenous Fijians, who still own most of the land.

11. Although Germans were only about one percent of the population of czarist Russia, they were 40% of the Russian army’s high command, more than half of all officials in the foreign ministry, and a large majority of the members of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences.

12. In Brazil’s state of São Paulo, more than two-thirds of the potatoes and more than 90 percent of the tomatoes have been grown by people of Japanese ancestry.

13. As early as 1887, more than twice as many Italian immigrants as Argentines had bank accounts in the Banco de Buenos Aires, even though most Italians arrived destitute in Argentina and began work in the lowest, hardest and most “menial” jobs.

14. In mid-nineteenth-century Melbourne, more than half the clothing stores were owned by Jews, who have never been as much as one percent of Australia’s population.

15. Even after the middle of the twentieth century in Chile, most of the industrial enterprises in Santiago were controlled by either immigrants or the children of immigrants.

16. More than four-fifths of the doughnut shops in California are owned by people of Cambodian ancestry.

17. In the early twentieth century, four-fifths of the world’s sugar processing machinery was made in Scotland.

18. As of 1909, Italians in Buenos Aires owned more than twice as many food and drinking establishments as the native Argentines, more than three times as many shoe stores, and more than ten times as many barbershops.

19. During the decade of the 1960s, the Chinese minority in Malaysia supplied between 80 and 90 percent of all university students in medicine, science and engineering.

20. In the early 20th century, all the firms in all the industries producing the following products in Brazil’s state of Rio Grande do Sul were owned by people of German ancestry: trunks, stoves, paper, hats, neckties, leather, soap, glass, watches, beer, confections, and carriages.

21. In eighteenth-century Russia, 209 out of 240 cloth factories in the province of Astrakhan were owned by Armenians.

22. Of the 16 000 workers who built the East Africa Railway line from the port of Mombasa to Lake Victoria, 15 000 were from India.

23. As of 1937, 91 percent of all greengrocers’ licences in Vancouver, Canada were held by people of Japanese ancestry.

24. Although less than 5 percent of Indonesia’s population, ethnic Chinese have at one time run three-quarters of its 200 largest businesses.

25. In the early 1920s, Jews were only 6 percent and 11 percent of the population of Hungary and Poland, respectively, but they were more than half of all the doctors in both countries.

Why are different groups so disproportionally represented in so many times and places? Perhaps the simplest answer is that there was no reason to have expected them to be statistically similar in the first place. Geographical, historical, demographic, cultural, and other variables make the vision of an even or random distribution of groups one without foundation.

We find that virtually nowhere on earth are people represented in alignment with any sort of population demographic deemed relevant by those who are dogmatic about equality.

People with knowledge of contemporary and historical South Africa will find point number 7 above especially noteworthy - political power and economic means rarely go hand in hand for the same group.

This is of course not to say that unfair discrimination does not exist. But we have to differentiate between fair and unfair discrimination. Every choice we make in life (the act of choosing between two or more options) requires us to discriminate. Chicken or beef? Whiskey or rum? Blondes or brunettes? An example of fair discrimination would be where a school rugby coach chooses the fit, technically proficient, 110kg guy for his team instead of the unsuitable 65kg guy. An example of unfair discrimination would be where a school rugby coach chooses a player for his team (everything else being equal) based on a personal characteristic which is of arbitrary relevance to rugby (for example skin colour, or hair colour). People living in a free society should of course be free to discriminate for whatever irrational reason, as long as they don’t use coercion or the power of the state to do so.

The idea that people should at all times be equally represented is a deeply collectivist and relativistic view.

It is collectivist because it assumes that all people of a particular group are generic, without individual characteristics.

It is also relativistic in the sense that it assumes that there should be no absolute standards by which any behaviour or achievements be judged, and that a person’s value in a particular area should be seen in the context of their culture or background instead.

Moving away from the only rightful criteria by which people should discriminate, merit, creates an attitude of entitlement for the groups to whom the preferential treatment is given. This leads to inferior standards for all.

To conclude with a paragraph about affirmative action out of Professor Sowell’s The Quest for Cosmic Justice: Those pursuing the quest for cosmic justice have tended to assume that the consequences would be what they intended – which is to say, that people subject to government policies would be like pieces on a chessboard, who could be moved here and there to carry out a grand design, without concern for their own responses. But both the intended beneficiaries and those on whom the costs of those benefits would fall have often reacted in ways unexpected by those who have sought cosmic justice.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now