Friday, 7 October 2011


Tonight I watched a programme on Channel Four about the conditions in South Africa "post democracy" presented by that good British man Krishnan Gurumurthy, or something like that.

I can well understand why he was sent to report on conditions as a white man would have been in fear of his life in the shanty towns he visited.

The appalling squalour of the shanty towns he visited with rubbish, open sewers everywhere was a demonstration of typical African life.

One may wonder with what these people would have made their rudimentary shelters of if corrugated iron had not been invented by a British man in the 1820s. Perhaps they would have lived in true native ethnic style in mud huts.
Given the channel it was on, and the presenter with sympathy to the people suffering, the level of corruption and danger to the inhabitants from violent burglary was horrendous.

One woman was even afraid to go to the toilet at night (although I would think a visit in the day would have been wished to be avoided).
Possibly too many Africans about, that was the danger. I'm sure the whites would not have dared to set foot in those slums.
There was blatant corruption in the allocation of houses and profiteering by political heavyweights formerly of the "democratic ANC"

There was also a noticeable absence of men and those who were still there seemed to have done little to improve their neighbourhood.

Squalid though it was townships such as this are ubiquitous all over Africa and are shown in adverts requesting donations for help.
Cameron pledges millions of our money (not his and he has plenty) to help these people.

A question.
Could all this squalour and poverty in a wealthy country blessed by gold diamonds and coal and good land not be in some little way be the fault of their inhabitants?

Could the poverty and squalour in ALL other African countries also richly endowed with natural resources, be in a small way the fault of the inhabitants? After all many of our financial woes are blamed on the native British people.

Yes these people are poor. So were our people 100 years ago and our housing poor (I notice the slum dwellers all had mobile phones) but our streets were not covered in rubbish and we had a semblence of order and progress.

We had local councils who organised the improvement of our communities.
Our bureaucracies, although not perfect were not riven by corruption and our forefathers built a better land for their descendants.

Now areas of our large cities are receeding into crime and antisocial behaviour where knife and gun crime are on the increase. Native British people have left these areas in the process known as "white flight"
These areas in the main are populated by people of African descent who have moved here for various legitimate or other reasons. They are "celebrated" by the proponents of "diversity" as bringing a"vibrancy" to our land.

Of course the origins and ethnic make up of these new colonisers of our cities have nothing to do with increased crime levels

OR HAVE THEY? Is it in the genes?
A cursory look at the worldwide statistics would suggest so.


No comments: