1. In IQ tests administered in many parts of the world, black people
of African ancestry score lower than people of other races. In
particular, they score between 15 and 30 points below whites. The
reason is often given that the tests are culturally biased, but if
this were the case then one would expect more recent immigrants to the
USA to score worse than blacks, whereas in fact it has been found that
Vietnamese people, who emigrated to the USA in the 1970’s, score
even higher than whites! In any case, the test designers have been at
it for many years, and the tests are used to separate the bright from
the not so bright in many spheres of human activity, such as
education, business, the armed forces, and so on. In other words, the
IQ test industry is a 'heavy industry', and it is most implausible
that such a professional occupation would still be using tests where
cultural bias plays a significant role. Furthermore, if the problem
was one of cultural bias, then it should be possible to devise a test
that was culturally biased in favour of blacks, whereas in fact all
the tests show pretty much the same result, a white/black gap of 15
points in the USA and 30 points in Africa.

2. In every advanced country which black people have made their home,
they have tended to suffer the same kind of fate as one would
associate with people of low intelligence. They are more involved in
crime, particularly robbery and petty theft, in substance abuse, have
greater rates of illegitimacy and one parent familihood, they have far
higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases, they are more often
unemployed or on benefits of one type or another, they make greater
demands on the social services. It has been argued that black
communities are in this condition because of white racism, but the
situation for blacks living in Africa, where there are few white
people to oppress them, is even worse, with widespread poverty and
even starvation.

3. Africa is the poorest continent on earth, and is always coming to
the West for aid. It is a continent that is mired in poverty, crime,
corruption, civil war, famine, drought, Aids. You name it! Again,
white racism has been blamed for this state of affairs; in particular,
the British Empire somehow managed to oppress the black population to
such a great extent, and partitioned Africa into states so
thoughtlessly, that the nations of Africa have not been able to
recover since, even until now. But if this were the case then we would
expect those African countries that were never part of the British
Empire to be somewhat better off than those that were part of the
British Empire. Instead we find that the opposite is the case, that
places like Kenya, Uganda, Ghana, all countries which were at one time
part of the British Empire, are in fact better off than places like
Somalia and Ethiopia, which never were part of anyone’s empire,
British or otherwise. Indeed, Liberia and Haiti have been black ruled
for hundreds of years, and they are again no better off for it.
Furthermore, if the British ruined the prospects for its colonies then
we would expect to see Hong Kong, which was under the 'oppressive'
rule of the British for a longer time, to be mired in poverty and
famine too, whereas in fact Hong Kong is one of the wealthiest places
on Earth. The same expectation would apply to places like Singapore
and Malaysia, which are prosperous relative to the rest of the Far
East, but were also once British colonies. If these places were once
ruled by the British and are now richer than their neighbours, then
how can British rule be an explanation for Africa’s poverty? In
any case, the British left Africa forty or so years ago, and even if
we had left it in ruins, well, billions of dollars have been poured in
from all over the world since then, and the African nations are worse
off now than they were when the British left. Just contrast the
situation with that of Japan and Germany after the Second World War.
Both countries were utterly devastated by the war, yet within twenty
years both Germany and Japan were once again the most powerful
economies in their respective parts of the world, and have gone from
strength to strength ever since.

4. If blacks are as intelligent as whites and Asians, then when will
black intelligence reveal itself? When will the conditions be right
for black intelligence to be expressed? Where is the evidence that
blacks can, on their own, create an advanced technological society, -
is there any record of one, anywhere, ever? It seems that the white
Western countries, in particular the USA and the UK, have gone to
great lengths to include and accommodate blacks, what with affirmative
action, anti-racism legislation, the promotion of positive stereotypes
in the media, and so on, but over time the situation gets steadily
worse and worse. Does anyone really believe any longer that just one
last push, just one more law threatening to punish white people for
racism, or granting special privileges to black people, or one more
“fresh start” initiative in London’s schools, is
really going to turn everything around? There are no black minority
communities living in places other than what would normally be
described as white countries, none in places like the Far East, or in
India, so it is impossible to tell whether they would have fared any
better in other non-white parts of the world, but from all the data
that is available, does anyone really think it is likely that they
would? Left to their own devices, Africans had few accomplishments to
their name. There is no record of any written language, or of even a
sailing boat, or two-storey building, African society was (still is)
primitive and its artefacts crude. In earlier times, when people were
not afraid to talk openly about racial differences, it was recognised
that the Africans were dull and unintelligent. Anyone who has had
close contact with black people over a length of time will know that
this perception is generally the correct one. Can one really imagine,
for instance, Heathrow airport operating efficiently if it were
staffed entirely (including the pilots) by blacks. (Just recently
Nigerian airlines was taken over by British Airways).

The evidence of black low intelligence is so overwhelming, and it ties
in so accurately with everything that we observe in Africa and in our
inner cities today, that it impossible not to make the connection. So
why is the manifestly obvious inference never made, why do people go
to any lengths to try to deny it?

Part of the reason must be a desire not to humiliate or hurt the
feelings of blacks. This is a kind sentiment, because it is
undoubtedly true that, rightly or wrongly, human value is closely
associated with intelligence. This response resembles our natural
inclination not to draw unnecessary attention to another
person’s physical disability. But the difficulty with our
wishing to be polite, in this particular case, is that the only
alternative explanation for black failure then becomes that white
people are to blame, which is untrue, and whenever a society (or
individual, or animal, for that matter) believes or tries to believe
something that is false, then eventually it will strike against
reality and come to some kind of harm. As an example, white South
Africans and white Rhodesians always knew that blacks were not as
clever as whites and could not manage these countries like white men
could, so they ran them instead and the countries did rather well as a
result, so that the blacks were actually quite well off, better off
than elsewhere in Africa, and in fact South Africa had a problem with
other blacks wanting to get in from neighbouring states, - illegal
immigrants. The size of the black population in these countries
increased considerably during the years of white rule, because the
whites organised the building and running of farms, roads, and mines
and tapped into the natural wealth of these countries, and this
benefited everybody, black and white. Even neighbouring black
countries were able to buy the surplus of grain that was made
available. But now, as a result of white people losing all their power
and influence in these countries, Zimbabwe and South Africa are in
decline, white people are leaving, and relative abundance has been
replaced by famine and drought, which is damaging the whole of Sub
Saharan Africa. But would there have been famine or drought if the
whites had still been in charge? Imagine the international furore if
blacks had been starving in a white ruled African country? It is
indeed ironic that white 'racist' farmers were successful in feeding
millions of blacks, but left wing do gooders, by agitating for self
rule, are now the indirect cause of much black hunger. The reason is
that agitators for black self rule believed – or pretended to
believe - what happens to be untrue, - that blacks will run things as
efficiently as whites - whereas the white colonialists believed what
happens to be true, - that blacks are not as competent as whites.

The second objection to the argument that 'we should not discuss these
things because we must not hurt the feelings of blacks' is that the
only alternative explanation is that whites are the cause of black
failure, and since white people are the 'accused', then white people
have the right to a defence. It is a fundamental principle of natural
justice that whenever a person is accused of wrongdoing then they must
be allowed to defend themselves, no matter how heinous the crime is
that they are accused of. (Of course, the right to defend oneself
against the accusation of white racism causing black failure would
still exist even if white racism was indeed the cause of black
failure.) One cannot cite white racism as the cause of black failure,
and then forbid that white people should have the right to defend
themselves against this charge. That would be unfair and contrary to
natural justice. And if the defendants, white people, call upon
evidence, the facts assembled in 1,2,3,4 above, that might hurt the
feelings of the plaintiff, black people, then they should not have
brought the charge of 'racism' against whites in the first place.

Hence I conclude that it is reasonable that this line of argument -
the overwhelming evidence of low IQ as being the true cause of black
failure in Western societies, and of the continued poverty in Africa -
should be allowed to enter the debate. I also believe that the
argument is a compelling one and that white people indeed are not
responsible for black failure, and the true cause of black failure
lies in low IQ.

I will assume that if anyone responds to this post with name calling
(I think we all know what name I mean) then they will have
acknowledged that they have lost the argument.