Wednesday, June 28, 2017

Responding to Issac

In the blog post Is Africa building towards collapse? Issac writes in the comments section;
"Lauritz (von Gil-Hausen) is prescient here. Africans are morlocks in any situation where they're numerous and approximately close to other human populations. Perhaps most disturbingly, hybrids between subspecies with them are generally just as prone to their characteristic behaviors. The African population boom is a truly under-appreciated disaster scenario while other sub-populations continue the moral farce that oppression is the cause of this behavioral disparity."
Parenthetical and link are mine.

In my article on white nationalism I estimated that blacks would undergo a population collapse equal to all other racial groups, and that this collapse would occur at a later time than other racial groups due to the staggered implementation of urbanization and birth control across the planet. This assumes that blacks respond in a way identical to other races. The potential problem with my assumption is that the ability to even use contraceptives is based on long-term thinking. Do Africans have that ability at the same level as other races? Or rather, is their relative lack of long-term thinking fatal to them? Richard Lynn's Cold Winter' Theory holds that IQ varies by race because cold climates kill off people who lack long-term thinking ability.

Long-term thinking lies on a scale. A group may have less of it and still avoid disaster.

As far as I can tell there are three possible futures.

Possible future no. 1. Africans have long-term thinking sufficiently comparable to other races. They will urbanize and use birth control like all other races. The "black planet" scenario will not materialize. They will not exceed about 3 billion.
Possible future no. 2. Africans have long-term thinking that is comparable enough, but the lack of competent governance is creating land insecurity, and stifling urbanization. Since the biggest factor in decreased birth rates is urbanization, it may be that African's relative lack of urbanization is the cause of its explosive population growth. Land insecurity is a big problem, and it may be complicating urbanization. In this case the issue is one of effective government. See the Brookings Institute article on the issue.
If this scenario is the case, Africans will grow at a moderately high rate, and then shrink either due to collapse, delayed urbanization, or both. They will not exceed 3 or 4 billion.
Possible future no. 3. Africans lack enough long-term thinking that other homo sapiens possess in such drastic disparity that they will follow the trajectory of an animal r-selected overgrowth. The will reach at least 4 billion, probably shoot through this limit, and then die off by the billions. The world will try to feed them until it becomes politically unsustainable. Food prices will rise until the borders are closed. Invest in farm ownership.

A vast human experiment is about to take place. The effects will determine—at least partially—how Africans are viewed as human—or not. A world of 4 billion starving Africans will reach compassion fatigue fairly quickly. Post hoc justifications will kick in, and regardless of the actual cause of the overgrowth: whether liberal food subsidies, insecure land tenure, or African genetic nature, dehumanization will proliferate as the cognitive bias known as the just-world hypothesis kicks in.

Below is a comparison of two graphs. One shows the UN projection of African population growth. Another shows the population of St. Mathew Island's reindeer herd. The second graph is to give you a comparison of what happens to r-selected beings who grow beyond the carrying capacity of the land due to (typically) human food subsidies. This is why governments post signs telling you not to feed the wildlife.

It may be that racists are being a little "over-optimistic" from their perspective, (pessimistic from everyone else's). They sound positively giddy about the prospect of 4 + billion deaths.

My bet is for Possible future no. 2. We will see who is right.


  1. I'd point out a few confounding factors for the first and second propositions.

    Firstly, all urbanization in sub-saharan Africa is foreign in origin. Modern cities were both originally built by colonials and are currently maintained by imported professionals, or at least imported specialists and supervisors.

    Second, while there are superlative Africans to be found, their numbers are insufficient even for an externally imposed highly-selective bureaucracy. This is why, for example, the British empire utilized Indians in South Africa (the "colored," caste of society) for this purpose. Even with a great deal of cultivation among the best Africans, there were simply not enough making the cut to oversee a civil society.

    Third, it takes an absolutely extraordinary amount of manpower and physical violence to govern Africans. One does not appreciate this until they have lived for some time in Africa or, for a slightly diluted experience, in an urban diaspora of Africans in some other land. African governments are renowned for their brutality, but without this brutality they are quickly superseded by better brutes who command more muscle and guns.

    Fourth and finally, compassion fatigue has had a very long time to set in among the liberals of the west. The experience of Africans has been widespread enough in most of America, for example, to have the reality of African behavior drilled into the psyche of most who've encountered them. However, this has not ever had a serious impact on the American ruling class' view of Africans. If America could go from a very race-realist society to an almost comically utopian society in the same time as a veritable explosion of African violence, I see no reason to believe that European liberalism will respond any differently.

    Summarily, I'd say that the extremes of all these observations are rather unnecessary. One need not imagine that Africa host 3 billion or 4 billion, that liberals will tolerate the migration of 10 million or 100 million, that urbanization will be slow going or it won't be going much at all. No matter what the particular case may be, I would posit that the meaningful near to medium term of history will bear out approximate the worst case scenario simply due to the interia of the current factors involved.

    I will acknowledge that things are the roughly same until they are not, particularly in times of upheaval, but I would encourage anyone who is dismissive of the racist view to become more familiar with both African and liberal behavior. Africa is already unsustainable. America already has a population of Africans that are ungovernable. Europe is already reaching and surpassing America in that regard... and yet we have very little indication that any of these readily observable phenomena are making a significant impact on the politics of the ruling class.

    Do invest in farmland though, if for no other reason than the countryside will be the last place to receive African immigrants in significant numbers.

    1. >Firstly, all urbanization in sub-saharan Africa is foreign in origin. Modern cities were both originally built by colonials and are currently maintained by imported professionals, or at least imported specialists and supervisors.

      You forget about Chinese and Indian settling. The Chinese in particular both have a surprus of males capable of combat and a government with little to none qualms about eugenics and hardcore population control.

      The Chinese Colonials won't the mistake of forcing Christian Slave Morality into conquest.

    2. Oh I certainly agree with you about China's morality, but I don't believe they've done anything to curb African birth-rates. Nor do I find it plausible that they would do so. Excess Africans can simply be allowed to migrate northward and become a problem for their international rivals.

    3. >but I don't believe they've done anything to curb African birth-rates.

      They aren't entrenched enough in the continent with too little competitors to prioritize it.

      > Nor do I find it plausible that they would do so.

      It's already been established that Capital selects for the fewest humans around. Nigger Africa's births will drop once further dragged into the Urban World. And even then, the Chinese govenment has shown they will play Demographic Warfare against irritants like Tibetans or Uyghurs :

      The Uyghur example is key since they're the one significant minority who are seperate enough from the Han genetically.