The death of a Zimbabwean lion named Cecil—who I suspect leftists would care less about if they got the reference—at the hands of a dentist-turned-hunter—but sadly not a dentist hunter—has put the mist-veiled land of “Africa” back in the news. While the focus of this article will not be on Cecil, I would just like to point out that the phenomenon of hunting and conservation in Africa as a largely European/American effort is a great example of stuff so SWPL it’s actually anti-SWPL, i.e. adventure, wilderness exploration, martial virtue, concern for the natural environment in a non-dildo way and the desire to prove oneself in feats of strength. Unfortunately for everyone involved, the tooth pulling gunslinger shot a lion that he wasn’t supposed to shoot and on land it wasn’t supposed to be on. Nevertheless, the millions raised by the conservation and hunting industry in Africa is important to paying Africans with guns to stop other Africans with guns from poaching, so even with this signally tragic loss, there is still a net benefit. It costs money to save Africa's wildlife.
After this story passes, as a society we’ll go back to not caring about events in Africa. This is a real heads-in-the-sand way of approaching things, and I think we should be more concerned. But there’s a twist to my line of reasoning here; it’s not out of pathological altruism towards foreign peoples but concern for my own that I view this as problematic. Africa is no longer the isolated place it once was and we can't just ignore what's happening there. Our (nominal) states, be they in Europe or the Anglosphere, are no longer guarded by enforced borders and vigilant racial immigration controls. And they're better places to live than Africa by any number of internationally applied metrics. Which means...
In the French port city of Calais, thousands of Mediterranean migrants are living in camps in horrible conditions that should make them want to leave. Except they’d rather leave France for the UK than go home. Several have died trying to jump into traffic to ride on the back of cars and trucks entering the Channel Tunnel, which links the Continent with the island of Britain. If you’ve ever wanted something to confirm your beliefs about race, IQ and time preference, this is it. Travel hundreds of thousands of miles out of Sub-Saharan Africa with the intention of getting to Britain to collect your gibesmedats, only to kill yourself in automobile traffic in the north of France. Now, supposedly, we are ought to feel pity for these suffering Africans in Europe. After all, they had no agency in getting themselves into this situation; they’re just oppressed. Or refugees. That means Europe should automatically let them in.
There are two justifications typically given why refugees should be welcomed, both of which ultimately rely on taking advantage of our self-inflicted legalism, i.e. those international laws which mandate we take them in but without any formal enforcement mechanisms if we don't. The first is that refugees are fleeing from horrible conditions and it would be inhumane to send them back. Let me stop you right there—I don't care. You can't destroy your own civilization and then expect me to let you jump ship and come join mine. Especially if you're going to come by the hundreds of thousands every year and turn great swathes of our cities into foreign slums. What entitles you to do this? There's a civil war being fought by your people in your country? You don't like being poor relative to Europe, Anglo-America, Anglo-Oceania and Asia? Your government, which is a product of your culture, sucks? You're gay? Nigerian please. If we have some kind of obligation to take in refugees, why doesn't your country have an obligation to not produce them?
The second retort, usually raised after the first has been dismissed, is that the West is responsible for colonization, which was bad and made Africa bad because colonization racism exploitation oppression, and therefore owes something to the third world. Therefore, these goyim of color have a right to move to Europe (and somehow the US, Canada and Australia too). Because it's not like they were given independence from their European colonizers and inherited countries built for them, along with infrastructure, medical advancements, useful linguistic skills, etc., all atop vast deposits of valuable natural resources. Oh no, the only justice for the population of Africa is to be moved into Europe in order to improve their quality of life as reparations. Boohoo, colonialism was so fucking terrible:
“We want the Chinese to leave and the old colonial rulers to return. They exploited our natural resources too, but at least they took good care of us. They built schools, taught us their language and brought us the British civilisation. At least Western capitalism has a human face; the Chinese are only out to exploit us.” — Michael Sata, former President of Zambia
The conditions that drive Africans out of Africa—living in a society of Africans run by Africans when there are better alternatives available—are only going to worsen, and as such the immigration problem will worsen as well. As reported by Reuters:
Power Africa [a $7B Obama administration foreign aid program] is tackling a critical global challenge. All of Sub-Saharan Africa, with 961 million residents, currently only consumes about as much power as New York City. Expanding energy access will be vital for driving Africa’s economic transformation over the coming decades.
By 2060, the United Nations projects that Sub-Saharan Africans will make up nearly one in four people on the planet. Their demand for power will surely rise steadily over the coming years. But funding power generation alone will not improve African lives if electricity never reaches those who need it to work, play and study.
Africa is literally a heart of darkness. The lights haven’t gone out across the continent because no one turned them on; maybe a few more decades of European-rule would have changed that. New York, NY, home to a few million people, uses more power than almost an entire continent, albeit one of Africans. I don't know about you but that's just insane to me; one city uses more electricity than a gigantic continent. Does everyone just go camping in Africa all the time or something; no wait that's a White thing.
On top of that, the population is expected to keep increasing in real numbers and as a share of global humanity; I don’t see how anyone can look at something like that as anything other than an impending disaster. How many more global citizens can the rest of the world possibly hope to support? I was kind of hoping that if the West died off we'd at least be handing off the reigns of human civilization to East Asia. Clearly something has to be done beyond sitting on our hands and waiting for even more Camp of the Saints episodes in Europe like those in Calais, Sicily, Malta and Greece..
But wait, there's hope!
[W]hat sub-Saharan Africa has really high levels of is not war but fertility. Of the 224 countries with total fertility rate listed in the CIA World Factbook, Gambia ranks number 41. The average Gambian woman can expect to have 3.85 children in her lifetime; and that's low by African standards. In Niger the number is 6.89.
Look at it another way. Africa has added 200 million people to its population in the past ten years. The population of the European Union is 500 million. Let's do a thought experiment here and assume that the Europeans, moved by the plight of these "migrants," admit 200 million of them. Demographic result for Europe: They just increased their population by forty percent. Demographic result for Africa: Their population is back where it was in … 2005.
This will not end well. The current population of Africa is 1.1 billion. By the end of this century, according to the U.N., it will be four billion and some. Except that, of course, it won't, because Dr Malthus is waiting in the wings tapping his foot impatiently.
There isn't anything Europe can do about this. Well, there are things they could do: they could take a billion or two people in to relieve the surplus, but what would that do to Europe? In any case, Europe's people are not going to let their governments perpetrate such an act of civilizational suicide. Read the comment threads on stories in European newspapers about the Mediterranean boat people. Already the word "torpedo" shows up rather dismayingly often.
In short, just don't let them in. Let nature take its course and crash this humanitarian experiment with no survivors. But that's going to require we actually care about our own civilization and its survival first, which used to be common sense. Lothrop Stoddard is rolling in his grave.