Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, October 30, 2017
This essay is part of our symposium on “the world’s most important graph.”
We asked our contributors to answer the following questions: “What should the white West do about this prediction, and what will we do about it?”
The numbers are stark: In 1950, there were only about half as many Africans as Europeans. By 2025, the proportions will be reversed, and by 2100, there could be well over four times as many Africans as Europeans—4 billion compared to fewer than 1 billion. And by then, who knows how many non-whites will be counted as “Europeans”? After 2025, virtually all the world population growth is projected to take place in Africa, as the population in the entire rest of the world levels off. By 2100, there could be more Africans than Asians.
Nigeria is a good example of this explosive growth. In 1950, it had only about 32 million people, or about one-fifth the population of the United States. By 2050—just 33 years from now—its projected population of 398 million is expected to equal that of the United States, which has more than 10 times the land area and a vastly superior infrastructure.
Many Africans will not want to stay in Africa. There are already some 6 million black Africans and 5 million North Africans living in Europe. An estimated 2.1 million African immigrants live in the United States, that is to say about 3.5 times as many as the total number of Africans brought during the entire period of the slave trade.
Africa is a miserable place, and its people are desperate to get out. The population explosion will put pressure on croplands, which will increase tribal competition and drive people into the cities. The cities are already bursting with people, traffic, crime, garbage, poverty, noise, and squalor. Millions will risk death to get out.
Last year, more than 5,000 Africans died trying to cross the Mediterranean and enter Europe illegally. We can be certain that millions upon millions of the Africans who will be born in the decades to come will try to come to the West, and there are already networks of people smugglers that crisscross the continent. As Tuesday Reitano, a human trafficking expert at the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime explains, “Now, in Sub-Saharan Africa, you’re never more than two conversations away from someone who can get you to Europe.” Europeans better start thinking about this now.
There are signs that at least a few have given this problem a little thought. At a press conference in Hamburg, Germany, on July 8, an African journalist asked French President Emmanuel Macron why there was no Marshall Plan for Africa. Mr. Macron’s reply:
The challenge of Africa is completely different, it is much deeper. It is civilizational today. Failing states, complex democratic transitions, the demographic transition. . . . One of the essential challenges of Africa . . . is that in some countries today seven or eight children [are] born to each woman.
In other words, Africa is not Europe, so a “Marshall Plan” would be a huge waste.
There is no telling how many European politicians understand this; Mr. Macron was called the usual names because of his candor. Nor does a realistic view of foreign aid imply a realist immigration policy.
The most valuable foreign aid—both for Europe and for Africa—would be birth control. If they are wise, Europeans will brave accusations of “racism,” and explain how much Africans themselves will benefit from much lower birthrates.
Whatever we do, the flood of Africans is inevitable. I see three possible European responses. (1) Continue with the bumbling pattern of rescuing anyone who manages to sail a few miles off the North African coast. (2) Keep all Africans out. (3) Try to set up an orderly flow of “refugees” according to certain criteria.
My guess is that the first response is most likely—at least for the next 10 or 15 years. Europeans are fatally sensitive to photos of drowned three-year-old “refugees.” Europe will therefore lurch from “refugee crisis” to “refugee crisis,” with the flow of seafarers varying with the weather, the number of African wars and famines, and the price of a trip to Lampedusa. Just as they do today, Africans will register for asylum claims and then disappear into a largely borderless Europe. When the country with the most generous welfare finally cracks down on freeloaders, they will find the second-most generous welfare.
Furious citizens will burn down “refugee” centers and block busloads of migrants—only to be scolded by politicians and media figures for violating “European values.” The worst long-term outcome could be the near-total Africanization of Europe, with the flow north stopping only when Europe becomes just as miserable and chaotic as Africa.
Some Western European countries will belatedly realize that the Polish-Hungarian-Slovak-Czech model of zero immigration is the only prophylactic against collapse. They will then try to preserve some scraps of Europe by closing borders. These countries will bolt from the European Union, which will promote mass migration until its remaining member states are essentially run by Africans. Eastern Europe will remain largely free from Africanization, but most of Western Europe could descend into chaos.
Ironically, the second solution—keep them all out—is obviously the best and the easiest to implement. And the least likely in the short term. One foolproof way to keep Africans from crossing the Mediterranean would be to declare immigration to be the equivalent of armed invasion and to treat it as such. A few over-laden boats holed below the waterline would cause world-wide outrage, but it would stop the flow—and save lives. Which would the “humanitarians” prefer: The current system that kills thousands every year, or a one-time demonstration that permanently stopped the crossings?
Another stunningly obvious solution would be to catch the boats and tow them back to North Africa. If “refugees” knew they would end up where they started, they wouldn’t set sail. This would be more expensive and tedious than sinking a couple of ships, but it worked for Australia. As early as 2015, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott explained to Europeans that the only way to stop people drowning “is, in fact, to stop the boats.” Europeans say they can’t do this because there might be a genuine refugee or two on board, so they must let everyone in first and then process them.
If Europeans are really compelled to screen for refugees, they should do so outside of Europe. Then they could set a conscience-salving but non-suicidal quota, and let in a few. This will not happen. For such a system to work, there must be no backdoor to Europe, and the backdoor can be shut only by deliberately sinking a few ships or turning them all back. Unless Europe has the backbone for this, local screening for refugees would be pointless because millions would simply come illegally.
Europe’s survival is a question of will; nothing else. Non-whites are pouring into the continent because of collective mental paralysis, not because Europeans can’t stop them. Europe is further paralyzed by the European Union’s supranational authority. The EU is, itself, as committed to open borders as its most globalist members, and its continent-wide authority makes it difficult for nationalist members to protect themselves.
Poland and Hungary are proving that individual EU members can keep “refugees” out—and they risk expulsion from the EU for doing so. For Europe to survive, the union must therefore break apart; the change of heart that alone can save Europe from the coming waves of Africans is unimaginable for the time being at the EU level.
The great Frenchman Guillaume Faye once wrote that unless the generation of Europeans now in their 20s takes action, Europe is doomed. Mr. Faye was writing only about immigration from the Middle East. Africa is a much greater threat.
The defense of Europe is urgent and vital. It is our job to convince our wavering brothers and sisters that it is also supremely moral.