, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


While contemporary attention is understandably directed toward demographic movements in the Muslim World, another phenomenon, of equally great consequence, is occurring without much being said about it.

This is the demographic explosion of Sub-Saharan Africa.

Even if Muslims manage, as their growth rates suggest they might, to conquer Europe’s cities, their victory will almost certainly be short-lived. In time, and with the certainty of mathematics, the Arab Paris will turn blacker and blacker. The same with the Turkish Berlin, the Pakistani/Bangladeshi London and the Berber Amsterdam. The future population of Africa and much of Europe will be black African.

Let’s look at some numbers.

The average fertility rate for a woman of European (‘white’) ancestry is 1.4 children. In Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia and Libya, the rate is around 2-3 children per female, significantly higher than the European rate, but falling gradually every year.

By frightening contrast, the fertility rate for a woman of Nigerian ancestry is 6-7 children and rising. In Niger, the rate is as high as 8 children. In Somalia, the rate is 6.4 children. In Mali, the rate is 6 children. In Angola = 6: Uganda = 6: The Gambia = 5.8 and so on….

In a United Nations listing of countries arranged by fertility rate, 38 of the top 40 countries are in Sub-Saharan Africa (the other 2 are Yemen and Afghanistan – both exceptional cases created by war).

Samuel Huntingdon remarked upon this in his ‘Clash of Civilisations’, though this part of his narrative has largely been lost beneath the more immediate concerns of terrorism. In a short but vital paragraph, the academic predicted that although initially – in the early 21st century – the chief concern of Europeans would be the threat of Islamisation, this would later give way to a fear of ‘Africanisation’.

The demographic projections would seem to confirm this.

Of the many consequences of Africa’s boom, some will be beneficial to the West, and some potentially destructive. In the former camp, it is fair to say that Black immigration will be a North African issue long before it is a European one. This may interfere with or confuse the Islamist project, given that African Islam is not as organised and ferocious as Arab Islam and also that a sudden shift to multi-racialism can bring about an instability conducive to Western exploitation.

In the latter camp, Europe risks being completely inundated and transformed. The tragedy of the boats last week is just a foretaste. The boats will get bigger, safer, faster, more frequent and more heavily laden.

And Europe will not be able to campaign as openly against Black migration as it does against Pakistani, Arab or Turkish immigration. Hostility to Muslims is broadly accepted by the Middle Classes as common-sense. Black People are far better protected by political correctness and this will make political resistance more complicated.

White people more or less like Black people. I like Black people. The American elite likes Black people. In America, a show of Black public solidarity for Africans in Europe would make it extremely hard for European youth to speak frankly about the issue without being outcast from their generation.

The matter requires nuance and feeling. If the black immigrants are legal (no boats please) and Christian, I suppose this would be one way of replenishing the workforce currently shrinking from Western infertility. And even if they are Muslim, I would speculate that black people are more likely to give up faith if offered material reasons for doing so (compared to Turks, Arabs and Persians, for whom Islam is entwined with ancient pride).

What decides ultimately is proportion. Europe cannot take every boat that washes up on Italian or Maltese shores. Nor should large-scale immigration continue at all without popular referenda. Immigration of some sort is economically necessary, but the native people of Europe must be in charge of its scale and (just as crucially) its content.