Why Africa Is A Failure

The LA Times had an article recently about Ghana’s Witchcraft camps, where women may spend their entire lives in detention centers (concentration camps, really) after being accused of “witchcraft.” Fair use quote:

Northern Ghana has six witch camps that have been in existence for more than 100 years, accommodating 800 accused witches — almost all of them women — and 500 relatives sent by families to take care of them.Families typically send a young relation, usually a granddaughter or great-granddaughter age 10 to 14, to look after the accused, cook, collect firewood and water, and clean.

The girls also become tainted by the witch camps, drop out of school and can’t go back to their families even after the death of the relation they are sent to care for. Some of these once-young women have been in the camp for 40 years.

“It’s an abuse of the rights of the children in the camps. It affects their rights to education, to play and live with their families,” Kwateng-Kluvitse said.

Any region where this sort of thing occurs is nothing but a failure. And will remain so until it is eradicated. This is why, for all the stories, upbeat, about the future of Africa being bright and shiny, the continent will remain a hell-hole, exporting only raw materials, and run by others (in the past, Europeans, now, the Chinese). But Africa’s failure is a lesson to the West: the utter degradation and powerlessness that comes from a belief in magic.

The BBC reports that child sacrifice in Uganda is a booming business, where the newly rich pay for ritual child murder to insure prosperity, or the success of construction projects.

Yes, it is true that witchcraft trials were fairly common in Europe. As late as the 1600’s. And that Salem had witchcraft trials in which many were hung … in 1692. The last person in America accused (and killed as a witch) was a woman in New York City. In 1798.

The modern world depends on rationality. On logic, reason, and science. All of which if embraced offer not just power, but awesome power. Power to make the ordinary man richer than the richest Pharaoh, and the richest man live like a god to the Ancients. Technology and science are almost, but not quite, at the level of comic books. With drones the size of insects, all networked together, operating autonomously, rovers on Mars, genetic modification to increase athletic ability already proven (in mice), and more. The humble Iphone gives the ordinary person a networked computer able to do things unimaginable in 1975. Like turn by turn directions SPOKEN and a computer that is able to recognize voice commands AND RESPOND. As if out of the film 2001: A Space Odyssey.

All that power, almost but not quite reaching that of Iron Man’s Tony Stark, comes with a price. Power always does. To reach that power, belief in magic, in witchcraft, cannot be allowed to exist. Rationality must crush the belief in the supernatural, and reason and logic must be allowed not just pride of place but the only place. The only thing left is a belief in God, but not one that provides supernatural miracles daily. Like a wind-up pagan idol. No, rather one that is consistent with logic and reason and science and technology.

Europeans from the Greeks onward struggled with logic and reason. The Gods were still given lip service to the most humanistic of Greeks: Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato. Human sacrifice was rare but did happen, providing plot points for famous tragedies. The Romans were much the same. Even the Christianization of Europe, which was long, bloody, and unsteady (in the 1200’s there were regular crusades against the pagans of the Eastern Baltic), belief in near-pagan figures, thinly Christianized gods made into saints, remained a regular feature of life up until the 19th Century. But belief in the supernatural was largely erased by the 19th Century and the power of technology.

It is a mistake to think that the Enlightenment simply washed away the old beliefs, either Christian or near-pagan. Most ordinary people did not sit around and read Rousseau or Voltaire. Rather, they saw for themselves how steam engines worked, and the power they had in pumping out mines, or moving things in the water, or on land on steel rails. They worked in factories and saw how things worked. The rapid urbanization and industrialization changed Europeans, forever, in making them technology oriented.

It did no good to sacrifice a chicken, or a child, and make predictions based on how the body flopped around. What mattered, was being good at welding. Or smelting steel. Or assembling firearms. Or drilling for oil. Or running a steamship. It mattered not if you believed in “death watch beetles” as Mark Twain described in “Huckleberry Finn.” If your steam engine had too much pressure, the boiler would blow up and you would die. All the superstition in the world, all the ritual, meant nothing to the equation of pressure and steam and fragile iron and steel boilers.

The Sioux and Comanche could Ghost Dance all they wished, it meant no difference to portable artillery and Gatling Guns. The power science and technology gave, when you gave yourself over to them, was obvious and immediate. Pursuit of this power changed ORDINARY Europeans and Americans in massive ways. Gone, was the belief in magic, in ritual, in superstition, save the most superficial level. Instead was the knowledge, not the belief but the knowing for revealed fact, that the world operated in predictable ways. Build up too much pressure, the boiler blows. Don’t pay attention to the time and the schedule, your train will run into another. Use the telegraph and you can send a message across the world. Who needs magic when can send instantly a message across an ocean or continent?

The power and rewards of science and technology are open to anyone. Japan, South Korea, and China have all to varying degrees adopted it. It is not hard to see. When the Black Fleet commanded by Perry showed up in Tokyo Bay, the old ways were over forever. The Japanese are still Japanese. But their belief in “fighting spirit” using the old weapons and ways was erased forever then.

Africa has failed to grasp power, in the way that Japan, South Korea, and China have not, because they are unable to do the things that science and technology demand. Abstract thinking, working by formulas, concrete materialism, basic mathematics, basic literacy, are all beyond most Africans. No matter how well educated, and smooth, and determined the elites in Africa have become, ordinary people matter. It is ordinary people, for the most part, that determine the destiny of nations and regions. Leaders may come and go, and strut upon the stage, but the ordinary men and women remain. In mass amounts, their behavior for good or bad, determines how their societies fare.

It is 2012. Africans have access to mobile phones, the internet, and know the outside world. They don’t live isolated lives in the bush, most Africans now live in cities. With radio, television, and newspapers backing up the internet and mobile phones. They know how Americans, Europeans, Japanese, and Chinese all live. They know what power is, and how to grab it. And they can’t. Because they lack the basic ability to read, to write, to do simple math.

The Americans, Europeans, and Japanese, of the late 19th Century, were for the overwhelming part, not performing abstract calculus. They were reading steam gauges and making sure pressure did not build up in boilers to dangerous levels. Still, accidents came. Because an operator was lazy, or careless, or distracted. But overwhelmingly, most of the time, steamships did not blow up. Nor did trains crash into each other, after standardized time and great effort to synchronize watches. Simple things like basic literacy, time zones, and standardized, synchronized watches that lost only a few seconds each week, were enough to keep train accidents rare enough that the public would ride upon them and freight would be shipped by rail. None of this required hyper-intelligence. Or deep, Einstein like understanding of the Cosmos. Just simple literacy and math, of the basic arithmetic level.

Africa cannot reach even that level. Because their people are not smart enough. For the most part. That might change, if say, Chinese or Korean-led genetic engineering offers a “smart virus” that can raise IQ levels. Even the most debased, witchcraft practicing, child sacrificing voodoo priest can see the advantage of being smarter. That future might be sooner than you think. Though likely fraught with side-effects of unbelievable nastiness. Using steroids to build muscles is loaded with nasty conditions. It is highly likely that making people smarter artificially by altering DNA will be even worse in that regard: cancer perhaps, or auto-immune diseases, and the like.

But barring widespread DNA changes, Africa is likely to remain an open, running sore for the world. And eventually be either colonized massively by the Chinese, to the detriment of Africans, or left alone to rot. Either way heralds a disruption of the raw materials Africa supplies to the world. South African Platinum and Gold and Diamond mines have for the most part been shut down by strikes and violence. Those commodities, along with coal, are likely to be in short supply for a considerable time, since production is caught up in the dilemma of post-Apartheid South Africa.

The people, poor and impoverished, wish understandably to live decent lives, lives they can see on the internet, on TV, and hear about on the radio. They certainly know their own lives are awful and getting worse, not better. However, their labor is so useless, because they lack even the basic literacy and arithmetic skills of the late 19th Century European or American workmen, that it is not rational or affordable for the mining companies to pay them a decent, living wage. You can see this most clearly in oil drilling operations in Africa. Despite the major oil companies doing everything they can to hire local talent, most of the production is done by outsiders, principally Asians and Westerners. Companies like Shell would love to pay the lower wages for locals, and also build up employment credits with regimes eager to gain political backing by the people for employment by outside companies at high (for Africa) wages. The problem is, far too many of the locals cannot even read or write, and are not capable of learning even if the companies attempt to teach them (which they have done, many times, for the reasons above).

To a lesser extent, this is true in South America, in parts of South East Asia (Indonesia, Malaysia), and Central Asia (particularly Pakistan and India). These places however, are not as bad as Africa. Which is the worst continent in terms of the average intellectual ability of its people.

Failure of course has its own cost. In this case, shortage of raw materials from Africa, constant refugee flows, and the need to police the same. Israel has had to build massive fences and detention centers just to hold all the illegal aliens from Africa pouring into it, and most of Europe particularly those nations on the Mediterranean will have to do the same, eventually. This will of course in turn require intervention as in Libya, to keep refugee flows at manageable levels and not tidal wave amounts. Which in turn requires a military capable of intervening, and performing “Operation Refugee Stop” which in turn puts a hard limit on the amount of money that can be cut out of military spending in Europe and that which can be lavished on voting blocs for votes.

It would be better if Africa’s people were smart enough to grab the power of science and technology, but they are not. Which has global consequences. In the near-term, shortages of everything from chocolate to gold. In the long term, a constant need to have a military capable of preventing millions of permanent welfare users from reaching your shores as refugees and colonizers.

Advertisements

About whiskeysplace

Conservative blogger focusing on culture, business, technology, and how they intersect.
This entry was posted in economics, society. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Why Africa Is A Failure

  1. Anonymous says:

    Waaay too long an explanation, Whiskey. How bout this: Africa is a failure because it’s filled with Africans.

  2. anon says:

    Waaaay too long an explanation, Whiskey. Howsabout this: Africa is a failure cause it’s filled with Africans.

  3. Heil Hizzle Mein Nizzle says:

    I don’t think this post was too long, because even though all of this should be very obvious, we all face a constant onslaught of propaganda regarding the Majesty of Africa, and our obligation to “save it” with Bono and Bob Geldof. I am surprised however, that Whiskey could not work in some sort of beta male/cuckold angle, since white female celebrities are big on adopting nonwhite babies, especially Africans.

    Well, it’s like Arthur C Clarke said: after certain point technology becomes indistinguishable from magic, so science can either reaffirm or enhance faith in a higher power, just as easily as it can annihilate it.
    My one issue with this entry is that it reeks of what James Howard Kunstler calls “techno triumphalism.” Kunstler recently went to some technology symposium, where all the Malcolm Gladwell-types, the movers and shakers from Silicone Valley were gathered together to talk about the future. They did not talk about light rail, practical retrofitting, the solar alternatives, peak oil, rising water levels, or melting ice caps.

    They talked about flying cars. These are the supposedly best and brightest minds. I believe that we have reached the zone of diminishing returns regarding our worship of technology. Although I would like my Marty McFly hover board, it is more likely that we will move backwards. To the techno triumphalist, I have only three words to say in parting: automated telephone system .

    • Technology and technological societies are not made by flying cars. Rather they are made by welders, and machinists, and skilled heavy equipment operators, and CNC programmers, and oil rig workers. All of whom have to know how to read and write, basic math, including some basic geometry and algebra, and operate on the knowledge that “things don’t just happen” but that machinery responds in predictable ways. Not as Allah or genies will it.

      China from the 800’s onwards had technological innovations: gunpowder, paper money, the compass, and did nothing with it because unlike the West there were not lots and lots and lots of guys who coudl work metal, or wood, the skilled craftsmen who formed the basis of the Industrial Age. Great men are important, but a great people are required for the Great Men to do anything.

  4. whorefinder says:

    I don’t think a Chinese colonization would be a bad thing for the darkies. Traditionally, unless a colonizer simply murdered your inhabitants or took their land and placed them in exile, natives benefited from long-term colonial status. This is why India has a chance at being a world power–the Brits united them, raised up the more intelligent, created a universal system of laws and communication, and spent money developing infrastructure. This is also why ancient locales like Marseilles, Carthage, and Sicily became powers; they were the products of previous colonizations by Greeks and Phoenicians.

    In particular, the more “hand” a civilized people has over blacks, the better off they are—the benefits of Jim Crow and ruthless white punishment of black misbehavior resulted in a flourishing of black creativity and civilization. The Harlem Renaissance, George Washington Carver, Frederick Douglass, Jackie Robinson, up to MLK all were products of a heavily segregated system that enforced standards of behavior on blacks —through both judicial and extrajudicial means–that otherwise could not have taken hold. Yes, blacks still misbehaved—the black crime rate was still high, and “race riots” happened a lot more frequently when blacks were one of the races. But such misbehavior was castigated and met with swift and merciless punishment.

    However, the system undid itself. MLK, the product of such a system, used television and media successfully to convince suburban whites and Yankees from non-black areas—people who had never experienced black dysfunction in the face—to paint the black man as unfairly oppressed, despite full well knowing how trashy his people still were. When those who knew black dysfunction protested the intrusion of the savages, MLK merely broadcast their resistance, and Hollywood played along by developing the narrative of the “hate-filled-ignorant-redneck” who was pure evil, attacked blacks for no reason (hiding black dysfunction from the camera) and had to be overcome (notably, the many Jewish showbiz had a personal stake in this—those who opposed black dysfunction also opposed Jews).

    This is all to say that a Chinese-dominated Africa would be better for blacks than a black-run Africa, much like South Africa was infinitely more civilized and better off under Afrikaner-era Apartheid rather than the ultra-violent, raping-babies-to-cure-AIDS reality of modern Johannesburg.

  5. anonymous says:

    Way too long. Africa is full of africans and White Europeans have been prohibited from civilizing them. The Chinese may improve things, or may not, time will tell

  6. ikko2 says:

    The premodern world is superior to the modern, which gives power and rule to shopkeepers and bug-men (“betas” in Whiskey’s language). In the premodern world the warrior had #1 spot, which is how it should be.

    Afreaka sucked in premodern times too, it’s always been conquered by outsiders (and not just because of technology; lack of battlefield prowess and physical weakness are real problems with black West Africans especially, see how easily the Tutsi subdued the Hutu just to start with… but Whiskey doesn’t know this because…he has bought into the black “alpha male” thing)

    • The Greeks felt that the pre-modern “warrior” based society was a failure, coming as it did with an emphasis on INDIVIDUAL bravery and no communal bravery. The Greeks felt and generally proved that Alpha Male societies could not and would not stand up to a brutal fight of annihilation where the Greek phalanx took killing to … a hard day’s communal work where enemies were literally speared/impaled by the pikes with men all in a line, side by side. Awards were given not for individual bravery and fighting but for men who stood in line, cooperatively, killing like they harvested olives. Ditto the Romans, at their peak.

      This was also true at Roarke’s Drift. The Zulus, having wiped out the British at Islawanda, threw themselves at a tiny outpost of no more than a few hundred men, hunkered down behind mealy-bag fortifications who conducted a fighting defense withdrawing to an inner defensive core, losing a few dozen and killing about 8,000 or so of the enemy. I assure you there were no Alpha males there. Of course, none of those men were sexy, nor were the men who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, nor were the men who designed and built it, nor was the architect of the Air War over Germany and Japan (Curtis LeMay) ever considered sexy. True, terrible mass killing is not some Alpha male posturing for women’s benefit. Or a warrior acting like a primate found in any monkey troop. It is rather the application of WILL and Intelligence in a cooperative manner, and truly terrifying to behold from any perspective.

      • ikko3 says:

        I don’t think the Greeks felt that the world of the Iliad, their Bible, was a “failure.” That’s a modern liberal reading of things. It was their Bible and Achilles, consummate alpha male, was their hero.

        Your VDH take on the phalanx and the Roman infantry is invented by a man who doesn’t really understand how the phalanx first came about (no, it wasn’t “cooperative” farmers, it was adventuring mercenaries/pirates in the employ of tyrants who developed hoplite warfare) and who pushes a bourgeois/Anglo view of warfare in general that doesn’t correspond to reality. Yes, the phalanx worked as a group; no the Spartans were not “beta male” technologists and shopkeepers, and to pretend this is retarded. They would have probably slit your throat after assfucking you.

        Here’s a Greek “beta male” song:

        I have great wealth: a spear and a sword

        and a fine leather shield to protect my skin.

        For with this I plough, with this I reap,

        with this I trample the sweet wine from the vines,

        with this I am called master of serfs.

        Those who do not dare to have a spear and a sword

        and a fine leather shield to protect their skin

        all cower at my knee and prostrate themselves,

        calling me master and great king.

        It was an aristocratic culture. What you call “betas” are the modern descendants of serfs, shopkeepers, and merchants, who were despised in Greek and Roman culture and called “banausics.” Manual labor and unsexy drudgery and technical skill were also despised in medieval aristocratic European culture. To say that Greeks didn’t appreciate magnificence, flash, sexiness, just tells me you read no Greek literature. VDH is pushing a totally fantastical image of things. If anyone would have contempt for what you call “betas” it would be the Greek aristocrats (the real Greeks). By the way, early modern thinkers like Hobbes and Locke understood this; they worked hard to denigrate pre-modern medieval vainglory and valor as well as Greek idealism, recklessness, and honor-seeking. Your prophets of the “beta male” are Hobbes and Locke. But it’s not correct to call it beta, don’t use Roissy speak. Call it the bourgeois, or in modern times call it the Last Man, that’s what you’re talking about. Of course women don’t like that…and they shouldn’t.

        European aristocrats found Indian savage warriors far more respectable than “hard-working” American boring drudges.

  7. ErisGuy@gmail.com says:

    In “After Empire” (republished in _Our Culture, What’s Left of It_), Theodore Dalrymple agrees with half of what you suggest Whiskey, and his observations should be considered, as he was a doctor in Africa for some time.

    “He [the Congolese patient] was an intelligent man…. He had two degrees in agronomy…. I asked him about Mobutu, whom he had know personally. ‘He was very powerful,’ he said, ‘He collected the best witch doctors from every part of Zaire…. He could make himself invisible…. And he could turn himself into a leopard when he wanted.'”

    One person who believed such foolishness (and I have known many New Agers) can live with his beliefs; an entire society cannot be built on these sands.

    But: “African doctors were perfectly equal to their medical tasks, technically speaking…” The problems which Dalrymple details are social obligations, and are not related to race, IQ, or HBD.

  8. GE says:

    Kim du Toit – May 26, 2002 2:40 PM
    When it comes to any analysis of the problems facing Africa, Western
    society, and particularly people from the United States, encounter a
    logical disconnect that makes clear analysis impossible. That
    disconnect is the way life is regarded in the West (it’s precious,
    must be protected at all costs etc.), compared to the way life, and
    death, are regarded in Africa. Let me try to quantify this statement.
    In Africa, life is cheap. There are so many ways to die in Africa that
    death is far more commonplace than in the West. You can die from so
    many things–snakebite, insect bite, wild animal attack, disease,
    starvation, food poisoning… the list goes on and on. At one time,
    crocodiles accounted for more deaths in sub-Saharan Africa than
    gunfire, for example. Now add the usual human tragedy (murder,
    assault, warfare and the rest), and you can begin to understand why
    the life expectancy for an African is low–in fact, horrifyingly low,
    if you remove White Africans from the statistics (they tend to be more
    urbanized, and more Western in behavior and outlook). Finally, if you
    add the horrifying spread of AIDS into the equation, anyone born in
    sub-Saharan Africa this century will be lucky to reach age forty.
    I lived in Africa for over thirty years. Growing up there, I was
    infused with several African traits–traits which are not common in
    Western civilization. The almost-casual attitude towards death was
    one. (Another is a morbid fear of snakes.)
    So because of my African background, I am seldom moved at the sight of
    death, unless it’s accidental, or it affects someone close to me.
    (Death which strikes at strangers, of course, is mostly ignored.) Of
    my circle of about eighteen or so friends with whom I grew up, and
    whom I would consider “close”, only about ten survive today–and not
    one of the survivors is over the age of fifty. Two friends died from
    stepping on landmines while on Army duty in Namibia. Three died in
    horrific car accidents (and lest one thinks that this is not confined
    to Africa, one was caused by a kudu flying through a windshield and
    impaling the guy through the chest with its hoof–not your everyday
    traffic accident in, say, Florida). One was bitten by a snake, and
    died from heart failure. Another also died of heart failure, but he
    was a hopeless drunkard. Two were shot by muggers. The last went out
    on his surfboard one day and was never seen again (did I mention that
    sharks are plentiful off the African coasts and in the major rivers?).
    My situation is not uncommon in South Africa–and north of the Limpopo
    River (the border with Zimbabwe), I suspect that others would show
    worse statistics.
    The death toll wasn’t just confined to my friends. When I was still
    living in Johannesburg, the newspaper carried daily stories of people
    mauled by lions, or attacked by rival tribesmen, or dying from some
    unspeakable disease (and this was pre-AIDS Africa too) and in general,
    succumbing to some of Africa’s many answers to the population
    explosion. Add to that the normal death toll from rampant crime,
    illness, poverty, flood, famine, traffic, and the police, and you’ll
    begin to get the idea.
    My favorite African story actually happened after I left the country.
    An American executive took a job over there, and on his very first
    day, the newspaper headlines read: “Three Headless Bodies Found”.
    The next day: “Three Heads Found”.
    The third day: “Heads Don’t Match Bodies”.
    You can’t make this stuff up.
    As a result of all this, death is treated more casually by Africans
    than by Westerners. I, and I suspect most Africans, am completely
    inured to reports of African suffering, for whatever cause. Drought
    causes crops to fail, thousands face starvation? Yup, that happened
    many times while I was growing up. Inter-tribal rivalry and warfare
    causes wholesale slaughter? Yep, been happening there for millennia,
    long before Whitey got there. Governments becoming rich and corrupt
    while their populations starved? Not more than nine or ten of those.
    In my lifetime, the following tragedies have occurred, causing untold
    millions of deaths: famine in Biafra, genocide in Rwanda, civil war in
    Angola, floods in South Africa, famine in Somalia, civil war in Sudan,
    famine in Ethiopia, floods in Mozambique, wholesale slaughter in
    Uganda, and tribal warfare in every single country. There are others,
    but you get the point.
    Yes, all this was also true in Europe–maybe a thousand years ago. But
    not any more. And Europe doesn’t teem with crocodiles, ultra-venomous
    snakes and so on.
    The Dutch controlled the floods. All of Europe controls famine–it’s
    non-existent now. Apart from a couple of examples of massive,
    state-sponsored slaughter (Nazi Germany, Communist Russia), Europe
    since 1700 doesn’t even begin to compare to Africa today. Casual
    slaughter is another thing altogether–rare in Europe, common in
    Africa.
    More to the point, the West has evolved into a society with a stable
    system of government, which follows the rule of law, and has respect
    for the rights and life of the individual–none of which is true in
    Africa.
    Among old Africa hands, we have a saying, usually accompanied by a
    shrug: “Africa wins again.” This is usually said after an incident
    such as:
    a beloved missionary is butchered by his congregation, for no apparent
    reason a tribal chief prefers to let his tribe starve to death rather
    than accepting food from the Red Cross (would mean he wasn’t
    all-powerful, you see) an entire nation starves to death, while its
    ruler accumulates wealth in foreign banks a new government comes into
    power, promising democracy, free elections etc., provided that the
    freedom doesn’t extend to the other tribe the other tribe comes to
    power in a bloody coup, then promptly sets about slaughtering the
    first tribe etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam, ad infinitum. The prognosis is
    bleak, because none of this mayhem shows any sign of ending. The
    conclusions are equally bleak, because, quite frankly, there is no
    answer to Africa’s problems, no solution that hasn’t been tried
    before, and failed.
    Just go to the CIA World Fact Book, pick any of the African countries
    (Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia, Malawi etc.), and compare the statistics to
    any Western country (eg. Portugal, Italy, Spain, Ireland). The
    disparities are appalling–and it’s going to get worse, not better. It
    has certainly got worse since 1960, when most African countries
    achieved independence. We, and by this I mean the West, have tried
    many ways to help Africa. All such attempts have failed.
    Charity is no answer. Money simply gets appropriated by the first, or
    second, or third person to touch it (17 countries saw a decline in
    real per capita GNP between 1970 and 1999, despite receiving well over
    $100 billion in World Bank assistance).
    Food isn’t distributed. This happens either because there is no
    transportation infrastructure (bad), or the local leader deliberately
    withholds the supplies to starve people into submission (worse).
    Materiel is broken, stolen or sold off for a fraction of its worth.
    The result of decades of “foreign aid” has resulted in a continental
    infrastructure which, if one excludes South Africa, couldn’t support
    Pittsburgh.
    Add to this, as I mentioned above, the endless cycle of Nature’s
    little bag of tricks–persistent drought followed by violent flooding,
    a plethora of animals, reptiles and insects so dangerous that life is
    already cheap before Man starts playing his little reindeer games with
    his fellow Man–and what you are left with is: catastrophe.
    The inescapable conclusion is simply one of resignation. This goes
    against the grain of our humanity–we are accustomed to ridding the
    world of this or that problem (smallpox, polio, whatever), and
    accepting failure is anathema to us. But, to give a classic African
    scenario, a polio vaccine won’t work if the kids are prevented from
    getting the vaccine by a venal overlord, or a frightened chieftain, or
    a lack of roads, or by criminals who steal the vaccine and sell it to
    someone else. If a cure for AIDS was found tomorrow, and offered to
    every African nation free of charge, the growth of the disease would
    scarcely be checked, let alone reversed. Basically, you’d have to try
    to inoculate as many two-year old children as possible, and write off
    the two older generations.
    So that is the only one response, and it’s a brutal one: accept that
    we are powerless to change Africa, and leave them to sink or swim, by
    themselves.
    It sounds dreadful to say it, but if the entire African continent
    dissolves into a seething maelstrom of disease, famine and brutality,
    that’s just too damn bad. We have better things to do–sometimes, you
    just have to say, “Can’t do anything about it.
    The viciousness, the cruelty, the corruption, the duplicity, the
    savagery, and the incompetence is endemic to the entire continent, and
    is so much of an anathema to any right-thinking person that the
    civilized imagination simply stalls when faced with its ubiquity, and
    with the enormity of trying to fix it. The Western media shouldn’t
    even bother reporting on it. All that does is arouse our feelings of
    horror, and the instinctive need to do something, anything–but
    everything has been tried before, and failed. Everything, of course,
    except self-reliance.
    All we should do is make sure that none of Africa gets transplanted
    over to the U.S., because the danger to our society is dire if it
    does. I note that several U.S. churches are attempting to bring groups
    of African refugees over to the United States, European churches the
    same for Europe. Mistake. Mark my words, this misplaced charity will
    turn around and bite us, big time.
    Even worse would be to think that the simplicity of Africa holds some
    kind of answers for Western society: remember Mrs. Clinton’s little
    book, “It Takes A Village”? Trust me on this: there is not one thing
    that Africa can give the West which hasn’t been tried before and
    failed, not one thing that isn’t a step backwards, and not one thing
    which is worse than, or that contradicts, what we have already.
    So here’s my (tongue-in-cheek) solution for the African fiasco: a high
    wall around the whole continent, all the guns and bombs in the world
    for everyone inside, and at the end, the last one alive should do us
    all a favor and kill himself.
    Inevitably, some Kissingerian realpolitiker is going to argue in favor
    of intervention, because in the vacuum of Western aid, perhaps the
    Communist Chinese would step in and increase their influence in the
    area. There are two reasons why this isn’t going to happen.
    Firstly, the PRC doesn’t have that kind of money to throw around; and
    secondly, the result of any communist assistance will be precisely the
    same as if it were Western assistance. For the record, Mozambique and
    Angola are both communist countries–and both are economic disaster
    areas. The prognosis for both countries is disastrous–and would be the
    same for any other African country.
    The West can’t help Africa. Nor should we. The record speaks for itself.

    • I agree with Kim Du Toit (his writings on guns are superb) but that Africa is the key source of a lot of things: chocolate, platinum, uranium, gold, and diamonds to name a few, and thus the Chinese with an insatiable appetite for resources will come in. And come into massive conflict with Africa and Africans. Its already started, in fact. The Chinese need stuff from Africa to feed their people, build stuff, and keep the oligarchy in power. What will they do to get it? Unknown but they are in Africa in a big way, building railways to move freight and passengers around, buying farms, etc. Its one thing for Mugabe to seize White farmers farms, quite another to seize those belonging to oligarchs. Who have the entire PLA on speed dial.

    • josh says:

      Wonderful essay. Cant we send OUR niggers back to Africa? It sounds just like what they need!!They are supremely coddled and taken care of here and they are destroying us.

  9. GE says:

    Darfur: Why I Dont Give a Damn

    There are so many reasons I could care less about Darfur and there are so many problems with the logic of the “save Darfur crowd” that it’s hard for me to find a place to begin. But let me essentially say that I don’t care because the crisis neither involves nor affects me. I feel no connection to the people who live there—they are not my “brothers and sisters,” their fate has nothing to do with me; don’t pretend they have anything to do with you. I don’t care if a bunch of Arabs want to kill a bunch of indiginates, it happens all the time, and it happens because their society is primitive and uncivilized.

    Do I like the fact that 400,000 people have been killed there? No. Do I wish that Africa as well as the whole world would live in freedom and (thus) prosperity? Yes. But wishing it true won’t change its reality. And to fix Darfur will change a real and concentrated effort. And that effort will cost a price. The question that remains is, why should we engage in this effort?

    The efforts that exist as is—the initiatives of the bleeding hearts and Darfur-is-the-in-thing-to-do teenagers—only involve money. But in all their infinite self-righteousness they failed to recognize that the nature of the issue cannot be solved by money. Dollars don’t stop bullets—bullets stop bullets. The only way to stop government genocide is to do it by force. Someone must intervene militarily for any genocide to be stopped.

    But for intervention to occur at least one nation must take responsibility. But whom? Is there any nation, any person who is obligated to help? No, of course not. Not the US, not any nation—save the Sudan itself—is guilty of the crimes committed there, so they have not responsibility to invest themselves to alter the course. Nor do these nations have a responsibility to themselves to intervene in Darfur because the Sudan is not by any stretch of the imagination a threat to the security of their country.

    Of course this does not say that anyone is not morally justified in attempting to fight—Sudan is a murderous regime that perpetually violates the rights of their citizens and systematically operates on a premise larger than death. But if you do chose to fight for Darfur then you must fight yourself. You cannot and may not drag anyone else into this fight. What do I mean by this? I mean that you can donate as much money as you want but you cannot take my money and donate it ( i.e. international aid via taxes…duh). I mean that you can go fight in Darfur as part of an ad hoc vigilante militia but you cannot deploy US military—who I pay and whose job is to protect me—and waste their efforts and their lives on a problem irrelevant to American security.

    As far as I’m concerned my government exists to protect my rights—just as other governments exist to protect their citizens. So the only time my government should wield its foreign policy is when my rights are threatened by foreign belligerents. Anything more is a waste of my money, which the government confiscated from me, and thus tramples on my rights. So if the United States government endeavors to fix the shit pie that is the Sudan—a nation whose government in zero ways threatens American freedom—it does so at my expense. And quite frankly we have enough people in the world trying to kill us already to begin worrying about people who aren’t.

    I think the most childish thing about the save Darfur crowd is that for all their labors they have never actually enumerated a plan or even a general strategy for solving it. Most of the efforts have concentrated around “awareness”—we hear that word a lot with them—well guess what? We’re aware; surely, all of our policy makers know about it; so is the UN. But awareness does not come close to solving the problem. As I said, someone’s gonna have to wage war. But the problem is that the save Darfur crowd is the type of crowd hardly willing to fight a war and face up to the harsh realities of it. They are the type who thinks that they can live outside of reality, where you can stop a bomb by holding hands, contradicting values can live in harmony, and there is no objective concept of evil.

    The only proper roll of a foreign policy is self-defense—in the same way that government is created for the purpose of defending the individual rights of its citizens. Privately donating and striving for Darfurians is wonderful, but no one has an obligation to Darfur which is why employing our government—using the tax money and lives of Americans—to fix the problem is an unjust option. Simply it seams like the bleeding hearts of the world have been following each other without ever looking where they are heading. They don’t seem to be willing to defend our country from a belligerent like Iran, but when the fate of the primitive and irrelevant are brought to the table everyone starts running around like chickens with their heads cut off. It’s about time we got a hold of ourselves and allow rationality to enter the debate. Someone has got to have the balls to say it: Darfur just doesn’t matter.

  10. anti-racist says:

    Africans have many children

    white people do not have children

    white women are increasingly having the children of African Men

    Afrrica will colonize the world

  11. Anonymous says:

    Anti-racist has many copy/paste troll posts

    Anti-racist has the intelligence of play doh

  12. Unsigned_Integer says:

    A couple of very glaring problems with your analysis:

    1.) I can’t believe that someone as intelligent as you insists on the whole faith v reason false dichotomy. I am not sure where to even begin. Science started via the Catholic Church, and it was the monks that enshrined the use of reason and logic into western culture. What is your basis for saying that someone who believes in logic and science cannot also be religious? (Specifically Christianity?)
    No need to reinvent the wheel on this one: the following pair of articles were written by an irreligious gentleman so you can’t complain of bias…they cover a lot of your faith v. reason delusions quite handily though:
    http://conancimmerian.blogspot.com/2010/11/when-man-invented-science.html
    http://conancimmerian.blogspot.com/2010/11/gods-philosophers-how-medieval-world.html
    2.) Along those same lines, you are committing a grave error by conflating religions. Your write about pagan African witchcraft and Souix tribal dances…and someone take the ridiculousness of that to be a claim against every religion on the planet. How does that make sense? As a reminder, it was Christian thinking that brought logic, reason, and methodological naturalism into the realm of serious application. The Greeks did do much that was useful, but they didn’t get too far on their own – European Christians took up their work, kept what was good, excised that which was not, and with much of their original contributions started the enterprise that we now know as science. As a fun aside, please name a handful of scientists in the middle ages that were persecuted by the Church in Middle Ages. I can already guess what you are going to say, and if my guess is write, you will be completely off the mark.
    3.) You also are making another large historical blunder regarding the inquisition/witchcraft burnings. While the ones that did occur are lamentable, the issue is so clouded in humanist propaganda that very few people understand what the while thing was about, or how severe it was. Secular governments have caused hundreds of times more suffering and pain than any religion ever has, and if you take out Islam than the ratio goes through the roof. This century alone atheist regimes have been responsible for more deaths than every world religion in the entire history of mankind.
    Regarding the inquisition: a short layman’s article to point out some basic misconceptions, quoting actual historians and sources as opposed to half-remembered PC indoctrination from public school history textbooks, which is where you seem to have gotten your understanding of medieval European history.
    http://www.tektonics.org/qt/spaninq.html
    4.) For all of its’ wonders (like the internet and computer that I am employing to write this response) science has done some terrible stuff as well…think nuclear weapons, biochemical weapons, and other lovely tools or mass destruction and death. It is science that created tools that could destroy our entire race many times over…mankind has existed with religion since the beginning. Modern science produces much good, but anyone with any exposure to the science at the university levels knows of the metrics tons of fraud and waste and politically charged babble that utterly pervade modern science.
    Normally you have some interested articles on pop culture among other things, but pop culture is clearly where you got your understanding of the history of science as well as basic philosophy. This post was downright hysterical, sad to say. I think Heil Hizzle Mein Nizzle made an excellent post and was really on to something there – science is absolutely wonderful, but you are worshipping it more mindlessly than the most hysterical fundamentalist. Your response didn’t even begin to address his point. But I will let him defend himself…here we see a normally intelligent blogger with many interesting things to say really miss the mark.
    Due to work it will easily be around 24 hours before I will likely have a chance to check back on this post – I would like to see what you have to say to this though. I do respect a lot of what you write so this post really frustrated me quite a bit.

  13. I-RIGHT-I says:

    It sounds like he (aunty racist) knows a little about rape too.

    I’m going to go with “Africa is full of Africans” and call it good. It’s not possible to make a civilization out of sub Saharan sub morons with a blood lust.

Comments are closed.