Tuesday, June 27, 2017

The African century

Another couple years, another 80 million people added onto the latest UN estimates of Africa's population at the turn of the century and another 80 million removed from the European figure (amounting to a 13% decline in the estimated total population of Europe in 2100 compared to the estimate for 2100 that was made just two years ago--that's the entire population of Germany erased from the 2015 estimate in the most recent revision).

Consequently, an updated graph showing shares of global population by major geographical areas as they were in 2015 and as they are projected to be in 2100 follows:

Another upward revision or two in the African expectations and we'll be looking at a world where Africans outnumber Asians before some of those reading this bite the dust.

In 1950, Europeans made up 20% of the world's population. In 150 years--the time between Augustus and Antoninus Pius, when the Roman empire went from strength to more strength--it will have dropped to a mere 5%. And in 1950, the vast majority of those Europeans were, well, ancestrally European. In 2100, a significant number of those counted as "European" here will have roots on the continent that extend back just a few generations at most.


Anonymous said...

This all goes back to more food and contraception. Europeans figured out how to grow more food and how to make and use contraceptives. We figured people would make logical choices. We were wrong. If we had not figured out how to grow more food or how to have reliable contraception, we would not have been willing to watch our own children starve so that we could send food overseas. Tractors and fertilizers were not going to save the starving Africans and Asians.

Anonymous said...

Audacious Epigone - this projection is not correct. The planet will not be able to support this number of people. With current technology, we will have depleted the aquifers used to produce half the food on the planet long before we get to this point. Resource scarcity will return after a century and a half absence. Population growth rates do not continue to grow forever. We live in a finite world and the gains of the green revolution appear to be ending.

It also not taking into account the impact of my previous comment about the declining effect of obesity on birth rates over the next few generations.

The Z Blog said...

The generally accepted narrative to explain the spread of humans is that early man migrated out of Africa along the west coast of the Red Sea. From there, humans moved north and east. Political correctness forbids finishing the story, but humans continued to evolve in their new environments and were pushed/migrated south and west. Climate probably pushed northern tribes south and they conquered their less adaptive cousins.

Maybe nature is about to fix a mistake and unleash a billion Africans to migrate out of Africa again. We are on the cusp of a great do over, where nature snuffs out the populations outside Africa with a new and improved African, who will evolve in their new lands along a different arc. It’s not an unreasonable possibility, given what we know about human migration.

Alternatively, maybe Africa is becoming a giant petri dish that will be result in a super bug that culls the herd.

James said...

Making future projections of what is to be are always wrong. I can't help but picture some British gentleman during Victoria's reign saying, "I tell you, Hopkins. The Empire will never die!" I think the most accurate phrase to describe how the future never becomes what we expect is "Shit happens". Remember the flying cars and colonies on Mars we were supposed to have by now? How does that phrase go? "For man proposes, but God disposes; neither is the way of man in his own hands."

Sid said...

James - People make predictions based on current trends... And then those trends change. It's something you see in the oil industry all the time, for example.

Fact is, no one is 100% sure what African total fertility rates will be throughout the century. No one is sure either about what African migration rates will be like over the century, because that is strongly affected by policy, which is something people have the power to enforce.

Right now, Europe doesn't have much will to enforce their borders. I suppose they had that deal with Erdogan last year, but the Italian navy is picking up migrants along the Libyan coast and bringing them to Italy.

I don't think Europe will have the will to enforce their borders for at least another five years, given the results of the Dutch and French elections and the strong likelihood Merkel will retain her seat. But again, no one is sure if Europeans will wake up next decade or be smothered.

So it's not inevitable that there will be four billion Africans in 2100, and policy will determine how many of them will end up where. But African population growth is a looming disaster, so it's necessary for developed countries to establish policies around Africa's high population growth. Only in doing that can we make it more manageable.

Issac said...

The determination to deny the problem, eg. James and Legate, are simply due to being unwilling to address the moral conundrum as it relates to the status quo.

At bottom, we can be absolutely sure that African populations won't shrink in the next decade. We can also be sure that if Europe does much to stem the tide of migration, they will not do so with any fervor without a total political paradigm shift and that too is terribly unlikely in the next decade. Finally, we know and have a general profile of the African migrant: young and violent males who lack the intellect to function in a modern society, much less economy.

And so comes the moral conundrum of the liberal. Either accept this human tide is unstoppable and will have previously unthinkable impacts on the society, or accept that physical violence will be absolutely necessary in order to stop the migration of undesirables and quite likely remove a good number who already reside in Europe. The latter being tantamount to genocide, and auto-genocide being inevitable given their dependence on western aid, the liberal spits and sputters demanding that the problem be disregarded as unrealistic.

Arguing over the accuracy of such a long-term projection clearly misses the point. The point is that the moral foundation of liberalism is going to die one way or the other. The farce that Africans are an approximately equivalent but differently shaped and colored subspecies to Europeans or Asians will be brushed aside by the reality of widespread exposure to Africans and the politics needed to deal with it.

The Z Blog said...

James, there are trends and then there is math. These population projections are based on two assumptions. One is Africans will not suddenly adopt celibacy or a zero child policy and that no mass die off occurs in the next century.

Audacious Epigone said...


Bringing r/K selection theory to European political liberals/conservatives, as many on the Alt Right often do, is silly--liberals have fewer children than conservatives, so it fails right out of the gate. But it is useful in understanding differences in Euro and African reproductive strategies. Africans are currently getting K levels of care on r levels of reproduction. That's catastrophic.

Legate of Judea,

Maybe, though there is a long and ignoble list of scarcity predictions (i.e. Paul Ehlrich's famous bet where he was proven staggeringly incorrect) that never seem to pan out. I remember hearing about Peak Oil a decade ago. Very little anymore because we have more provable reserves now than we did then.


Agreed, and this is a perfect example of it. Just two years ago, the UN thought there'd be 4.4 billion Africans in 2100. Now the UN thinks there will be 4.5 billion. These projections are always changing, but the directions of those changes are difficult to predict.


I'm pessimistic about Europe doing something serious to democratically halt the invasion. Autocratically, perhaps, but not democratically. It's too far gone. The population numbers only tell part of the story. Native Europeans are old, really old. Median age of ~50 in Germany, as many 60 year-olds as there are ripe, sproutly... 40 year olds. Are tired, decrepit childless old men and women going to wage the cultural war necessary to shift political opinion against rowdy 20-something Saracens?


Glad to have you commenting here with frequency now. I'm always happy to have people articulate my own thoughts better than I'm able to.

Z Man,

The UN figures have been drastically revised upward twice now in the last decade because African governments were unable to accurately track population trends in their own countries. The idea that we're going to somehow export a cultural shift from the West to African cities and then from there out to African rustics seems absurd to me. It's not going to happen. The second potential seems more likely, but famine isn't going to cause a mass die off--it'll cause a mass migration.

James said...

Issac said...

"At bottom, we can be absolutely sure that African populations won't shrink in the next decade."

Actually, we can't be absolutely sure that African populations won't shrink in the next decade. Shit happens. You can't even be sure you will be alive tomorrow. Never mind 10 years from now. Now, if you wish to speak of probability, that's another thing all together.

The Z Blog said...

"James, there are trends and then there is math. These population projections are based on two assumptions."

And you know what happens when we assume? You make an ass out of u and me. There are very easy fixes for all of these earth shattering "crises". But, your masters don't want easy solutions. They want "solutions" that increase their control over you. Once the majority of Whites recognize that tin-foil hate conspiracy theorist means someone that sees what is going on and must be humiliated so the herd won't leave the fenced in area, they will make the easy decisions.

Feryl said...

I don't think Europe will have the will to enforce their borders for at least another five years, given the results of the Dutch and French elections and the strong likelihood Merkel will retain her seat. But again, no one is sure if Europeans will wake up next decade or be smothered.

If memory serves, Norway is showing a backbone. And we all should be familiar with what Hungary, Poland, and Russia are doing.

Western Euro political systems are terrible. You may or may not recall that the French had a huge pile-up in the initial election involving a dozen candidates/parties, with nobody doing that well. The top two, Macron and Le Pen, then had a whopping two weeks or so to campaign before the final election. Macron and the MSM badgered people into thinking that Le Pen was Hitler, while Macron laughably pretended to be an outsider "centrist". Voting was rather similar to the US election, with urbanites and yuppies fastening themselves to the globalist while Le Pen (like Trump) cleaned up in the populist industrial heartland. The main difference between the two countries voting patterns was generational; Le Pen built a good following among Gen X-ers and Millennials over 24 (e.g., those who're out of school and facing bleak prospects) due to younger Western Euros being in even worse financial shape than their American counterparts. Whereas with Trump in the US, Boomers, even the older ones, became Trump's base because they felt like their generation mate Trump was going to give the system the shake-up that it needed.

Feryl said...

Also, Europe's labor movement has remained much stronger than America's, and all Euro countries are still much whiter than America. There's already plenty of opposition to Macron (BTW, many French voters checked the none of the above option, so what does that tell you?). White workers banding together for civil disobedience hasn't happened to a great degree in America since the 30's, maybe even the 20's. But this kind of thing still happens in Europe and probably is going to happen to a moderate or large degree with globalist shills like Macron in charge. The diversification of the American work force has been a death blow to unions/labor movements. Monoracial work forces are much better at persuading each other to unite in opposition to the managerial class.

LOLbertarians jerk off over destroying unions and employee rights, but America's non-existent labor movement has more to do Joel and Tyrone begrudgingly sharing the same work site than it does with some kind of lofty ideology of "freedom". I've even heard some 'tarian conservatives bitch about mid-century unions, even though virtually every aspect of American society functioned amazingly well at the time. Oh, the horror of most workplaces being composed of white men who made good money, while their wives mostly tended to shopping, the garden, child rearing, laundry, and cooking.

"he Wagner Act allowed workers to unionize without fear of being discriminated against, and empowered a National Labor Relations Board to review potential cases of worker discrimination. In the event of discrimination, employees were to be restored to an appropriate status in the company through 'affirmative action'.[27] While the Wagner Act protected workers and unions it did not protect minorities, who, exempting the Congress of Industrial Organizations, were often barred from union ranks" That's a mid 1930's law, passed in response to the labor unrest of the 1920's.

To be concise, an all white workforce could channel grievances towards mangagement. Whereas a diverse workplace is more likely to cause resentments between workers arising from a lack of trust and good faith.

It also turns out that the initial AA experiment started in earnest with the government (esp. the Federal one) in the 40's and 50's. Seems to me that the increasingly hapless reputation of gubmint workers can be traced to this period that was the first to permit lowered standards of performance and accountability which arose from the desire to (artificially) elevate blacks to the workforce in spite of lesser talent. As we all know, the 60's saw greater efforts to bully private companies into hiring blacks.

"Title VII is designed to encourage the hiring on basis of ability and qualifications, not race or religion". That's what HH Humphrey claimed in 1965, not unlike Teddy Kennedy claiming that the '65 immigration act would not change the ethnic character of America. That employment law, part of LBJ's sweeping civil rights act, was the first to extend AA standards to all firms with at least 25 employees. I mean, WTF? The temerity of liberals. How in the hell do you pretend that it's not a quota system? Why does the law exist then? To act as a mere guideline for employers who want ease their conscience? As we've come to painfully know, shysters have launched many lawsuits/shakedowns/investigations against employers. All's they have to do is point to a lack of white employees as de facto evidence of "illegal" discrimination. Employers have no choice but to hire a ton of lazy, stupid, and toxic non whites to dodge bogus lawsuits. Many of these crappy workers often get fired, only to be replaced by someone who might be marginally less retarded or anti-social. Employers would much rather that everyone be hired be personable/smart/honest in the first place, reducing turnover.

Feryl said...

A lack of NON-white employees as evidence of discrimination. Sorry, gotta proof-read better.

BTW, over the last 15-20 years many very large employers have come to cynically accept poor worker performance and morale as a small price to pay for having a "diverse" (read: divided and weak) workforce. With rampant evidence of the managerial class being greedy shysters themselves, I hardly can empathize with them over anything. But smaller businesses still are worthy of our concern, being that they tend to be run by pragmatic people who don't to deal with the headache caused by AA.

Feryl said...

According to wiki, blacks overwhelmingly are the biggest winners from AA. I believe it. They may be but 10-15% of the population, but they sure punch above their numerical weight, right?

There's a funny scene from the original Mad Max where the police chief tries to rekindle idealism and enthusiasm in Mel Gibson's cop character after his co-worker dies. He tells Mel, "You and me, we can make the public believe in heroes again". Mel tells the guy he's full of shit; the chief admits he was putting on an act, grins, and says "but I sounded pretty good, didn't I?" I thought of that scene after I heard a negress (I think it might have been the mom) bemoan the Castille verdict in MN. Her invective was standard post-1960 dogma about blacks being kept down by the man, but she did, in fact, sound pretty good.

After elites convinced the pubic that, gee, maybe we did give blacks a raw deal, we didn't do enough to appreciate their talents, we sure got mesmerized by their charisma.

MacD said...

All Third World countries perform meticulous careful censuses, right? These numbers have no bearing on foreign aid, right? Try accurately counting The number of people in Lagos or Dhaka.

Feryl said...

. "I remember hearing about Peak Oil a decade ago. Very little anymore because we have more provable reserves now than we did then."

It's a tricky subject, but basically, it's about EROEI (energy return on energy invested) and the economics of production. There used to be tons of good quality oil just beneath the surface, which required rather primitive means of extraction. Obviously, that oil went first. Then we had to dig deeper...and deeper..... to find more oil the extraction of which required higher levels of sophistication. And we've also turned to extracting and refining really crappy quality stuff that's closer to the surface.

Oil price boosts in the 2000's justified greater production and investment in lousier quality oil (like the tar sands of Canada, or the new fangled operations in North Dakota). When the '08 recession hit, along with higher gas prices, people stopped driving as much. Eventually, due to a glut and reduced demand, prices fell a great deal. This is bad for oil producers, esp. in North America, who were counting on high prices to get a good return on investment that would allow them to first and foremost, pay their creditors.


Oil use was greater in the early 90's than it was in 2010 (!) Given the declining quality of recently extracted oil (which is more expensive to extract and refine than, say, the light crude of 1960 Texas oil), producers really need to have demand and prices stay high to keep profit margins up. There's been a bump in demand the last couple years (as revealed by growing traffic fatalities), but the price increases of the 2000's really did create a glut that's still playing out.

The "peak" is more of a reference to oil quality declining. It's often misunderstood as quantity falling. It's not so much that we'll run out of oil, per se. It's more that we've largely burnt through the good stuff, and what's left is tough to work with, and it means that producers need higher prices to justify their investment. I did a lot of reading about this in the 2000's, when gas prices soared. Supply,demand, and being able to pay your bills. Maybe it's not so complicated, after all.

Feryl said...

Wiki has articles on the oil gluts of the 80's and 2010's. High prices and high demand (in the 70's and 2000's) justifies huge investment in production. Eventually the combination of high production and lowering demand causes prices to nosedive in subsequent decades.

Net-oil exporters and the oil companies suffer, while importers are relieved. The thing to keep in mind is that it took much less effort and expense to create the glut in the 70's and 80's than it did in the 2000's and present decade.

WRT to reserves, there's much skepticism, esp. wrt the 3rd/2nd world countries. I believe the OPEC nations have been accused of exaggerating their reserves to justify irresponsibly high levels of production, so as to make as much money as fast as possible. At the expense of resources that future generations need. There's also the aforementioned reality that not all reserves are created equal; what oil we have left is inferior to what we once had. The good stuff takes a long time to be created. And we're ripping through it. The Nazis did the best they could with coal (Germany lacks the good stuff, aka oil), but even the Nazis could only get so much out of coal.

Oil has driven our foreign policy for eons because it's the best source of energy. It packs a punch in terms of it's energy density, is much more benign than hydrogen or, God forbid, nuclear, and it's relatively easy to harness.

Feryl said...

A common fraud committed by eco-nerds is hiding the amount of fossil fuels and pollution that actually go into R&D/production of "green" tech. It's something that came up a lot in honest 2000's discussion of energy issues, from what I remember. Like, at what point does my "green" tech off-set the old-school practices used to create it?

Feryl said...

"and it means that producers need higher prices to justify their investment."

I'd be remiss to not point out that you don't want prices to be toohigh for too long, since if jobs/wages/culture changes too much, people become unwilling or unable to pay for as much gas and producers find a lot of their product collecting dust. The wiki articles points out that an expert said in an article that certain producers are nervous that even 2015 prices are uncomfortably high and therefore are depressing demand.

I just remembered the main problem that oil crisis boosters warn of: If prices are too low, profits diminish especially if the oil was costly to produce. But, if prices are too high (and they're still high in comparison to the late 80's/90's), demand gets pushed down and suddenly you can't even sell the stuff at the ideal rate. Nobody really cared about this stuff in the 80's and 90's because oil prices were low, and the producers were making good money. A win-win situation, like how things were in the late 40's-early 60's too. The average naive person thinks that high prices means tons o money for the oil companies...uhmm, no.

Sid said...

AE, I agree that Europe's older denizens aren't going to rock the boat. They don't want to feel racist, and Europe's economic elites are making sure that not accepting the free movement of labor in Europe will be onerous. Ultimately, French voters decided two months ago that the stability the EU brings to savings is worth the demographic terror.

Europe's younger generations are more inclined to stand and fight, but the problem is, there still are plenty of college educated European whites who don't want to feel racist and feel more loyalty to the EU than their own nations. And God knows that there will be more non-white young voters every year, their numbers growing at a dramatic rate.

Europe's economic elites are fully behind open borders. The question is, how long will Europe's security elites stay on board? I have a friend who was in Finland and he said it was comical how the civilian politicians would go on TV and claim that migrants don't commit more crimes than native Finns, and then the Interior Ministry would have the data laid out on their website which demonstrated otherwise. It's analogous to how Obama said there was no Ferguson Effect when it came to crime rates, but Comey demonstrated otherwise in his own press conference.

Hence, it's hard for me to forecast exactly where Europe will go. Trends happen, and countertrends emerge to replace them. Your point about a non-democratic Europe fending off the migrant crisis may not be hypothetical in the future.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

I believe these projections will not turn out to be correct if only for obvious reasons, like Nigeria having over 700 million people. At some point, something will give. I also doubt that other African nations are going to as generous as white nations and just be open borders for their people elsewhere in Africa.

The big question is just how the African population will be curbed. The western world is too empathetic (read: stupid) to just let war, famine, and disease ravage the continent to control numbers naturally. So naturally they might try their luck in the western world. 1-2 million refugees per year is already bad but by 2045, would the public be willing to accept 20-30 million refugees per year? The social welfare net in the first world will be in tatters by then so maybe it won't matter but I suspect even as Europe as we know it is near death, there will be just enough resistance to fight against it, even if the leadership is Muslim by then. They don't want parasitic refugees either.

Of course the western world may just be brown enough in a couple of decades to start turning a blind eye to Africa so maybe SuperAIDS or a conflict that makes the Congo Civil War seem like a skirmish will take place without us feeling the need to intervene.

Audacious Epigone said...


We're aware--Z-Man most of all, read him if you don't already!--that there are logistical solutions to this coming catastrophe that make it avoidable. Several of them. But there does not appear to be the political will for any of those solutions.

One day when things get bad enough, then... Well, maybe. Trump and Brexit are encouraging but they were narrow wins and with each passing day the demographic situation deteriorates. Are supine 50 year old, childless Europeans going to finally get off their backs and start fighting when they're 70 year olds?


Not only are incompetents hired, companies are terrified to fire them because of the wrongful termination, discrimination, and unemployment claims that follow. As a middle management cog in a corporate machine, I experience it firsthand on a regular basis. We do everything we can to get people to resign on their own. Terminations of protected classes are... problematic.

Parenthetically, what do you think of the concern that if we hit severe civilizational collapse we--humanity--will be unable to return to our current level of technology due to all of the easily accessible energy sources having been depleted and the stuff that's remaining in things like oil shale being beyond our now rudimentary methods of accessing it?


The non-democratic method seems like the most plausible mechanism to me. Trust in democracy is declining, along with trust is many other institutions. People will start opening up to the idea of backing someone who will do what's necessary. That will be the only qualification that will matter.

Audacious Epigone said...

Random Dude,

We solve our pathological altruism problem by having the pathological altruists (read Europeans) swamped by browns who don't care about blacks.

So, jump out the tenth story window or be burned alive inside?

Feryl said...

Sid, I think that across the world generations share similar characteristics, especially with the rise of modern technology/globalism. Be that as it may, every country still experiences unique events and variables express themselves differently. Europe's Boomers, especially in the Western end, initially grew up with a fairly depressing and gritty post-WW2 environment, though like in the non-British English speaking countries, traditional cultural values still were strong. Europe's Boomers were smaller in number compared to the massive cohorts born in the suburbanized post-war landscape of America, Canada, and Australia. While the 1960's consciousness revolution in the (then) developing Anglo diaspora gave us flower children and gentle folk music, things seemed to take on a rather more sinister and even nihilistic turn in Europe. While England and Germany invented the image of heavy metal and punk rock in the 60's and 70's (compare Aerosmith to Black Sabbath, or Boston to The Sex Pistols), feminism, atheism, and gay rights caught on much faster in Western Europe than they did in the Anglo diaspora. The Beatles famously caused a stir in the US when ditzy John Lennon said that "we're bigger than God". Maybe in Europe, but not in America!

When alt-right type candidates promise to restore traditional measures of order/security/health, that seems to appeal to a lot of American Boomers (and presumably their Canadian/Australian counterparts) who grew up in the comfy 1950's/early 60's and idealistic late 60's/70's. Europe's Boomers, on the other hand, associate prosperity with the 80's-present day. Europe's Boomers benefited nicely from the post-late 70's turn towards neo-liberalism, while Europe's X-ers and Millennials have been destroyed by the post-modern economy. It helped that there weren't many Euro Boomers to fight over the spoils, and immigration levels were still fairly low when they were establishing themselves in the 60's/70's/80's.

It's worth nothing that many American Boomers detested the post-1980 striver mentality, regardless of how many of them embraced that attitude. A lot of them never really wanted to give up the idealism of their youth; they really believe the America of their youth was....special, even innocent. American Gen X-ers tend to look down on both musty nostalgia and annoying strivers. Younger Euro generations would like to finally get some semblance of a chance, both in terms of finances and in overall clout. The Anglo diaspora has younger generations who aren't that desperate, who are more likely to give Boomers the benefit of the doubt, maybe because this slice of Boomers isn't quite as privileged or arrogant as the European one. In terms of reality TV stars, compare the earnest tough love of Trump (embraced largely without irony by go-getter Americans) to the sour harshness of Simon Cowell (frequently scolded by the amiable American hosts he worked with).

Feryl said...

Parenthetically, what do you think of the concern that if we hit severe civilizational collapse we--humanity--will be unable to return to our current level of technology due to all of the easily accessible energy sources having been depleted and the stuff that's remaining in things like oil shale being beyond our now rudimentary methods of accessing it?

Well, James H. Kunstler has written fiction about this kind of stuff. Not dystopian or uttopian sci-fi, but rather, what a world be like if you took away most aspects of the industrial revolution. People would become reorganized around farms, churches, trad. small towns/villages, etc. On his blog/reporting on current and possible future events, he tends to be coy about what exactly will happen and when it will happen. But the gist is, whether it's next year or 10 years down the road, eventually the stuff which makes the modern world possible, oil (which is used in plastics and other things besides just energy), is going to stop being readily available as the economics of production (and possibly, geopolitical disruptions to maintaining production and distribution) get more flaky.

He likes to point at that we really screwed the pooch by first squandering post-war privilege on a living arrangement without historical precedent (car based suburbs, mainly, but his opinion of ghastly over-developed/crowded sky-scraper filled big cities is nearly as harsh). Then, when American industry and the economy became troubled in the 70's, we reacted by gutting unions (in important source of camaraderie), closing plants down (and never getting back the good jobs lost), encouraging irresponsible lifestyle, career, and financial choices (normalizing hedonism, legalizing gambling, racking up huge debt levels, spending and stocks instead of savings accounts and pensions, etc.).

We ended up with country where most people get shafted while a smallish number of people reap great rewards even as they seem to do so little caretaking that justifies their esteem. And 70 years of bad choices have fattened us up literally and in the sense of our insolence and hubris; we need to shed pounds, and that won't happen quickly or easily.

Sid said...


The idea of a non-democratic American government feels like a fantasy. In Europe, it was the norm until roughly a century ago, and around half of Europe was anything but a liberal democracy until after the Cold War ended. What that means for Europe's future is not something I know, but it's there.


"Parenthetically, what do you think of the concern that if we hit severe civilizational collapse we--humanity--will be unable to return to our current level of technology due to all of the easily accessible energy sources having been depleted and the stuff that's remaining in things like oil shale being beyond our now rudimentary methods of accessing it?"

I'd say in the case of a severe collapse (like the end of Atlantis and the Hyborian Age in Robert E. Howard's opus, or Kefka unleashing the Light of Judgment and rearranging the world's continents) and we forgot everything about the energy industry...

I think there would be enough available coal and crude to get an industrial civilization up and running again, but the civilization would be much poorer over the decades. People would have to use their resources much more sparingly, which means consumer goods and heavy industry would cost a lot more, gas stoves would be a luxury, etc. At the same time, there'd be less incentive to sit on conventional carbon resources, because they'd be scarce and energy prices would remain high, so there'd be more demand to search for and utilize things like shale than there was in our history.

Audacious Epigone said...

Kefka unleashing the Light of Judgment and rearranging the world's continents

I laughed the laugh.

Audacious Epigone said...


Does he address whether it's a reset or a permanent state of being--like a video game that glitches and misses a trigger that pushes the story along leaving the player stuck indefinitely?

Sid said...

This is silly, but VI was definitely a "based" game. If I had to summarize the plot, it would be Diversity + Magic = Planetary Annihilation. The story makes it clear that segregation was good for both human beings and Espers, and disaster came when the bad guys unleashed an open-borders, invade-the-world/invite-the-world policy.

The main character is a half-breed, and is shown to be full of self-doubt, unreliably psychotic, and disloyal throughout the game. The backstory show cases her father breeding with an outsider, even after his community warned him against it, and the results speak for themselves.

The heroes ultimately conclude that their erstwhile hopes of living together in peace with the Espers were ruinously naive, and they plunge the Espers into irrevocable extinction by destroying magic. The game ends with our half-breed protagonist becoming monoracial after destroying her father's race, and she is shown to be happy for the first time in her life because of it.

I'll stop, but there you go.

Audacious Epigone said...


Great points. The movie the Lion King is similar. Two of my childhood favorites.

Feryl said...

leaving the player stuck indefinitely? "

Nah, we can go through periods of distress/sclerosis/decline, like the Middle Ages, but nothing lasts forever.

It's fair to say that we entered and left various epochs at a slower rate before the steam engine (initial wave of industrialization) and especially the ICE (internal combustion engine), and variants thereof, greatly increased the rate of labor/travel/communication/R&D. Tech. doesn't create energy, though. I've got a hunch that the current techno globalist elite, which is uniformly liberal, is desperately trying to "fit" alt. energy into the current culturally/technically modernist system.

The GOP wing still want to keep the post-WW2 order in place, in which alliances are made and wars are fought to ensure access to oil.

I think I've figured out the fundamental difference between the two parties; Dem elites are eager to wean us off fossil fuels, even though, at heart, the in-the-know tech crowd realizes how weak and hypocritical current alt. energy schemes are (hydrogen, solar, nuclear, whatever are more dangerous/less reliable/less powerful than fossil fuel, and thus far alt. energy programs require fossil fuels/pollution to get off the ground in the first place).

Much like how the racial Eldorado came to be a futile quest after decades of struggle, eventually the alt energy quest will become an Eldorado for globalist nerds. Meanwhile, the GOP elite is largely globalist as well, but they are macho and traditionalist in their understanding of tech (muh defense spending, drill baby drill,etc.)

The global warming meme came about so that Dems/cultural elites hostile to rugged traditionalism could badger people into feeling as though we needed to desperately attempt a shift to alt. energy. Similar to how after WW-2, the evil white racist meme had to be shoved down our throats to condition people (primarily whites) into accepting a loss of ethnic consciousness. The techno nerd propaganda isn't as effective, though, since they can't conjure imagery to elicit empathy and guilt in first world proles. Not helping matter is that eco problems actually peaked, in America, in the 50's and 60's. (for Britain, it was the "London fog" of the late 1800's/early 1900's). Besides, civil rights protesters being beaten in our home made us feel guilty about hurting our countrymen. On the other hand, 3rd worlders crapping in their own rivers and streets might make us sad, but hardly anyone in the first world (other than swpl douches) feels like it's the first world's fault.

The cuyahoga river being on fire alarmed the Midwest in 1970, whereas many white proles actually feel glee about the prospect of the West Coast being submerged by rising water levels. To many proles, eco isssues have morphed from an urgent problem handled with due seriousness in the 60's-80's, to a blatant Trojan horse for hypocritical decadent liberal globalists who can't resist jet travel (bohemian striving is more important than walking the walk). I remember face-lifted Richard Branson doing a photo-op with his new jet powered by high-tech alt fuel; don't think he was asked about ICE powered vehicles/machines being used in the manufacturing process, nor was he asked how much pollution was created during the manufacturing process of each component.

Feryl said...

The Dems have been the technocrat party since at least FDR; it's just that the GOP, esp. before 2000, was the party of comfortable people who didn't live in liberal enclaves like Manhattan/Frisco/Beverly Hills and who wanted to make lotsa dough and keep it to themselves. The Dems may have been misguided (see: the black single mother epidemic of the 60's-90's), but at least they tried recognized how cold-hearted the GOP became.

These days, the Dems have gone batshit crazy with their silliness, but the GOP needs to back sensible populist reforms to position themselves as the good guys fighting against a liberal elite that's gone mad. The Pentagon militarists and Wall Street crooks have to go, but unless Trump can pull off a miracle, we're going to have wait 'til we get deeper in a reform era before the forces of greed and arrogance are mostly put in their place.. And this era might be arrested by liberals/technocrats/urbanites refusing to grant any good faith to real conservatives/traditionalists/ruralites.

It seems to me that a new civil war would be between outstate mostly white Americans, and urban "strongholds" which probably wouldn't take too long to fall to a siege since many urbanites don't even speak English, let alone have a common racial/cultural background. It would be rich, watching liberal pets like blacks and homos demonstrate how little interest they have in uniting with swpl/super rich whites. And keep in mind that ancient castles had some form of agriculture/animal husbandry to support themselves. These days, most urbanites have little to no practical experience with farming/hunting/animal wrangling. Even greater Maine went pretty hard for Trump, to say nothing of the rural Midwest.

Nerds, Yoofs, and OGs, Vs hunters/farmers/carpenters and the majority of (white) folk with police/military experience.

I saw that the West was much more enthusiastic about immigrants that the Midwest/South/Northeast. Perhaps great swathes of the West would essentially be neutral (even Utah, which let's not forget was founded by Mormons evicted from the East) with Denver/L.A./Seattle etc. being liberal outposts.

One thing's for sure: the utter nerdiness of the liberal side in a new civil war would stop most high-functioning (read: white) rugged state personnel (police, military, National Guard, corrections workers) from arresting/firing upon white Middle America. Utopian arrogant nerds, Vs. macho traditionalists (and the feminine and prole women who support them)

Feryl said...

Put simply: how the hell can a "team" or force, whose identity is based on a rejection of the necessity of a common and respected cultural/national identity, have a chance? It's a non-starter. With so much "cultural" (ethnic) diversity, they've got no reason to unite other than, I suppose, commitment to the continuing villification and soaking of whites. The way things are going right now, eventually even a lot of swpl whites will start to feel the heat and feel greater kinship with white proles from the hills than they do with Tyrone or people who weren't even born in America.

Remember that we've been in a declining crime period for over 20 years. In the 60's, quite a few whites/white parents rolled the dice with integrated schools/neighborhoods, only to be bit in the ass by blacks becoming more and more aggressive once they realized that (most) whites no longer had the power they once did. A similar dynamic will eventually play out in then next 10-15 years. All races, but blacks and darker skinned Hispanics in particular, will get a better sense of predator/prey dynamics. Unless it becomes socially acceptable to swiftly punish bad guys of any race, the more psychopathic groups will feel more empowered to prey on the vulnerable.

Feryl said...

This is from a comment on JHK's blog (http://kunstler.com/writings/clusterfuck-nation/):

michael, the military-industrial complex initially absorbed a lot of ex-farm labor. Many went to the factories which offered better pay, fewer hours, and economic rights. Higher education was affordable and the children of the farmers could go to college, thus giving them an escape from the farm life. Technology was still human-scaled and still served real needs. That is why the mass Luddite revolt didn’t happen.

"Industrial America is long gone and the debt-fueled consolation prize of the service economy is dead. Unlike the transition from agriculture to industry to services, we have no replacement to employ the masses as in the past. The warp and weft of organic society is gone and all that’s left are the tatters; hanging individually off in space. Those tatters were once part of the whole and they know who abused them into their condition.

High tech jobs are inherently self-destroying as they create the very systems that will put humans out of work. In the same vein as EROEI, we have “Employment Return on Education Invested.” THAT “EROEI” is in deep negative territory as today’s Bachelor’s degree yields less economic benefit than what a High School diploma once gave in 1960.

ALL OF THE ABOVE is why my outlook will finally come to pass."

Well, if one realizes that starting in the 70's, and increasing with every subsequent decade, the American workforce has been besieged by immigrants and striver females while male-friendly occupation that once provided good security/wages have been heavily off-shored.....Those who entered the workforce in the 70's and beyond have had it much tougher than Silents and early Boomers ever did. All the while, the managerial elite has been giving more and more to itself which by default comes at the expense of lower class wages and benefits. Regardless of diversity or disorder/crime, eventually at some point, the striving bubble will pop. People will recognize that high-ed was a racket cynically promoted by elites who laughed their way to the bank while doing nothing to ensure a better future for all (or at least, most).

Feryl said...

" I have a friend who was in Finland and he said it was comical how the civilian politicians would go on TV and claim that migrants don't commit more crimes than native Finns, and then the Interior Ministry would have the data laid out on their website which demonstrated otherwise. It's analogous to how Obama said there was no Ferguson Effect when it came to crime rates, but Comey demonstrated otherwise in his own press conference."

Northern whites, in America, were once upon a time often sincerely naive about how toxic blacks are. By the 1970's, everybody in America damn well understood how dangerous blacks were, though they may have quibbled about just why blacks were so,,,,,difficult. By the 80's, the good neighborhood/bad neighborhood thing was a tacit way of describing a black area. Of course, for the more genteel/formal occasions and people, referring to these areas as "working-class" (in spite of many residents being on the dole or prison cell occupants to be) or "low-income" will suffice.

Anxiety about blacks will always exists, after sufficient exposure anyway (here in MN, at least 1/2 of local criminals shown on TV are black, when blacks are a minority in the vast majority of MN cities/towns). Yet diminishing crime rates since about 1993 have created, especially among liberals and kids, a more "giving" mood towards dangerous groups (blacks, refugees, illegals, etc.).

To prevent darkening Euro countries from becoming inhospitable dystopias, elites/leaders will have no choice but to pass drastically tougher anti-crime bills and build more prisons, much like how America by 1980 figured out that throwing tons of people in prison was a way to de facto segregate much of the dangerous population (read: blacks) from other folks. For the record, it appears that some Western Euros, especially in Britain, have slightly higher criminal tendencies than Anglo diaspora whites, which I attribute to Western Europe's incredibly cucked criminal "justice" system. And it would seem that data related to property crime in Europe is under-reported, because it exposes how ineffectual law enforcement is (and also reveals that homeowners/drivers who can't posses firearms are much more likely to be robbed/car-jacked/home invaded), while certain kinds of violent crime are exaggerated so as to create support for measures that take weapons away from people.

Euros who complain about the US system don't have a clue that when at least 10% of the population suffers from pronounced psychopathy, and this country no longer allows society to "discriminate" against this group and quarantine and swiftly punish this group, you have no choice but to lock lots of 'em up after they've repeatedly proven that they can't follow the law. Besides, since Western Europe defines itself, in many ways, as the anti-US, they're incentivizing lies about their own behavior (suppressing theft/robbery/home-invasion rates, as discussed earlier) to save face and reduce cognitive dissonance (which comes from bashing post 1980 American criminal policies while refusing to acknowledge that it's HBD that caused America to sharply diverge from other 1st world countries, not Reagan or Christians or gun-toting rednecks).

Audacious Epigone said...

(hydrogen, solar, nuclear, whatever are more dangerous/less reliable/less powerful than fossil fuel, and thus far alt. energy programs require fossil fuels/pollution to get off the ground in the first place).

If the easily accessible fossil fuels are depleted, then we get a collapse, how do we get those easily accessible sources back again to get us to the point where we can develop alternatives and get back to accessing the harder to reach petroleum?

One thing's for sure: the utter nerdiness of the liberal side in a new civil war would stop most high-functioning (read: white) rugged state personnel (police, military, National Guard, corrections workers) from arresting/firing upon white Middle America.

A lot of right-libertarian types I know think the small arms don't matter against the weight of the US military + state police forces. They're technically correct, but the assumption that middle American young men are going to turn on their own when the shit hits the fan is a questionable assumption.

Re: cities, they're death traps. They could be starved out in a week if those inside didn't tear each other to pieces before then.

One of my earliest posts. Like you say, Europe is now feeling the reality of this, good and hard.

Feryl said...

"Homicide is the only category in which the US leads the pack."

Guns, guns, guns....the manufacture of small caliber el cheapo firearms really is despicable. I personally think that rifles and shotguns should be legal for hunting/home defense while handgun production/sales ought to be highly restrictive. Handguns ultimately are too easy to conceal for nefarious purposes; sure, they come in handy for the good guy on the off-chance that: first, you're accosted, second, the gun is on or very close to your person, third, perp provides a window of time for you to produce the gun, fourth, you get "the drop" on the perp, fifth, the perp himself isn't in possession of a gun which makes any of the above more difficult, and sixth, the perp does not steal your gun in advance/wrestle the gun away from you. Ahem.

Keep in mind too that while street robberies and car-jackings are definitely not fun, they typically are much less likely to result in a dead victim(s) than home invasions. Personally, I myself and I would imagine most other people most dread an asshole breaking into my house to tie people up, rape people, kill people, etc. Playing Bernie Goetz sure sounds like fun, but I don't think Bernie was in danger of being killed.

At the end of the day, whether we have guns or not isn't as important as: HBD, first, and, second, whether we have a culture/society that permits us to swiftly mete out punishment to bad guys so as to serve as a deterrent to committing crime. Post LBJ, we started sympathizing with and defending criminals, rather than punishing them. Activists, dumb lawyers/politicians/judges started legislating and suing over how we dealt with criminals, seemingly more intent on disciplining the law than the law-breakers. Sentences got reduced because we no longer wanted to give up on psychopaths.

Also, homicide wise, a huge number of them are from out of control black thugs/drug dealers/pimps and their tempers flaring when they deal with each other. That would explain why heavily white countries with otherwise high crime rates still have few dead bodies. Whites are not as idiotically belligerent and mercurial as ghetto blacks who have become totally unmoored from standards of Western civ. Also, the "lad" culture to me has a snotty and mischievous element, as opposed to the cruelty and narcissism of black criminals. AmRen had an article written by an elderly white guy who worked for NYC transit. He said that the worst behaved people he dealt with were blacks and Puerto Ricans. He said that in his experience, some particular things were never done by whites or "orientals".

Joshua Sinistar said...

Yeah OK. The blacks were starving in the 1980s. The blacks were starving in the 1990s. The blacks are starving Today. How can we avoid this disaster?

Please don't feed the animals. Its bad for the environment and you.

Feryl said...

"A lot of right-libertarian types I know think the small arms don't matter against the weight of the US military + state police forces"

We're never going to have a libertarian paradise. They lament the New Deal, but do they realize that local police and authority used to be basically entitled to run people out of town/beat the snot out of them if the were out of line? Also, that large numbers of people before the 60's were involuntarily committed to protect the normies?

Under Trump and Sessions, were focusing on illegals, drugs, and gangs. The competent LE personnel (mostly white) don't mind being used in this conservative way (Lolbertarians, it isn't "Left-wing" for the authorities to restore order by cracking down on crime). In the later Obama era, what with the IRS scandal and such, and the sudden urge to let more people out of prison even though most prisoners are hardened psychos, we were beginning to verge on state enforced cultural Marxism. Taken far enough, eventually we'd start arresting white nationalist/traditionalist types. And LE would probably try and (violently) make an example out of some dissident like Richard Spencer. That's where things would get dicey. When Waco happened in the mid-90's, that was before most whites were woke about the Left-wing's growing hostility to whites.

The Trump era has both emboldened/heartened traditionalists, but it's also intensified the pre-existing hostility towards white proles that we saw in Obama's tenure. Even if Hillary had won, it's possible that Trump's relative success would've sparked greater calls for repression of conservatives. Whoever next runs for the Dems is going to be under great pressure to retaliate against traditionalist nationalists (real conservatives). Problem is, much of Middle-America is now locally dominated by the GOP. And that's the heart of why a civil war is possible; arrogant liberal elites/resentful lower class non-whites want to shove their ideology (and their demographics) down the throat of the majority of whites who don't want cultural Marxism or a third world invasion.

In the first civil war, there was a fight between two groups of whites. A new civil war by default would prominently involve non-whites, especially on the liberal side. The liberal side would be the de facto non-white/immigrant side. And we all know how well racial diversity works (swpls are in for a rude awakening when they have to deal with dindu yoofs as opposed to the select kind of blacks they deal with at college/the office, blacks would demand greater power and say, and it turns out that immigrants who barely speak English might be useful for menial chores and ethnic restaurants, but how much solidarity and functionality will they have as a fighting force?)

Lastly, East of the Rockies and outside New England, whites overwhelmingly favored Trump. How many whites, even the swpl/elitist types would be willing to basically fight their own race? Out West, there still isn't that much to fight for other than the far West Coast. Back East is where the rubber will really meet road.

Unknown said...

As many comments have already indicated, it is difficult to male predictions about the future, particularly 100 years out. The African population figures commit the fallacy of composition. Africa may be able to support X billion people, but that doesn't mean it can scale up to support 2X billion. Europe was able to defy Malthusian predictions of famine and pestilence because Europeans and North Americans had the intellectual capacity and culture to develop technology that enabled the green revolution. Europe and North America had the ability to I overcome the problem of scarce resources. Do the people of Africa have the intellectual and cultural tools to accomplish that? And, as Africans migrate in large numbers to Europe and North America and become larger and more dominant segments of those societies will those societies be able to hold on to the intellectual and cultural qualities that enabled them to prosper? How will Africa prevent the mass famines and internecine warfare that has plagued that continent when they had more manageable populations?
I am skeptical of the population projections.

Audacious Epigone said...


Do you think peaceful secession is a possibility? I expect some sort of political dissolution in our lifetimes. I'm not sure if the left is tolerant enough to allow middle America to go its own way if it came to that, though. I'm not using "tolerant" flippantly there, either. The SJW-streak is not at all about live-and-let-live, it's about ideological totalitarianism. Logistically, though, if a state does STATExit, then it doesn't take much for the remaining states to create an electoral lock and thus an incentive for more of the same colored states to follow the state that exited. This would be particularly true if California or Texas seceded.


The assumption is that sub-Saharan Africa develops. That's what eventually brings the TFR down (in about 60 years). I'm highly skeptical of both those assumptions. If they are both wrong, that means 1) even more Africans than projected, and 2) many of those Africans heading out of Africa.

John Derbyshire said...


>Unlike the transition from agriculture to industry to services, we have no replacement to employ the masses as in the past.

"What is the next term in the series: farm, factory, office, ...? There isn't one. The evolution of work has come to an end point, and the human race knows this in its bones. Actually in its reproductive organs: the farmer of 1800 had six or seven kids, the factory worker of 1900 three or four, the cube jockey of 2000 one or two. The superfluous humans of 2100, if there are any, will hold at zero. What would be the point of doing otherwise?" (We Are Doomed, Chapter 12.)

Feryl said...

A 1948 born Boomer said that he understood that 1945-1964 was a high for economic reasons. That's a big reason why we've gotten to this point. Some more conservative minded Boomers can correctly recite stats and anecdotes about the change in crime, handling of the mentally ill, welfare abuse, etc. But a lot of Boomers don't realize (perhaps to save face) just how much better we were doing, behavior wise, in the 30's-early 1960's. Also, understand that our late teens are an important point in our understanding of things. If you're 14-18 in 1962-1966, when things were beginning to change, It's going to be tougher to appreciate how things really were in the 30's-50's (of course, nobody, least of all Boomers, can fully appreciate a time that they didn't live through).

SJWdom occupies a lot of strategically important areas. On the Mississippi and points East, big cities were put where they were put for a reason. Same thing for the West Coast. Regardless of whether the current occupants of these areas do anything particularly useful (and really, the large numbers of bums/criminals/welfare recipients and even many of the swpl striver types don't), these areas are still going to be desirable. Especially if we go through another dark age in which travel/trade via waterways regains it's historical priority due to fossil fuel/electricity dependent trains/cars/jets no longer being readily available. And defense wise, coastal areas never lose their importance.

The center of swpl resistance would be, without a doubt, the West Coast (Frisco voted for Hillary by like 95%). Right now, cultural elites occupy the coasts because of aesthetic reasons and cost of living reasons (a big reason Texas lags far behind the West Coast and much of the Northeast coast in swpl esteem is because Texas remains highly affordable. You can't attract that many elites when they can't price proles out of the area). Weather matters, too. Maine is too cold to attract that many yuppies, while Texas is dreadfully hot for 5-6 months of the year. Coastal Cali, due to immigration, weather, mountains, the Pacific, and hippie cum yuppie Boomer eco regulations, is by far the least affordable region. And that's why it's the center of resistance to Trump.

Audacious Epigone said...


Does that hold for Africans? Is a world that is over 40% African going to be one that has advanced beyond the cube jockey stage?

Very much looking forward to meeting you in a month, btw!