In the first part of this essay, I cited forecasts by UN demographers who predict that there will be more than four billion Africans by the end of this century. Such a colossal population increase could result in a huge exodus of Africans from the continent. I noted that Africans are already colonizing–not yet politically and militarily but demographically–the richer parts of the globe, whose resources and “instant wealth” they covet. I wrote about what we can expect from this large, hungry population as it spreads to developed countries. Islam and the political capitulation of whites are part of the drive into Europe, but African overpopulation and poverty are what most fuel migration.

Black Africans are the first group in history who could take control of other continents, not through military or technological prowess, but through demography alone. Since the end of the Second World War, the European and American doctrine of “self-determination” has enabled a disparate collection of African states to come into being. Those states–many of which cannot even pay their own bureaucrats without billions of dollars in “development aid”–are in the midst of a population explosion that is changing the world in our lifetime.

Racially aware South African whites use the word “locust” (sprinkaan in Afrikaans) as a term for blacks. At the risk of stooping to such “hate speech,” one could compare several billion hungry Africans migrating to Europe and North America to a swarm of locusts consuming everything in their path. This is the “politics of the belly” of which the French expert on Africa Jean-François Bayart writes.

In this second part of my essay, I would like to examine another possible outcome, a different African “planet” from the previous one. Several factors could halt the rise of Africa. Epidemics and an inability to master modern commercial farming could result in demographic collapse. This could also be accompanied by an ideological revolution among whites who begin to see an increasingly African planet as a threat to their own survival.

Malthusian catastrophe

In An Essay on the Principle of Population, the English cleric Thomas Malthus (1766 – 1834) wrote that population growth is limited by nature: “The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man.”

In 2008, the Afrikaner mathematician Buks van Rensburg published a column in which he argued that a Malthusian catastrophe is unpredictable because even the very last generation in a population explosion would not know of the impending disaster. He used the example of bacteria multiplying in a bottle. Assuming that there were enough nutrients, the bacteria could double in number every minute, increasing from just one to a billion in 30 minutes. After about 50 minutes, a one-liter bottle would be half-full of bacteria. In the final minute, the bacteria would outgrow the bottle’s volume and would start dying off by the billions in a Malthusian catastrophe.

Until Africa’s population reaches a level that is no longer sustainable, we will not know what that level is. The same, of course, goes for the population of the planet.

A lot of research has been done on the issue of food security in Africa, notably by the United Nations’ Food and Agricultural Organization. The FAO is fairly upbeat on Sub-Saharan Africa, mainly because of improvements in food supply in West Africa. Nevertheless, it warns that “[The rest of Africa] is still challenged with rapid population growth which affects the ability of countries to assure stable supply of, and access to food.”

As the following table shows, the number of malnourished Sub-Saharan Africans (SS-Africa) has risen from 175.7 to 220 million, despite the improvement in West Africa.

It seems that the progress in West Africa is mainly due to more food imports. The World Bank in a recent report worries that “although 60 percent of West Africans work in agriculture, these countries still depend heavily on food imports which have tripled over the past 10 years.” Nigeria’s oil wealth is fuelling food imports, but the recent drop in global oil prices could end the bonanza.

Another study done by the African Food Security Urban Network (AFSUN), a South African NGO, sees food insecurity all over Southern Africa, despite the fact that it is arguably the richest part of the continent and enjoys South African capital and expertise to help sustain its 210 million people. The authors argue that urbanization contributes to food insecurity.

Indeed, in South Africa, over 60 percent of the population is urban, a higher rate than theworld average of 49.4 percent. One may see this for oneself by driving into the countryside which is almost empty, while all the major cities are surrounded by so-called “black townships” and “informal settlements,” which are nothing more than shanty towns. This has led to white flight, with many whites going back to small-scale farming, cottage industries, and attempting to create “rural white utopias” far from the African masses in the cities.

AFSUN finds malnutrition even in Johannesburg, which is the richest city on the continent and is dense with shopping centers where you can buy anything from a dollar bag of corn meal to imported Italian cheeses. The four South African supermarket groups, Shopright/Checkers, Pick ‘n Pay, Woolworths, and Spar are among the most competitive in the world, and some of them literally give samples of food away in their more upmarket stores. The Shopright brand is tailored to the poorer, black market and has expanded all over Africa to become one of the biggest supermarket groups in the world by turnover.

How can someone go without food in Johannesburg? According to AFSUN, it is because in South Africa, “the proportion of urbanites below the $2/day poverty line is greater (76 percent) than the mean national $2/day poverty levels (59 percent).” It notes also that food costs 30 percent more in cities than in the country, so the urban poor are especially likely to go hungry.

One of the effects of Africa’s rapidly rising population is that economic growth lags behind population growth. At the same time, the worldwide drop in commodity prices tightens the vise on Africa, preventing the poor from getting enough to eat even when surrounded by plenty, as in Johannesburg.

Dependent on foreign food

Despite having some of the best agricultural land in the world, in the 2005 to 2009 period, no fewer than 43 of the 46 black African countries were net importers of food. From 2000 to 2009, eight African countries, including Somalia, Sudan, and Zimbabwe, switched from being net agriculture exporters to net importers.

This graph shows just how drastic the situation has become. As late as the mid-1970s, Africa’s food imports and exports were in balance. Now, imports are well over double the volume of exports, and are increasing alarmingly. Imports, of course, must be paid for with exports, but most African countries produce little–aside from raw materials and some agricultural products–that is of interest to the rest of the world.

An 85-page FAO report called Why Has Africa Become a Net Food Importer? offers explanations: “The core finding is that population growth, low and stagnating agricultural productivity, policy distortions, weak institutions and poor infrastructure are the main reasons.” This bureaucratic language can be translated as follows: Africa’s problem is that it is inhabited by Africans.

However, the continent will probably not face mass starvation in the near future, given the aid still pouring in from the West, Japan and, these days, even China. The British charity Oxfam and others saved Zimbabwe from starvation in the mid-2000s after Robert Mugabe’s catastrophic “land reform,” in which white-owned farms were invaded and confiscated. Oxfam and the Nordic countries would probably step in to ease any immediate food shortages. The long-term prospect, however, is one of great uncertainty.

Disease

Africa’s population explosion since 1950–the number of Africans has more than quadrupled–has not (yet) resulted in Malthusian collapse, but diseases such as malaria, HIV/AIDS and Ebola may portend a more sinister future. Deaths from Ebola have so far numbered only in the tens of thousands, but due to the disease’s high death rate and rapid incubation, the virus caused a global panic in 2014. For several months that year, we were treated to the sight of Europeans in white hazmat suits parading on television, saving Africa. Western countries and NGOs mobilized to contain Ebola in Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia; there could have been a very serious epidemic without their help.

One of the few black African countries that do not have a rapidly increasing population–apart from immigration–is South Africa. This is entirely due to AIDS. An estimated 6.8 million people are carriers, according to the 2012 South African National HIV Survey, which was partially funded by the Gates Foundation.

As the table shows, in the most sexually active group–ages 25 to 49–a quarter of the South African population has HIV. Almost 19 percent of the adult population between the ages of 15 and 49 is infected, with rates especially high for young black women. “Coloreds” are mixed-race people or descendants of aboriginal hunter-gatherers.

The table also shows that a South African black is 50 times more likely than a white to have HIV. Interestingly, the infection rate among whites (0.3 percent) is exactly the same as in Europe and North America, and is probably concentrated among male homosexuals.

It is a miracle that the white rate is so low, given the prevalence of rape, and advertising and media encouragement of whites to take black lovers or spouses. In many commercials, a white woman is embracing a black man and looking lovingly into his eyes.

Shortly after the turn of the millennium, there were fears that AIDS could devastate black populations. Many South African whites thought the diesease might restore the demographic balance, and some experts even predicted that by 2010 people would be collapsing in the streets. This has not happened. Anti-retroviral treatment, mainly funded by the US government, does not cure AIDS but it means South African blacks can live much longer with HIV, and go on to infect others.

AIDS will continue to kill, however, and even apart from millions of premature deaths, the disease tends to overwhelm a country’s health system because patients are admitted for all of the secondary diseases associated with HIV. South Africa used to have one of the best health systems in the world, but it has deteriorated to a Third-World level, largely because of AIDS.

Other, more traditional diseases have become more common, thanks to South Africa’s liberal immigration policy. Since 1994, South Africa’s government has virtually opened its borders. The result has been a torrent of people from the north: from Zimbabwe, especially, but also from Malawi, Zambia, Mozambique and Nigeria. Nigeria is Africa’s most populous country, and is destined to overtake the United States within a few decades. An estimated 10 to 15 million foreign Africans have poured into South Africa, swelling the shanty towns around all the major cities and towns.

Because they lack infrastructure and sanitation, shanty towns are ideal breeding grounds for disease. Kinshasa and Nairobi are projected to double in size over the next 30 years. An outbreak of Ebola in such a dense area would be devastating, but more conventional diseases also spread rapidly.

Our northern neighbor Zimbabwe may be an example of things to come. Because Robert Mugabe drove out the white farmers who had been the backbone of a very successful economy, Zimbabwe now needs regular food aid, and death and disease stalk the country. In 2008, a cholera epidemic that broke out in Zimbabwe spread to South Africa, Botswana, Zambia, and Mozambique. The Red Cross reported that there had been 98,309 cholera cases and 4,283 deaths in Zimbabwe. Fifteen percent of Zimbabweans are HIV positive.

The chances of a Malthusian catastrophe in Africa are increased by the fact that many Africans do not believe in Western science and medicine. Even educated Africans with postgraduate science degrees still go to witchdoctors, euphemistically called “traditional healers.” As the African population grows, the official response to outbreaks of disease may become increasingly “traditional,” involving occult lore and rituals. There will still be someone in a white coat at the hospital, but he may be a black man practicing ancient arts.

Many black intellectuals believe that AIDS was invented by white scientists who wanted to keep down the black population. In South Africa, there is an obsession with a cardiologist from Cape Town, Dr. Wouter Basson, who was the head of the pre-1994 biological and chemical weapons research unit, known as “Project Coast.” Some black columnists call him “Doctor Death,” and accuse him of designing AIDS in a laboratory. Though probably no whites believe this, his liberal colleagues have still conducted a campaign to have his physician’s license revoked, and he has been involved in a number of public hearings and court cases. Most recently, complaints from liberal academics led to his being banned from training students in cardiology at the University of Stellenbosch.

Although part of Dr. Basson’s record as a biological-weapons expert is still shrouded in secrecy, he has maintained that he worked only on defensive weapons for the Angolan war of the 1970s and ’80s. They were being developed to counter the use of biological and chemical weapons by the Cubans and Soviets against Angolan UNITA soldiers, who were supported by South Africa.

In 2005, two academics spent 28 months interviewing South African blacks about their views of AIDS. They found that black women tended to accept the Western, scientific view but men believed in conspiracies: “These conspiracy theories variously identified right-wing whites, Dr. Wouter Basson, South Africa’s government, Americans, businesspeople, and the military as the sources of the epidemic.”

Their view of Dr. Basson was that:

He did research and manufactured AIDS in his laboratory. He wanted to kill blacks with his theory. He first tested the virus on animals and then injected humans with the virus.

Elsewhere in Africa and in Soweto–the sprawling black ghetto south of Johannesburg–researchers have found that people believe witches can give them AIDS. The witch inserts a poison into the victim’s throat and afterwards his body wastes away until he dies. Eccentric views of AIDS are not uncommon among South African leaders. Former president Thabo Mbeki argued repeatedly that the HIV virus did not cause AIDS. The current president, Jacob Zuma, once famously explained that after unprotected sex with an HIV positive woman he had avoided infection by taking a shower.

The Western response

Africa has a rapidly growing population faced with poverty, hunger, and disease. This explains why millions of Africans already want to escape their own continent and live in the West. In the coming decades these pressures will become more intense.

It is entirely up to us whether Africa overruns the West in the way I described in the first part of this article. We have the power to keep Africans out; the only question is whether we have the will to use that power.

At some stage, the elite white view of Africa could change. Western analysts have surely looked into their crystal balls and seen the threat of a huge African population. They cannot be ignorant of what massive black immigration would mean for their nations’ economies, finances, health systems, stability, and everything else.

Either the West will be held to ransom by Africans or there will be resistance. The current influx from Africa and the Middle East into Europe is not only the result of war in Syria, but also of the African population explosion. Chancellor Angela Merkel initially adopted a laissez-faire attitude to the migrant problem, but after the influx of over a million so-called “migrants,” there are signs of great discomfort in Germany. In liberal Sweden, over 60 refugee centers have been burnt down, a sign of resistance to the unbridled immigration preached by elites.

Immigration is now the number-one political issue in the European Union, fuelling the rise of nationalist parties such as the Dutch Freedom Party, the French National Front, the Danish People’s Party and the Sweden Democrats. All of these parties enjoy significant electoral support, on the order of 30 percent or more. They are an encouraging sign that Europeans may refuse to surrender their continent.

During a recent session of the Dutch parliament, Martin Bosma of Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party even criticized the very notion of development aid for the Third World, accusing his left-wing colleagues of “funding genocide and dictators” in Africa. With Europe assailed from across the Mediterranean, it is likely that attitudes on both immigration and aid will harden.

Katie Hopkins, the maverick British columnist, caused a scandal in Great Britain when she published a column in The Sun newspaper earlier this year in which she compared the trans-Mediterranean migrants to “cockroaches.” Entitled, “Rescue boats? I’d use gunships to stop migrants,” Miss Hopkins made a case for sealing off Africa from Europe completely, saying:

No, I don’t care. Show me pictures of coffins, show me bodies floating in water, play violins and show me skinny people looking sad. I still don’t care. . . . What we need are gunships sending these boats back to their own country. You want to make a better life for yourself? Then you had better get creative in Northern Africa.

Within days, 200,000 people had signed a petition calling on the Sun to fire Miss Hopkins, but she persevered, and switched to one of the largest global websites, Mailonline, which is affiliated with the Daily Mail.

All over the West, there is a reawakening of common sense. Marine Le Pen, Victor Orban, and Geert Wilders increasingly defend the rights of Europeans to maintain their culture and identity in nations of their own. Donald Trump has famously said that he would build a wall on the southern border of the United States and deport all illegal immigrants.

Liberals suggest that with enough aid and investment, Africa could become more attractive and Africans would stay home. This has been tried before and is bound to fail. Once they fully understand the implications of Africa’s massive population explosion, people will support tough measures like those advocated by Katie Hopkins. If they are to survive, Europeans and Americans have no other option but to seal off the large continent straddling the equator and leave it to its own devices, with or without aid money.

The phrase “Fortress Europe” will mean literally fortifying the Old Continent against invasion. The “influx control” of apartheid South Africa, denounced by liberals worldwide during the 1960s and ’70s, will become standard practice in both Europe and North America during the 21st century–if our civilization is to survive.

Left without emigration options and cut off from aid that donors increasingly recognize as futile, Africa could begin to look like a science-fiction drama, with disease and poverty, along with advanced weapons and communications, fuelling a war for survival. The anarchy of Eastern Congo, Somalia, Northern Nigeria, South Sudan, Mali, and the Central African Republic could spread. The fate of South African whites will depend on how well they can shield themselves from the collapsing countries to the north, while “xenophobic violence” committed by South African blacks against immigrants from the north will increase in ferocity.

When Joseph Conrad wrote the famous phrase “The horror! The horror!” in his Afropessimistic novella Heart of Darkness, he could never have imagined just how widely it would one day resonate. Europe must decide: Will it remain in the light or succumb to darkness?