Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Fear of a Black Planet

 
So, it look like the usual suspects are out telling black Africans that they should stop having so many children. Interestingly, nobody seems worried about French and Swedish schemes to increase national fertility. Perhaps that is because they are wealthy white countries? I also find  it interesting that Jeffrey "Shock Therapy" Sachs is the UN official pushing for limiting the number of children Nigerians should have, given his history as one of the architects of the devastation of the former communist nations of Eastern Europe, although I guess that does qualify him as an expert on depopulation.

While I recognize that poverty is a large problem in countries such as Nigeria, the answer to such poverty is development not depopulation. You don't eliminate poverty by eliminating the poor, unless perhaps you are a devotee of the wicked ideology of eugenics. We have gone a long way from the days of the post-war consensus, with its support for industrial development and the material and cultural uplifting of the poor.

The current neoliberal consensus is a Neo-Malthusian brew that seeks to turn places like Africa into permanently poor extraction economies that exist to serve the consumer needs of First World peoples while also serving as theme parks for the very rich, hence the constant attempt to convince Third World countries to invest in low-productivity ecotourism as opposed to heavy industry. The rich nations, through their control of international institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, also force policy straitjackets on the poor nations to prevent them from using the same state-led models of development that were used by practically all of today's wealthy nations when they were developing.

Much of the Left, especially the execrable Green Movement, has foolishly fell for much of this claptrap, despite the fact that Neo-Malthusian policies primarily target the poor, the very people that the Left is supposed to represent and defend. Given these facts, it is not surprising that so many people in the developing world are attracted to violent ideologies that view the West as a malevolent force bent on oppressing the rest of the world. As heinous as these ideologies are, Western actions help to fan the flames of anger and resentment. Africans have already suffered enough from the depredations of foreign meddlers and they don't need ghouls like Jeffrey Sachs to "help" them have fewer children.

2 comments:

  1. and they don't need ghouls like Jeffrey Sachs to "help" them have fewer children.’

    Well said. I guess I have some so-called ‘conspiracy theory’ views on the west and the developing/third world. At least I think that the official story of AIDS (according to one ‘scientific explanation’ some fellah was skinning a live chimp that bit him and their blood mingled and a virus it was carrying turned into a different virus and a couple of decades later this disease had spread over the continent) just sounds nonsense. And the whole official story of the drugs barons in Latin America also sounds nonsense (true enough up to a point but I can't believe they got so many guns off the black market). Both could be right, but I find it curious how uninterested the MSM actually is in investigating these issues.

    I wonder how long it will be before the ‘bell curve’ conservatives will join forces with the Malthusian liberals regarding the birth limitation policy? I heard once that Nigeria has the world’s second biggest film industry. Wonder if they actually make films that aren’t remakes of sequels based on comic books?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Gregor,

    Very interesting comment. I agree with you regarding conspiracy theories about the West and its meddling in the Third World, they are probably the most probable conspiracy theories out there due to the fact that we already have a clear and undisputed record of Western government and business interests getting involved in nefarious activities in the developing countries. Even as far back as the 1930s, U.S. Marine General Smedley Butler discussed the pervasiveness of war profiteering and how government and corporate interests conspired to make Latin America safe for Big Business.

    Also, there is just so much less reporting by the MSM regarding what happens in the poor countries that we probably don’t know much about what is happening on the ground. Western media outlets get their information from Western sources such as governments, businesses or NGOs, or they go to Westernized locals.

    With regard to Bell Curve conservatives and Malthusian liberals working together, I think they already do to a certain extent. At the very least, they share the same basic worldview but have different opinions about how supposedly inferior people should be dealt with, with the conservatives/libertarians being more or less in favor of neglect while the progressives are more willing to use government power to manage the poor.

    Indeed, these are pretty much the same camps from the old days of open eugenics. The classical liberals (today’s libertarians or free-market conservatives) were more or less willing to let the “inferior” die out from neglect, while progressives supported state intervention through policies such as forced sterilization to make the process more efficient.

    Ultimately, I think the Social Darwinism issue may be the defining issue of the 21st Century and this may have an interesting impact on political coalitions. For example, will socialists and other left-wingers continue to ally with progressives who have very nasty opinions of the poor and who agree with Bell Curve conservatives that biology and not politics or economics is behind the suffering of the downtrodden?

    Will religious social conservatives who support the sanctity of life continue to ally with libertarians such as Charles Murray who support ending programs for poor mothers because it encourages the “wrong” people, from a genetic standpoint, to have children, with predictable consequences for abortion rates? The issue of the human person may be the new “line in the sand” between the major ideological blocs of the future.

    ReplyDelete