23 April 2010

In a Low IQ Idiocracy, Violence Is the Cause


In the many decades since African countries were liberated from their colonial masters, benevolent overseas observers have been watching and waiting for Africa to flower and bloom under their new freedoms. Every African liberation movement was seen as a noble cause, as a sacred means to the end of breaking the back of the racist subjugation of African people.

Decades later, and what are the noble causes in Sub-Saharan Africa? What drives the violence and terror that regularly sweeps across the dark continent like a searing brushfire?
There is a very simple reason why some of Africa's bloodiest, most brutal wars never seem to end: They are not really wars. Not in the traditional sense, at least. The combatants don't have much of an ideology; they don't have clear goals. They couldn't care less about taking over capitals or major cities -- in fact, they prefer the deep bush, where it is far easier to commit crimes. Today's rebels seem especially uninterested in winning converts, content instead to steal other people's children, stick Kalashnikovs or axes in their hands, and make them do the killing. Look closely at some of the continent's most intractable conflicts, from the rebel-laden creeks of the Niger Delta to the inferno in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and this is what you will find.

What we are seeing is the decline of the classic African liberation movement and the proliferation of something else -- something wilder, messier, more violent, and harder to wrap our heads around. If you'd like to call this war, fine. But what is spreading across Africa like a viral pandemic is actually just opportunistic, heavily armed banditry.

...I've witnessed up close -- often way too close -- how combat has morphed from soldier vs. soldier (now a rarity in Africa) to soldier vs. civilian. Most of today's African fighters are not rebels with a cause; they're predators. That's why we see stunning atrocities like eastern Congo's rape epidemic, where armed groups in recent years have sexually assaulted hundreds of thousands of women, often so sadistically that the victims are left incontinent for life. What is the military or political objective of ramming an assault rifle inside a woman and pulling the trigger? Terror has become an end, not just a means.

This is the story across much of Africa, where nearly half of the continent's 53 countries are home to an active conflict or a recently ended one. Quiet places such as Tanzania are the lonely exceptions; even user-friendly, tourist-filled Kenya blew up in 2008. Add together the casualties in just the dozen countries that I cover, and you have a death toll of tens of thousands of civilians each year. More than 5 million have died in Congo alone since 1998, the International Rescue Committee has estimated.

...Most frightening is how many sick states like Congo are now showing Somalia-like symptoms. Whenever a potential leader emerges to reimpose order in Mogadishu, criminal networks rise up to finance his opponent, no matter who that may be. The longer these areas are stateless, the harder it is to go back to the necessary evil of government.

All this might seem a gross simplification, and indeed, not all of Africa's conflicts fit this new paradigm. The old steady -- the military coup -- is still a common form of political upheaval, as Guinea found out in 2008 and Madagascar not too long thereafter.

......conflicts in Africa have become -- circles of violence in the bush, with no end in sight. _ForeignAffairsvia_Instapundit

How is the low average IQ of SubSaharan Africa relevant to this perennial bloody mayhem on the primitive dark continent? Without strong leaders and a large supply of high IQ outsiders from a market dominant minority, the future of Africa will always be bleak and bloody. Sub Saharan Africans themselves cannot organise, build, and maintain a large infrastructure to support a healthy, high tech, economically prosperous society. Just as small children delight more in the knocking down of the blocks than in the building of the towers, so do mind children delight more in the tearing down of society than in the planning, construction, and maintenance.

A low IQ society tends to be violent -- not because low intelligence necessarily lends to violence, but because there will always be persons of slightly higher intelligence than most who want to take away what others have earned, and are willing to incite violence to gain their selfish ends.

As the author wrote in the above article, if you kill the leaders of a violent African movement, the movement will die for lack of leadership. Eventually, the bell curve will supply new leaders who will bring new violence. But there may be a peaceful lull between bloodlettings.

What you see in Sub Saharan Africa is also the future, Coming Anarchy, for other parts of the third world, and for the parts of the developed world that choose to import large numbers of third world people.

Law and order, a peaceful society -- such is not the natural state of low IQ human existence. Much work, time, and expenditure is required to separate the violent and the instigators of violence from the general population (as European nations are learning the hard way, following decades of foolish immigration policies). A low IQ society -- unless it also contains a significant number of high IQ market dominant minorities -- will not possess enough people with the necessary requirements to hold off the forces of violence.

This violence is the past, present, and future of Africa. It does not have to be the future of your nation.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share


Blogger painlord2k@gmail.com said...

Like you pointed out previously, the resources of Africa will not allow a power vacuum.
With the central government destroyed or insignificant, the violence will destroy the economy and the bandits will find no much to steal or kill for.
Other, external actors, will find increasingly justification to intervene to exploit the resources of the place. If it is not Europe, it will be China or Russia or some Arab nation.

Seasteaders could find easier to take over a small part of one of these coutries (maybe rich of diamonds or uranium or gold) after they grew over a critical number. They could have the backing of some multinational society in need of the resources.

Bandits are not a big problem when confronted with a overwhelming force with high tech weapons and little interest in playing "nice".

Friday, 23 April, 2010  
Blogger kurt9 said...

We behaved like this during medieval times. African is still going through the post-colonial period, which will last another century or more. I expect other parts of the world to undergo governmental breakdown, India and other parts of South Asia.

You should realize that even African people are capable of changing their behavior. For example, both the Caribbean and Brazil have fertility rates at around replacment and South Africa's, which is 90% black, has a fertility rate of 2.3 and dropping.

Friday, 23 April, 2010  
Blogger al fin said...

Kurt, it's best to look at African nations without a significant market dominant minority when making these comparisons. South Africa and Brazil are both held together (such as they are) by the non-African minorities.

China is playing a larger role in some SubSaharan African nations, and may play a stabilising influence -- or not. China is not interested in anything beyond the profit it can gain from the resources of the third world -- and whatever strategic blows it can strike against the western world via third world proxies.

Friday, 23 April, 2010  
Blogger Research data said...

Your low IQ explanation of violence is a bit shaky. If IQ is correlated with violence, then the record of history suggests that high IQs mean more violence. It was the high IQ white Germans for example that gave us the Holocaust, and the mass slaughter of WwI and WwII in Europe. White Russia has the highest abortion rate in the world, killing 2 babies for each live birth (Loveless and Holman 2006) Again, Russian IQ exceeds that of sub-Saharan Africa, but it, along with the abortions posted by other white nations make them the leading mass killers of children on earth.

Friday, 23 April, 2010  
Blogger al fin said...

PC: The issue is violent anarchy, not all forms of violence. Violent anarchy may spring up anywhere, but it persists for long periods of time among those who lack the human capital to maintain workable systems of laws, law enforcement, and prisons over the long haul. Haiti, for example.

It could be argued that organised violence by the state is worse than violent anarchy. Communism in China, Cambodia, Vietnam, Russia, and North Korea all committed a larger scale of murderous violence toward their own adult citizens in "peacetime" than in your examples of holocaust and world war.

Organised violence toward unwanted fetuses is an aspect of modern societies that is ubiquitous. Perhaps it is better than the practise of infanticide, where unwanted newborns have their heads dashed against the rocks or are left in the wild to be eaten.

Abortion has certainly been bad for the future prospects of many of the lowest birthrate nations today, although the birth control pill and the brand of feminism that specialises in training women to hate motherhood and males also can be blamed.

Saturday, 24 April, 2010  
Blogger Thomas Crabb said...

You are very much in the right area with your explanation of low IQ being relevant. Along with this is also the factor that Africans are very much more violent than other races with higher testosterone levels (e.g. rape in the Congo on an industrial scale). Both low IQ and their violent tribalistic nature are genetic traits and no amount of foreign aid will counter this. Quite simply, Africans evolved with much different selection pressures, "might is right" being the predominant one. They have never had complex sophisticated societies in the past and it is quite futile to expect them to operate hi-tech societies now. Genetically they are not suited to it.

I firmly believe that the overproduction of low-IQ African males could collapse civilisation as they spill into Europe and other continents.

Friday, 08 October, 2010  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would not confuse governments with civilizations.
African male spills in Europe could cause widespread criminality (like it happen with Middle Easterns) but their inability to plan ahead is crucial to prevent them from any lasting territorial gain.
At best they can make the living hell for the local populations for a few decades, then these will react. This is starting to happening in all Europe and in the US, albeit the ruling elites try to choke this reaction with any tool available.

Saturday, 09 October, 2010  

Post a Comment

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” _George Orwell

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts