Seems to me u have bigger fish to fry than to query Aids and population concerns in Africa......

Shortly before his election as President of France, Jacques Chirac warned, "if you look at Europe and then at other continents, the comparison is terrifying. In demographic terms, Europe is vanishing. Twenty or so years from now, our countries will be empty, and no matter what our technological strength, we shall be incapable of putting it to use."(10) And Valery Giscard d'Estaing, who held the same office from 1974 to 1981, issued numerous public warnings about the unhealthy state of the French census. In 1978, for example, he pronounced that "a society no longer capable of assuring the replacement of generations is a condemned society."(11)

The Central Intelligence Agency, too, issued a similar warning in 1990 in an unclassified study titled, "Youth Deficits: An Emerging Population Problem." Low birthrates in western nations and the declining numbers of entry-level workers, the CIA's analysts reasoned, could lead to such things as labor shortages and economic decline.(12)

And Timothy Wirth, Counsellor for the U.S. Department of State, commented to a Senate Panel in 1993: "At the end of World War II, the developed countries accounted for almost 40 percent of world population. Today they hold about 20 percent, heading -- if growth in the developing countries does not slow -- toward as little as 12 percent."(13)

Such sentiments are neither new or isolated. Virtually all of Europe, for instance, has adopted some kind of official pronatalist policy in response to sagging fertility. Such birth- inducement programs may consist of new-baby bonus payments (progressively larger as the size of the family increases), family support allowances, free day care, mandatory maternity leave, housing and job preferences, and the like.

Generally, these measures would be considered progressive, except for the fact that they are designed less to make life easier for families than to subtly influence decisions about family size. Most pronatalist legislation, in other words, is intended to meet explicitly-stated policy demographic objectives set by the various governments.(14) Former French President Giscard-d'Estaing, for example, issued an order in 1979 to the effect that every family with two children would was to receive a special birth allowance of 10,000 francs upon the birth of each additional child.(15)

In 1982, 15 prominent West German academics and scholars joined to form the "Heidelberg circle," issuing well-publicized declaration on the "infiltration" of Germany by foreign immigrants, which also deplored the fact that the German birthrate "is now barely one-half the rate needed to ensure the continued existence of our nation."(16)

Indeed, the European Parliament in 1984 issued a "Resolution on the need for community measures to promote population growth in Europe," which called upon all European Economic Community states to work vigorously toward boosting their rates of population growth. Among other things, the resolution affirms that "Europe's standing and influence in the world depend largely on the vitality of its population" and that "population trends in Europe will have a decisive effect on the development of Europe and will determine the significance of the role which Europe will play in the world in future decades."(17)

But pronatalist policies are seldom effective. While similar measures adopted by fascist regimes in the 1930s did succeed in producing an immediate increase in births, they did not measurably affect completed family size -- suggesting that parents opted to have children sooner, but not to raise larger families.(18)

Crumbling Power Structures
Noting the implications of current population growth projections in a polarized world, Jean-Claude Chesnais of the National Institute for Demographic Studies in Paris writes:

[T]he demographic trends of the next few decades will lead to a reshaping of world political geography whose general outline can already be foreseen. Young powers will emerge, basing their strength in large part on their population size and the stimulus it creates, and old powers will fade as their populations decline.(19)
As the balance of economic power begins to shift from north to south, political changes could accelerate the trend. In a recently- published book, The Power of Nations in the 1990s: A Strategic Assessment by Ray S. Cline, it is noted that large, populous countries, by their very nature, have a greater voice in global affairs and are better situated to defend themselves against aggressors or to impose their views on others.

Cline, who is chairman of the United States Global Strategy Council, a former Deputy Directory of Intelligence for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and one-time chief of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, explains in his text that national power is a combination of "strategic, military, economic, and political strengths and weaknesses."(20) These, he continues, are the product of a number of national characteristics which unite to form that "critical mass" which makes a nation powerful -- "the size and location of the territory, the nature of frontiers, the populations, the raw- material resources, the economic structure, the technological development, the financial strength... social cohesiveness... and finally the intangible quality usually described as national spirit."(21)

Cline, like many others within the U.S. military and intelligence community, acknowledges that population size is the definitive feature of a powerful nation. It is hard, he writes, "to think of nations with a population of less than 20 million as having truly great power in their own right, independent of the interests or actions of larger nations."(22) This, he explains, is inevitable because "[a] small population in a large country may mean it is not likely to be developed into a modern, powerful nation, or at least that the prospect is in the distant future."(23)

At the same time, however, Cline advises, "A large territory, if accompanied by a large population, almost automatically confers the status of power on a nation and will be so interpreted by strategists and makers of foreign policy."(24) Thus he remarks that the 23 most populous countries on earth -- each with at least 50 million people, for a combined population of 4 billion -- "are automatically powerful."(25)

The former CIA boss uses the following words to explain the relationship between human numbers and national strength:

It is the sense of community among human beings that identifies the nation- state and infuses it with life. People exploit the raw economic resources of the territory they live in and develop the political and social traditions that shape national cultures. The spirit and competence of the individual human beings in a society, in the long run, may count as much as or more than the concrete and material resources a nation possesses. Population size is clearly a major element in international perceptions of whether or not a country constitutes a critical mass in terms of national power.(26)
Ultimately, global power is moving south, away from today's wealthy states, says Cline, because "the greatest population growth -- indeed most of it -- will occur in the economically undeveloped regions of the Southern Hemisphere in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The implications of these facts are clear enough for Americans in the mainstream society of the United States."(27)

quote:

---

Obenga, Don't worry about the west, it is running the global economy just fine

---

Instead of the fake posts about your concern about the future of black people i simply suggested you worry about something closer to your center.

You spoke of Darwin.....the fact that pure Whites are slowly facing greatly reduced numbers while those you think need help are thriving tells me you seem to be on the wrong track here.

Blacks are a hardy group of people and will be around for a long time...our genetic diversity will assure that....without conscious intervention of science and efforts to slow down the reproduction of non-whites...pure whites are facing becoming a dwindling part of affairs in the future of this planet.

Asians, Latinoes, and Blacks are growing......Western europeans have other things in mind too important to take the time to reproduce....or is it just Darwin saying that their time is up....as the superior group will thrive according to survival of the fittest

How superior could the "White west" be if they are working hard to find ways to increase their number while reducing the numbers of other groups that will overrun them in a hundred years.

Wre are told by Darwin the weak will perish......"If one believes that one's race is naturally "superior" to all others, then no concerted action should be required on one's part for that "superiority" to tell in the long run. Protectionism is and always has been the refuge of the weak and uncompetitive."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Obenga:

Wre are told by Darwin the weak will perish......"If one believes that one's race is naturally "superior" to all others, then no concerted action should be required on one's part for that "superiority" to tell in the long run. Protectionism is and always has been the refuge of the weak and uncompetitive."

These words are quite apt with regard to what is happening to the West IMO. If they were so "Superior" as you believe, they would not be facing this crisis that other groups with less to work with are not.

---

You make a good point here, Obenga.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
You need to ask yourself a question, why did the west come to dominate the world after 1500?
Was it just an accident?
Did they win the world in a contest?
There are real reasons why these perole 'in the west' prevailed over others.

---

Is it because those in the West are racially superior than the non-Westerners? I ask you, why did the racially superior Westerners have to borrow so much from non-whites? Come on my friend, it is a phase, in the time of the ancients, the non-Whites ruled the world. A huge share of Ancient Greece and Rome came from the non-white Africans, and West Asians, not to mention the Chinese.

White males are Paranoid and Warlike on a level that other Hu-mans do not display. That White development in the Ice Age left them with a peculiar group behaviour is obvious. The reason it took until 1500 hundred was obvious...they did not have the war machine until that time to make war unsolicited and unprovoked on the peoples of every other continent on this planet.

Which is what they did at the first oppportunity to do so.

The Chinese invented firearms....europe did not. Without the help of Muslims Europe would have never aquired the ability to gain this technology and use it to slaughter Non-White peoples wherever they came upon them on the planet.

The Fact that Asia and Western Asiatics had firearms but did not see the need to kill any population they came across using this technology supports the point I made earlier.....the Ice Age gave western europeans a peculiar psychology that will always lead them to kill Non-Whites.

It's clearly observed in the culture of western europeans. Outside of western Europe name a society/Culture that does not work in conjunction with the natural enviroment....

You Can't....

All of natures creatures including Hu-Mans know how to live with the natural world in a way that works together with the planet we live on.......western euros built societies and cultures that disrespect the planet....pollute the planet......consume without giving back.

The Cultures of Asia, Africa. Australia Oceania and the Americas respected the natural world it is always a profound part of all the naturally developed cultures without western European influence.

When one looks at White western history there is a clear break away from this part of Human behaviour observed everywhere else on the planet.

Euros were not happy in Europe they had to leave and take from other populations who loved their eviroment and culture......like Locusts they have raped this world of natural resources by building a society that cannot possibly sustain itself at this level to much longer....western society is built on a system of stealing from others, the majority peoples of this world, to support a small part of it that is North america and western europe, consuming the vast majority of this worlds resources at the expense of Non-whites....ensuring Non-Whites can never build any society as wasteful and greedy because the world simply cannot support all continents peoples living and consuming the planet at the level westerners are.

This is not a secret.....scholars from India, Africa, and the far East along with Whites who understand and are revolted by the destructive nature of western society write about it for any to see and learn.

Horumheb,

You are proud of the Warlike destructive nature of White males.....no surpise there....thats why u beat your chest about money and the war machine of the west and how it is right that they did so because they have the power to do so.

So of course you should have no problem with the fact that the gene pool of the pure white is shrinking fast.....the might of the non-white Gene pool makes it right that the pure white is genetically swept aside......if you follow your philosophy to it's logical end

Wars are not always won by guns and missiles. The USA will be majority Non-White in short order....and there is nothing you can do to stop it. Europe is as we speak being swarmed by non-whites from Asia and Africa....Europeans will look like Latin Americans in little more than a hundred years ...they don't need bombs and stock markets to take power....this power shift is happening at the genetic level.

THe White Male has been deemed Unfit to prosper on a genetic level....this is natures way...not mine or yours ...just nature trying to put the best of the species in position to thrive......and lo and behold we are.

Indeed, the European Parliament in 1984 issued a "Resolution on the need for community measures to promote population growth in Europe," which called upon all European Economic Community states to work vigorously toward boosting their rates of population growth. Among other things, the resolution affirms that "Europe's standing and influence in the world depend largely on the vitality of its population" and that "population trends in Europe will have a decisive effect on the development of Europe and will determine the significance of the role which Europe will play in the world in future decades."

Enjoy the 500 years of being on top ....the world is moving on.....without you as the quote above notes. 500 years out of several thousand years of world history is not much to beat ones chest about.

We have a saying in the Caribbean " Your Eyes are too big for your size". Which means Euros bit off more than they could chew.

Westerners spread themselves to thin. They should have remianed in Europe and thrived. They traveled to the other continents in the hope of wealth and dominating other peoples but the end result is that on those continents they are being swallowed whole on a genetic level by the non-white collective.

Whats disturbing to you is that the Non-white collective has decided not to stop there. They are traveling to the source from whence westerners sprang to continue to impregnate white females....and of course White females are obliging in a ratio that is very disturbing to white males.

Worried?.....why should I worry about the West when the knowledge base of the West acknowledge they are facing a slow steady eradication.

So go ahead with your idiotic posts about Black people......we will still be here in our native form when the pure white is a museum piece as u assumed Africans would be on the opposite thread to this one.

BTW, historically European military domination didn't come about until the late 19th century. This is particularly when attempts to re-write history went into full swing.

"Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests."

NSSM 200 acknowledged that the purpose of population control was to serve the U.S. strategic, economic, and military interest at the expense of the developing countries. Such a revelation, particularly if it were to leak out prematurely, would seriously jeopardize program goals.

NSSM 200 states that population growth in the developing world threatens U.S. security in four basic ways: First, certain large nations stand to gain significant political power and influence as a result of their growing populations. Second, the United States and its western allies have a vital interest in strategic materials which have to be imported from less-developed countries. Third, societies with high birthrates have large numbers of young people, who are more likely than older people to challenge global power structures. And last, population growth in relatively-disadvantaged countries jeopardizes U.S. investments.

The recommendations for reducing fertility applied only to the developing world -- and to all of it. However, NSSM 200 also states that 13 countries of "special U.S. political and strategic interest" would be primary targets. They are: India, Brazil, Egypt, Nigeria, Indonesia, the Philippines, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Mexico, Thailand, Turkey, Ethiopia and Colombia (page 15 of the introduction).

The memorandum cites Brazil as one example. Brazil "clearly dominates the continent demographically," the report says, noting that Brazilians could outnumber U.S. residents by the end of the century. Thus it foresees a "growing power status for Brazil in Latin America and on the world scene over the next 25 years" if population programs were not successful at curbing fertility (page 22). Nigeria was also given as an example of a nation that can benefit from population increase. "Already the most populous country on the continent, with an estimated 55 million people in 1970, Nigeria's population by the end of this century is projected to number 135 million," says the formerly-classified report. "This suggests a growing political and strategic role for Nigeria, at least in Africa south of the Sahara" (page 21).

"The location of known reserves of higher-grade ores of most minerals favors increasing dependence of all industrialized regions on imports from less developed countries. The real problems of mineral supplies lie, not in basic physical sufficiency, but in the politico-economic issues of access, terms for exploration and exploitation, and division of the benefits among producers, consumers, and host country governments" (page 37)

There is plenty more of this.......stop thinking people have fancy conspiracy theories about the West and please do not defend the West if you are Non-White.

The Goal of the West is to stay on top and deny power to nations who are growing to become a threat....as u can see those countries are Non-White like Brazil, Egypt, Indonesia and Nigeria.

Aids is no fluke

When u defend the West this is what you are defending. They wish to control the non-white population to control and have access to resources and keep non-whites down.

There is no reason to defend the West unless you are a White male...like Horumheb

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
What makes this subject interesting, is that it deals with the concerns about population size and makeup in relation to power in the "West", which doesn't come up frequently on discussion boards. Yet, this is no small matter, at least in the minds of the ruling elites of the "West".

BTW, historically European military domination didn't come about until the late 19th century. This is particularly when attempts to re-write history went into full swing.

[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 12 March 2005).]

---

when they mean nigeria by the end of this cent.they would be talking about the 20th,because nigeria is already at 139 million and by 2050 it will have around 229 million.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Super car...i just waiting for you to get anything right when it comes to history. The agae of conquest and exploration began in the 16th century. Spain defeated the two biggest empires in the new world in the EARLY 16th century. Check your african history and you will find Euros involved there with the slave trade long before the 19th century. The drive for empire was a product of the 19th century IN SOME AREAS but the groundwork has been laid centuries before.

---

I suggest you check history out. Northern European didn't know much about Africans during the 16th century and prior to that. The only Europeans who had long history with Africans were southern Europeans, and we can see this through their Nile Valley contacts, and the Moorish invasions. European scramble of Africa, didn't take stage until the 19th century, when a meeting was held in Berlin. It wasn't until the 19th century that Europeans gained military dominance. And even then, they had quite a challenge from varous places around the globe. In fact, Ethiopia remained independent until the Fascist leader Mussolini occupied Ethiopia, in an attempt to colonize the country. But he was forced to withdraw due to international pressure, and Ethiopia remained independent.

"The Ethiopian Empire had been in decline and fragmented in the 19th century, but Emperor Menelik changed its fortunes and by 1896 the Ethiopians were strong enough to inflict a crushing defeat on the Italians at Adowa."

In other areas, the French had to endure a long drawn out military confrontation with the West Africans spear-headed by the then leader, Samori Toure.

"At the beginning of the century, Europeans were still hugely ignorant of the continent. The systematic colonisation of Africa, which gathered momentum in the 1880's, was not even on the horizon in the first half of the 19th century. Europeans had confined themselves to trading mainly along the coast. Inland the trade in slaves and commodities was handled by African and Arab merchants...

In the last two decades of the 19th century conflicts and rivalries in Europe began to affect people in Africa directly. In the 1880's European powers divided Africa up amongst themselves without the consent of people living there, and with limited knowledge of the land they had taken.

In 1914 conflict in Europe came to a head and the First World War broke out. The contribution of African people to the war effort was crucial."

To punctuate the story...

"Commercial greed, territorial ambition, and political rivalry all fuelled the European race to take over Africa. This culminated in Africa's partition at the Berlin Conference 1884-5. The whole process became known as "The Scramble for Africa"."

All quotes were sourced from:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/11chapter3.shtml

Needless to say, neo-nazis look at history from a different lens from normal rational people.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
the nazi thing again Super Car...you would have been in a gas chamber years ago if people like me had not defeated the nazi's.

---

Apparently, they haven't been defeated. Your example is testament to this...and I am still here.

quote:

---

Horemheb:

Do you understand enopugh about modern history to know that white Americans and brits are the only reason you are alive today.

---

Africans have been here before Europeans, and will remain here as long as the planet exists. No Nazi could have changed that, and again, in contradiction to your claims...

"In 1914 conflict in Europe came to a head and the First World War broke out. The contribution of African people to the war effort was crucial."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/index_section11.shtml

quote:

---

Horemheb:
I hate to put it in those terms but when you spew out those ignorant Nazi statements then we need to correct the record.
Go back and read my post again SC. I did not say euros were 'in' Africa in the 16th century. I said the groundwork was established by the age of exploration. By the way, the first African slaves started showing up here in the early 17th century.

---

You must not have read my comment, because your earlier erroneous comment was supposedly in reply to what I had said earlier.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Hitler not only could have changed it, he would have changed it. Keep in mind that the Italians and Germans were ALREADY in Africa when the Brits and Americans showed up. They would have easily taken the entire contient and if you understand anything about Hitler's racial policies you have to know that he would have killed Africans by the millions until someone stopped him. Do you think his long range plans were to kill only jews? Remember SC that we did not have to enter that war. Many in Republicans in the early 40's were opposed to involvement. We could have easily set here peotected the oceans and done just fine. The United States and the UK saved Africa from genocide since nobody in the world but us came even close to having the power to stop the Germans.

---

I suppose you failed to point out in all this neo-nazi misinformation, that the U.S. and Britain were allies with Hitler. It was only when they thought that Hitler was getting a little heavy handed in the fear that he would eventually threaten their own imperialist interests, did they respond to him. Hitler was not the exception to the rule then, but part of it. Germans and Brits were in Africa before that and during that time...and we are still here.

Just to give you an example of how determined Africans can get, if the situation requires it...

"Conflict began in 1935 when Italy invaded and then occupied Ethiopia. The Emperor went into exile in Britain. This invasion led to a widespread willingness on the part of people in Africa to fight fascism. By 1941 with the help of African soldiers from west, east and South Africa the Italians were defeated in Ethiopia. Emperor Haile Selassie was then restored to his throne."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/13chapter12.shtml

Germany was already spread very thin by the time the U.S. decided to enter WWII --mainly to stop a rebounding Stalin about to gobble up the whole of Europe. So The Nazis at that time couldn't have conquered Africa.

Africa was just too large for conquest by an army that knew little about guerrilla warfare in a terrain where the cold-weather Germans would have been decimated by mosquitoes and other kinds of ailments against which Africans were accustomed to. Recall that West Africa was once called "the white man's grave".

Furthermore Africans had be drafted by France and Britain to fight against the Germans in WWI so they were already very familiar with modern warfare. Recall that Samory had fought the French for 20 years in the 1880's in the Sahel region using own-manufactured rifles and horses. Could Hitler's armies have afforded to burn in the Sahel sun for 20 years? Lots of skin cancer I'm sure.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lamin:
To Horemheb

Germany was already spread very thin by the time the U.S. decided to enter WWII --mainly to stop a rebounding Stalin about to gobble up the whole of Europe. So The Nazis at that time couldn't have conquered Africa.

Africa was just too large for conquest by an army that knew little about guerrilla warfare in a terrain where the cold-weather Germans would have been decimated by mosquitoes and other kinds of ailments against which Africans were accustomed to. Recall that West Africa was once called "the white man's grave".

Furthermore Africans had be drafted by France and Britain to fight against the Germans in WWI so they were already very familiar with modern warfare. Recall that Samory had fought the French for 20 years in the 1880's in the Sahel region using own-manufactured rifles and horses. Could Hitler's armies have afforded to burn in the Sahel sun for 20 years? Lots of skin cancer I'm sure.

Also those German tanks would have been bogged down in the Sahel and Sahara and in the forested areas the Germans would have easy prey for guerrilla fighters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
lamin, You are incorrect. You obviously are not aware of Germany war plans in WWII. Do you think they were just attacking here and attacking there? Russia would have been no help without the United States. Keep in mind that the Russians were only able to mount a defence and a counter attack due to American aid through both the Artic and up through southern Russia. They ALMOST failed even WITH all of the aid we were able to supply.
Without the U.S. they would have been defeated soundly in 1941 and 1942. german plans then included turning south into the Persian Gulf and cutting off British oil supplies. Keep in mind that the north sea oil was not avilable at that time and the UK could not survive without middle eastern oil. The Brits would have then had to deal with Hitler as the Americans would have been unable to supple oil until the summer of 1943. Frankly, without the United States Germany wins the war and moves into Africa. he would have gassed entire populations except what he kept for slave labor. The future of Africa as we know it was saved when the U.S. came into the war and Motgomery defeated Rommel in north Africa.

---

As usual, this doesn't really address Lamin's point. Fact is that Nazi's could not have done anything that other Europeans hadn't already done to Africans in the years proceeding the World War. They would have faced resistence in the same manner as the other Europeans did, which culminated into occupational independence from colonialists. Africans have survived everything imperialists have thrown at them, and continue to do so. I know this crushes you neo-nazi myths, but that is the reality.

Once again, African assitance to allied forces is downplayed by your likes...

"North Africa was the other main theatre of war in Africa. Here the allies came very close to defeat at the hands of the Germans. But by 1943 Germany's Afrika Corps had surrendered. In the same year African troops joined with American and British troops to invade Italy. - BBC; The Story of Africa"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Hitler not only could have changed it, he would have changed it. Keep in mind that the Italians and Germans were ALREADY in Africa when the Brits and Americans showed up. They would have easily taken the entire contient and if you understand anything about Hitler's racial policies you have to know that he would have killed Africans by the millions until someone stopped him. Do you think his long range plans were to kill only jews? Remember SC that we did not have to enter that war. Many in Republicans in the early 40's were opposed to involvement. We could have easily set here peotected the oceans and done just fine. The United States and the UK saved Africa from genocide since nobody in the world but us came even close to having the power to stop the Germans.

---