The October 2016 issue of National Geographic.

For at least 20 years, political commentators have written about the “Islamification” of Europe. Mainstream critics of this transformation are worth reading (Oriana Fallaci, Daniel Pipes, Mark Steyn, Bruce Bawer, et. al.) — but they are short-sighted. In the years to come, Muslim fertility in Europe will certainly continue to outpace that of non-Muslims:

But in the decades to come the difference between those two groups will pale in comparison to the birthrates of black Africans: (Click here for interactive versions of these maps.)

Click here for an enlarged version.

Even later in this century, when sub-Saharan birthrates are expected to go down, its fertility will still be considerably higher than everywhere else on Earth:

Click here for an enlarged version.

It is strange to imagine now, but just as today Arabs pour into Europe, by 2040, blacks may be pouring into the Middle East and Asia. This African population bomb is a threat not just to the West, but to the world. I am a white advocate, but I have no desire to see the advanced civilizations of Asia submerged by a black tide. Even Islamic societies have contributed to advances in math, astronomy, and architecture, among other things.

More population projections — what Steve Sailer calls “the world’s most important graph.”

Black Africans never developed a written language, built a two-story building, or invented the wheel. And scientists, from liberals such as Jared Diamond to race realists such as Razib Khan, have long noted that the biggest genetic gulf between human populations is between sub-Saharan Africans and everyone else. Here’s how American Renaissance contributor Glayde Whitney illustrated the difference:

Genetic distance between any two groups is represented by the total length
of the lines separating them.

Islam is a threat to the West, but blacks threaten the world. Chinese, Persians, Japanese, etc. should worry, too. None of us stands to gain from becoming variations of Nigeria or Haiti.