all 49 comments

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

    [–]yesofcoursenaturally[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Pretty much. Though outward acknowledgment of debt to whites is a fascinating thing. I've seen headlines talking about blacks in Zimbabwe talking about how much they miss their last Rhodesian PM.

    Not that that changes my mind on unity. Diversity is a weakness. But maybe if we're apart, terms of engagement can be better.

    Unfortunately, I suspect the Chinese have other plans for Africa.

    [–]Wrangel 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I've seen headlines talking about blacks in Zimbabwe talking about how much they miss their last Rhodesian PM.

    There is a chance that some African country becomes the most pro white country. African blacks don't really dislike white people like blacks in the US. They might also realize that whites are a lot better at civilization then they are and that having whites around is a good thing.

    [–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Only in Africa. Big chief offers the White farmers money but tasks them with creating it because he doesn't have any. What a joke of a continent.

    Happy for the farmers though. For the one's who want to stay hopefully the new government -- which appears to be much more into reconciliation with Whites than Mugabe was -- will continue to treat them well.

    [–]yesofcoursenaturally[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    It's funny that they'd like to pay them billions of dollars but the economy's so fucked they actually don't have that despite being a nation.

    [–]yesofcoursenaturally[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    HARARE, Zimbabwe (AP) — Zimbabwe’s government on Wednesday signed a deal with former white farmers to pay them billions of dollars in compensation roughly two decades after they lost their land in often violent invasions.

    But because the government does not readily have the money, the farmers will be part of a team tasked with raising the cash.

    About 4,000 farmers lost large swathes of land when Zimbabwe’s late leader Robert Mugabe launched the often-chaotic land reform program which he said was aimed at addressing colonial-era land inequities. White farmers had owned the majority of prime farmland. Agricultural land now belongs to the government.

    As they say, "It's a good start."

    [–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    South Africa is next on the block

    [–]Salos10000 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (41 children)

    I disagree with this personally. Zimbabwe is already struggling financially, that 1 billion should be spent on farm capital or hiring fellow african farm laborers. The white race has no place in Africa, a key part of our ideology is getting our brethren in Africa whether it be Zimbabwe or Namibia or South Africa back home to Europe.

    [–]yesofcoursenaturally[S] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    Zimbabwe is already struggling financially,

    That's their own fault, and who gives a shit?

    The white race has no place in Africa,

    They're being compensated for having been robbed of the spoils that were crafted from a nation they largely built.

    Meanwhile, you as of six days ago:

    I disagree, I believe African Americans should be awarded their owns states in the South.

    Africa for the Africans, except for African Americans, who should be given American land. Let me guess: America actually belongs to blacks and "native Americans" and Americans should depart for Europe?

    You are clearly full of shit, so kindly fuck off.

    "Our ideology." indeed.

    [–]Salos10000 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

    No they didn't build Zimbabwe. Rhodesia was an oppressive, apartheid state in steroids designed to put 8 percent of the population above the rest. The African nationalists have a right and duty to fight for their peoples interests.

    My stance on black americans is that they have been here as long as us, were forced to build an economy they couldn't participate in and developed a culture completely distinct from Africa. I stand by my stance they should have their own land in North America.

    [–]yesofcoursenaturally[S] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Rhodesia was an oppressive, apartheid state in steroids

    My goodness. They were...... raciss????

    Let me spell it out for you nice and slow, since it's about your speed: you're a transparent fake. Saying "Fellow White People" doesn't work with leftist Jews. You talking about "our ideology" doesn't work here.

    Fuck along now back to your BLM protests and bulls or whatever it is your kind does.

    [–]Salos10000 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    You didn't refute any of my points at all.

    [–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    The country of Rhodesia was founded by Anglos. The blacks there were savage primitives who didn't even discover the wheel. Under Apartheid, Rhodesia was far more prosperous than it is now. It was the bread basket of Africa. Apartheid benefited blacks as they are incapable of civilization or of ruling themselves.

    Now all the whites have been kicked out and under black rule, they've become a destitute, staving nation with hyperinflation.

    South Africa was founded by the Dutch. The cape colony was mostly uninhabited and the Dutch founded a new nation. During the Napoleonic wars, the Cape Colony was annexed by the British to secure the sea routes to India. The British later conquered what is now northern RSA and merged it with the Cape colony. This is how it ended up with the blacks.

    [–]GConly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Apartheid benefited blacks

    I have coloured relatives in South Africa... The consensus with them is that they and even most of the blacks, where better off under apartheid. The black government there is a typical African corrupt shitshow now.

    Some of the black south Africans have come out and said so as well. Apparently quotas for black employees at higher levels doesn't make things run smoother. Who knew.

    Some of you might be shocked to know that coloured and Indian South Africans had the same voting rights as whites. The exclusion of blacks from the process was only done because the whites knew the blacks there would vote entirely along racial and tribal divides, and it would collapse the working system they had.

    [–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    All true. No one suffers more from black liberation than other blacks

    [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

    Your argument partially works for zimbabwe but The boer are more native to south Africa than the bantu.

    [–]Salos10000 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (18 children)

    And what?It's the bantus land now.

    [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    They are conquerors on boer land and the only reason they were able to do it is with international pressure on the boer. By your own logic they should go back to their lands.

    [–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Just yesterday you talked about how whites don't belong in Zimbabwe because they took it from the native Bantus, but now you suddenly turn around to argue that the Bantus are legitimate in taking over land they aren't native to from the whites who first settled it. Double standards much?

    [–]Salos10000 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    No Double standard, my point is basically that that the situation Southern Africa is hopeless for whites and any chance of a 'victory' in that region is hopeless. Whites were at their peak only about 20 percent of the south African population and 8 percent of the Rhodesian population. Black workers contributed as much as whites to the building up of those regions. We need to get our brothers and sisters in that region back home to Europe, Africa is not our place, if they stay they will eventually be massacred there is no question especially with Julius Malema's parties gains in the 2019 election there. We need to get them back, there is zero point of them being there.

    [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

    Do you make that argument about native lands in the US?

    [–]Salos10000 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    No

    [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    So you only support non white conquerors?

    [–]Salos10000 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I don't support any conquerors,our people won North America,Australia and New Zealand by right of conquest,the Bantus won Southern Africa by right of conquest.

    [–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

    Whites are the natives in the US

    [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

    Not to cultural marxists. Whites can't be natives anywhere under the lens of critical theory.

    [–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

    Yes but there is no need to use their language

    [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

    100% agree. That's what I'm trying to explain to salos.

    He made the argument that it's 'bantu land now'. Which is a dissident position (conquerors own their territory if they hold it long enough). Salos is basically switching around between philosophies to support black people and dump on whites. If he keeps doing it I'm going to ban him for misrepresenting his position (rule 3).

    [–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Salos is salos. His arguments never made sense but I liked him on reddit because he made stupid posts which forced others to argue and I learned a lot that way.

    [–]Salos10000 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    What stupid arguments?

    [–]Salos10000 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    Ban me for what? I am consistent in my position, the situation in Southern Africa is unwinnable for our people, the Bantus won by right of conquest as did we in North America and Oceania. Right of conquest is how the world has always worked, whites have a right and a duty to hold onto and maintain what we have just like Europe done against Islam.

    [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    Your words:

    I don't support any conquerors,our people won North America,Australia and New Zealand by right of conquest,the Bantus won Southern Africa by right of conquest.

    You just said, 'it's bantu land now' and 'whites should leave'. That's at least tacit support of bantu conquors over south african boer natives who have lived on the land for 400 years. If that's your position state it clearly so people can debate with you and hold you accountable for your position.

    Which one is it? Your position is constantly changing. The only consistent position you hold is that white people need to retreat and that whites can never be natives. This is the exact same position a critical theorist that goes around academia warping the historical record to make whites the eternal aggressors.

    [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    The white race has no place in Africa

    And blacks have no place in Europe.

    [–]arainynightinskyrim 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    And in north america.

    [–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

    I disagree with this personally. Zimbabwe is already struggling financially, that 1 billion should be spent on farm capital or hiring fellow african farm laborers.

    The fact that the Zimbabweans kicked out the white Rhodesians and gained back control over their own politics is how they got into this mess in the first place. The white Rhodesians were just more competent at running the country and producing food.

    That being said, I agree that Rhodesia probably would need a headstart of development aid to get back on its feet (which the treasonous British government should pay since they backstabbed Rhodesia and its white minority in the 60s, 70s and 80s, causing this mess), I just acknowledge that it will be both moral and necessary for some form of Apartheid to be reinstated.

     

    The white race has no place in Africa, a key part of our ideology is getting our brethren in Africa whether it be Zimbabwe or Namibia or South Africa back home to Europe.

    By that logic, wouldn't it follow through that Turks have no place in Anatolia and should be repatriated back to the Central Asian steppe? Oh wait, you actually oppose this and think Turkey should remain Turkish despite the fact that they aren't native to Europe.

    But I agree with you that the European countries where the settlers in southern Africa originally came from (i.e England, Germany, Portugal and the Netherlands) should let them back in. Those countries would instantly become much whiter again and also much more socially conservative and nationalistic.

    [–]Salos10000 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

    The situation in Southern Africa is unwinnable, there is no evidence rhodesia was as successful as some users parrot. Just look at their GDP, they were a landlocked,sanctioned nation and the white race has no claim over it.

    [–]SeanieD123 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Rhodesia was better than what zimbabwe is now. But I agree there’s no point in white people in Africa anymore

    [–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

    Define "as successful as some users parrot". Because of course, compared to European (including American) standards it obviously would've been lesser developed, for the reasons you mentioned as well as because it's a jungle and because it's full of black people.

    But by sub-Saharan African standards it was one of the most developed nations (besides South Africa, Namibia and maybe Botswana), and it was the bread basket of Africa. Even an increasing number of black Zimbabweans themselves admit this, hate Mugabe for killing Zimbabwe, and love the white Rhodesians who got kicked out by Mugabe.

    As for whether white people have a claim to it or not, maybe they initially were in the wrong to take it from the black natives, but every trace of civilization in Zimbabwe/Rhodesia was a product of the white/European settlers; the farms, the capital city Salisbury (now Harare), the roads, the running water and electricity, so you could argue that they kinda worked their way up to also having a claim over the land.

    Also, why are you ok with the white farmers getting expropriated without compensation, despite the fact that none of the original farmers who "stole" the land is alive today, meaning all farmers alive today either got their farms through hard work and purchasing them or inherited them? Wouldn't that be communism?

    [–]Salos10000 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

    I haven't seen a single source proving Rhodesia was this paradise you claim it is or that the natives wanted to be oppressed.

    The native zimbabwaans are acting in their racial interest by asserting control of their land just as we would be in Europe and the US. Life isn't fair, the white farmers do not belong there and need to come back home.

    [–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    There are no native Zimbabweans.

    The Black Bantu invaders exterminated them in recent history.

    To this day, West African Blacks persecute and kill native Africans.

    These are real genocides unlike the made up supposed genocides of Blacks by Europeans.

    [–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    You didn't even interact with the points I brought up, you're just using bad faith tactics as usual. I never said Rhodesia was a paradise, and it probably wasn't, but relative to most of sub-Saharan Africa (especially in its current, post-colonial condition) it definitely was a "paradise", meaning Rhodesia (unlike modern-day Zimbabwe) at least wasn't a total shithole.

    Before the white/European settlers came, all black Zimbabwean natives were living in mudhuts the size of dog pens, running around naked with spears and eating dirt. After colonization, Rhodesia had modern European buildings and technology, a stable food supply, and an educated black middle class that got lifted out of poverty and lived in Salisbury.

    And if the native black Zimbabweans are merely acting in their racial interest and are justified in slaughtering and kicking out the white farmers and/or taking their farms without compensation, we are definitely justified in stripping Zimbabwe of all technology and valuable posessions we made and left behind. In fact, maybe we should even destroy all highrises, farms and roads we built there as well.

    They can't have it both ways after all; if they slaughter us, kick us out and steal our farms, we might as well take or destroy everything there with us.

    [–]Salos10000 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

    2 wrongs do not make a right, destroying zimbabwe would be petty and hateful as fuck.

    [–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    So simply undoing the progress we brought about in Zimbabwe and returning it to its natural state would be "petty and hateful as fuck", but them murdering and forcibly removing the couple of thousands of European farmers/settlers who've been living there over a century (and gave them this civilization in the first place) wouldn't be "petty and hateful as fuck"?

    PS: Note that I don't actually support destroying everything we left behind, and I also think this would be petty and hateful. I'm merely taking your obviously insane logic to it's logical conclusion, to point out your total hypocrisy (where blacks can go full atomwaffen/Pol Pot on whites who gave them civilization and a higher living standard, while we have to be compassionate and merciful to them in return)

    [–]Salos10000 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I just think we need to bring all our European brethren back home to Europe where they belong. Better for them and us.

    [–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Are you Jewish?

    [–]Salos10000 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    No