South Africa's Descent Into A New Zimbabwe

Australia Sucks said:
You think in an outright war the whites in South Africa would win when the blacks control the military? Its hard to fight against tanks and fighter jets, etc when all you have is guns.
Click to expand...
SADF is currently getting it's ass blasted by M23 in the Congo, and the M23 don't own any serious military hardware beyond anything portable and the usual technical. Obviously there are large dissimilarities but you get the point.

I don't see a military confrontation go down well either but for entirely different reasons aka the 'multipolar' backers of the current Black supremacist commie regime in Pretoria, namely Russia and China. They will almost immediately frame a Boer-Bantu conflict in a wider geopolitical frame as many of the Boer organizations have links to US agencies and institutions (including the Democratic Alliance).

Anyway, as this is now a game of when will you leave: I hereby demand the Bantus to evacuate the area up till the River Congo.

images - 2025-02-04T152427.145.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Australia Sucks said:
That is true and the Romans eventually took revenge on the Carthaginians and burnt Carthage to the ground and the Spaniards expelled the Moors from Spain etc so you are just proving my point about populations trying to get revenge against their colonizers.
Click to expand...
I dont think it was about revenge it was more about national security, the Romans feared that if they left any decendants of the Carthagenians alive they would repopulate and attack Rome again, I honestly think Portugal and Spain believed they had a Christian duty to liberated the world and take the gospel to them, I really dont think it was about revenge, Portugal never colonized north Africa, it was north Africa that colonized them not Southern parts, the countries Portugal and Spain colonized were different countries, theres a difference between self defense and revenge.
 
Australia Sucks said:
I get what you are saying but the Dutch didn't settle onto empty land. They killed and enslaved the people who were originally residing there. If other tribes (Bantus etc) later also moved into that area it doesn't negate the fact that they had no right to be there in the first place.
Click to expand...
Not really, it was mostly empty land, even today that area of South Africa is the lowest populated area because its a dessert, there were some nomadic people around and they actually traded with them, locals were never enslaved in South Africa slaves were imported, thats why we have Indians and Muslims in South Africa because they were brought as endentured servants from Malaysia, Philipines and India, on the east coats of South Africa these people speak only english and are Roman Catholics because the Spaniards colonized the Philipines, in western cape they are Muslim because those people came from Malaysia, they even called Cape Malay, they eventually mixed with the khoi and san people and also white people, black people are a minority race in the western cape it doesnt feel like you in Africa when you go there.
 
LaAguilaNegra said:
SADF is currently getting it's ass blasted by M23 in the Congo, and the M23 don't own any serious military hardware beyond anything portable and the usual technical.

I don't see a military confrontation go down well either but for entirely different reasons aka the 'multipolar' backers of the current Black supremacist commie regime in Pretoria, namely Russia and China. They will almost immediately frame a Boer-Bantu conflict in a wider geopolitical frame as many of the Boer organizations have links to US agencies and institutions (including the Democratic Alliance).

Anyway, as this is now a game of when will you leave: I hereby demand the Bantus to evacuate the area up till the River Congo.

View attachment 17562
Click to expand...
If you look at countries like Turkey and Greece the history is very different, Constantinople was Greek territory for a very long time and its was a fully built up and established civilization before the Muslims conquered it, the Muslims didnt built Turkey. In South Africa its the other way around, there was nothing here, the white immigrants created and built up South Africa from nothing and even designated the countries borders that never formally existed, South Africa only officially became a country in 1910 there was no South Africa before that, Turkey existed before the Muslims captured it, there were designated borders and a full infrastructure, the old buildings and churchs still stand today as evidence and they were converted into Mosques, we dont really have that here in South Africa its in no way on the same level not even close.
 
GoodShepherd said:
Not really, it was mostly empty land, even today that area of South Africa is the lowest populated area because its a dessert, there were some nomadic people around and they actually traded with them, locals were never enslaved in South Africa slaves were imported, thats why we have Indians and Muslims in South Africa because they were brought as endentured servants from Malaysia, Philipines and India, on the east coats of South Africa these people speak only english and are Roman Catholics because the Spaniards colonized the Philipines, in western cape they are Muslim because those people came from Malaysia, they even called Cape Malay, they eventually mixed with the khoi and san people and also white people, black people are a minority race in the western cape it doesnt feel like you in Africa when you go there.
Click to expand...
Correction, Indonesia not Philippines.
 
Australia Sucks said:
I get what you are saying but the Dutch didn't settle onto empty land. They killed and enslaved the people who were originally residing there. If other tribes (Bantus etc) later also moved into that area it doesn't negate the fact that they had no right to be there in the first place.
Click to expand...

Define "empty land." Did they enslave them? From a backwater existence of neighborly cannibalism, malnutrition, disease, and living to the ripe old age of 29? Perhaps it was a mistake then.

Where they settled was inhabited by a few Bushmen and Hottentots with plenty of open land. Bantu Black Zulus were still hundreds of miles to the Northeast. The Boers turned it into a paradise of South Africa till the Politicians took over. Under the old apartheid regime, black south Africans had access to the best healthcare in sub-saharan Africa. The ANC dismantled that system. Rhodesia once could feed all of Africa. No more.

Look at these settlers here, they are farmers, not slavers. Good honest hardworking Christian folk:

HardySettlersSA.webp

There was nothing where they arrived, and their ingenuity only brought blessings to the ungrateful. Not only did the Africans not invent the wheel, they couldn't figure it out when gifted it. A local welfare white lobbied to get donkey carts for the indigent when he saw the females carrying heavy loads on their heads. It was approved and he went to check on their progress to find they ate the donkey and burned the carts to cook them.

African negroes never understood fire either, except that it was hot. They had to be shown how to make it and control it by the White man.

To make fire negroes had to wait for a natural phenomenon to occur like a lightening strike on a tree or in a field. Then they would take some of the fire to camp and keep adding dry wood to it. If they failed to tend the fire it would go out and they didn't know how to restart it. They had to wait until the next lighting strike to make fire. They literally had to wait for nature to produce fire for them.

So what did these settlers, who were pushed out of their home country by the Brits, do wrong? Other than not exterminate the Bantu (who went on to cause misery for everyone around them still until this day).
 
Rhodesia was ultimately what colonisation was meant to achieve. Self sufficient, autonomous and most importantly successful countries. I met someone who told me the country was better than Hawaii back then. It was safe and a true representation of what happens when everyone has the same ideas, same beliefs and goals, same outlook. Jesus said do not be divided. It was conservative and Christian. By everyone I mean black and white. The black RLI and Selous Scouts were some of the most disciplined and highly trained personnel who kept the country safe from terrorists. The Western media portrayed it as a racial war when the truth is it was a war against communism. One of the last stands against it, as it trickled down from it's roots in the Bolshevik revolution and indoctrinated people like Mugabe who explicitly said in an interview that he would rule the country under Marxist Communist ideals. Look where it led. First they went for the agricultural base as all communists do and destroyed the food supply. The financial system as a result collapsed several times from 1:1 with the pound into world record breaking inflation. The latest Zimbabwean ZiG currency appears to be crashing again too. Australia Sucks mentions the who was there first spiel which I'm not prepared to debate with someone who did not live there. Mugabe was propped up by both communist and Western governments because they are at their core one and the same. It's unravelling in all countries now. South Africa was already Zimbabwe 2.0 as Slovo stepped in.
 
Turdworldists United.

Look at this stinking backstabbing goofball.

For those unaware, Malema is a rabid anti White communist who's EFF should be positioned the left of the already rabid and commie ANC. Malema has on several occasions sung the 'Kill the Boer' song. He has ties to several Jewish billionaires and is an outspoken supporter of Putin.

 
Last edited:


I will NOT attend the G20 summit in Johannesburg.South Africa is doing very bad things. Expropriating private property. Using G20 to promote “solidarity, equality, & sustainability.” In other words: DEI and climate change.My job is to advance America’s national interests, not waste taxpayer money or coddle anti-Americanism.
 
Dusty said:


I will NOT attend the G20 summit in Johannesburg.South Africa is doing very bad things. Expropriating private property. Using G20 to promote “solidarity, equality, & sustainability.” In other words: DEI and climate change.My job is to advance America’s national interests, not waste taxpayer money or coddle anti-Americanism.
Click to expand...


The Trump Administration is starting to exert pressure onto the Ramaphosa regime to withdraw the legal framework of their Mugabe tier criminal Black supremacist landgrab-to-come.

This is great and I cannot remember a mainstream politician anywhere standing up for and putting the spotlight on the plight of White South Africans (Boer and British alike).

Yesterday Senator Ted Cruz also put the spotlights on the South African- PRC relationship

GjBEmU2WIAAB6G3.jpeg

Fox News building the narrative on South Africa.



Video of Trump mentioning the landgrab.

 
LaAguilaNegra said:
Click to expand...

One of the laws they passed against white farmers recently is that they made it illegal for white farmers to export their goods to foreign nations, so lets say a father and son have a macadamia nut farm, they no longer allowed to sell their nuts to their overseas customers, basically destroying their livelihoods with a stroke of a pen. All the other races are allowed to continue selling their products overseas.
 
Everyone here should be critical of the premise that it's wrong to colonize other nations.

All races, cultures, and peoples have conquered or been conquered. There are no exceptions in history.

Thus it is hypocrisy to say it is wrong for one group to conquer when other groups have done the exact same thing.

For example, even if Whites conquered Blacks in Africa, Blacks conquered each other long before Whites did and Blacks would go to Europe if they could.

So rather than ask, "Is it wrong to conquer," which is meaningless, instead ask, "What have the conquerors done with their victory? What have they done with their peace?"

When examining that question, Christendom has done 100000x more for the world as victors than any other group, Whites Christians in particular have a stellar track record that birthed the modern world. Everyone takes it for granted and yet had the Christians not conquered then most of the world would still be pooping in the grass and living at starvation levels.
 
Samseau said:
Everyone here should be critical of the premise that it's wrong to colonize other nations.

All races, cultures, and peoples have conquered or been conquered. There are no exceptions in history.

Thus it is hypocrisy to say it is wrong for one group to conquer when other groups have done the exact same thing.

For example, even if Whites conquered Blacks in Africa, Blacks conquered each other long before Whites did and Blacks would go to Europe if they could.

So rather than ask, "Is it wrong to conquer," which is meaningless, instead ask, "What have the conquerors done with their victory? What have they done with their peace?"

When examining that question, Christendom has done 100000x more for the world as victors than any other group, Whites Christians in particular have a stellar track record that birthed the modern world. Everyone takes it for granted and yet had the Christians not conquered then most of the world would still be pooping in the grass and living at starvation levels.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, and many modern nations owe their existence to their conquerors. Without conquest, we wouldn't have modern Italy, which ultimately arose from the Roman/Latin domination of neighboring peoples like Etruscans, Celts, and Greeks. Nor would we have modern France, which was established when the Germanic Franks subjugated the Celtic Gauls. The names of Bulgaria, Hungary, and Russia all carry the names of the conquering peoples that established those nations: the Iranic Bulgars, the Finno-Ugric Huns, and the Nordic Rus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top