It appears that it is in Africa where anti-immigration sentiment and sovereignty determination is stronger. Just a few days ago a poll posted here showed Sub-Saharan Africans as having the largest percentages of opposers to immigrants. And some weeks ago Black South Africans attacked Black immigrants from Zimbabwe, Mozambique and other African countries, killing more than 60 and spreading terror among the rest many of which went back to their countries of origin, even evacuated by transports from their own governments.
Aside from the methods used by Zimbabwe's government against White farmers in the country, which have been savage on many occasions, one should admit that it is their land and that they have a right to it. And a right to evict White (or Yellow, or else) immigrants, colonists, settlers or whatever one wishes to call them.
Of course they can be cursed for their savagery in doing so but, who would have expected anything not in their nature?
I'd like to call the attention upon a thread started by a Canadian Germanicist (or British imperialist, it is not clear which or if both) on another forum, 3 months ago, whining about the
seizure of 60 white-owned farms in Zimbabwe:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by OneTrueLoyalist
It seems evident that, on every occasion where whites, both in Zimbabwe and South Africa, are further marginalized, the only effect is a lessening of their disproportionate contributions to the nation. It is no coincidence that the two most prosperous nations in sub-Saharan Africa held that status while ethnic Europeans stood at the helm. Nor is it a coincidence that, after these regimes were toppled by negro terrorists and their international supporters (Zionists and the various garbage on the left-wing of international media and politics), stagnation, inflation, and a total collapse of living standards set in immediately. The sheer contrast of life in Rhodesia and Apartheid-era South Africa to the conditions in those nations today is a testament to the simple inability of the natives to effectively manage a nation. I also remain stunned and disgusted at the hypocrisy of so-called "human rights" activists now; any instance of perceived white oppression of blacks met with massive international outcry, condemnation, economic sanctions, and a host of other responses. Yet, when the rights of whites, such as the basic abilities to own land or obtain employment, are blatantly denied, there is no organized response from the world community, and the news reports, if any, are relegated to the back page of the media.
[ source] |
The first part in bold where he excuses the White presence on the grounds of the "contribution of whites" to those countries is of the same nature as the excuse offered by Liberals for the presence of foreign immigrants in European countries, on the grounds that they "contribute to the economy". Only the proportions being different.
The third part in bold assumes that he knows about the conditions of the millions of natives (Blacks) in those countries, during white-controlled Rhodesian British and South African Apartheid regimes. I pretty much doubt that he ever visited, for example, the townships of Crossroads or Soweto and what the conditions of life were there.
And I'm not even speaking of any right to freedom, self-rule and sovereignty here.
The second part in bold is probably the one that most amazes me. According to the thinking of this British imperialist, any Nationalist in Europe could be labeled as a
terrorist only for any activity directed at the eviction, deportation or repatriation of the non European foreign immigrants in our nations. In fact any of us...
And the amazement doesn't stop there. The international supporters of these Blacks are no less than... the Zionists!!!!!
Well, it is no secret that the South African regime of the Apartheid was supported by Zionist Israel when no other country did, and that this was a mutual support. But if there are doubts about what the Jewry and Zionism were in Rhodesia, a little introduction could help dispel these doubts:
Quote:
Prior to the 1970s, Rhodesia was formerly a British colony. Eastern Europeans, most from Russia and Lithuania, first settled in Rhodesia and became active in the trading industry. In 1894, the first synagogue was formed by 20 Jews in a tent in Bulawayo, Rhodesia. The second community arose in Salisbury (Harare) in 1895; a third congregation, which has remained small, was established in Gwelo in 1901. By 1900, 400 Jews lived in Rhodesia. The first Jews came by way of the southeast coast through Portuguese Beira.
Rhodesian Jewry was always very active in regional and international Zionist activities. In 1898, the Central African Zionist Organizations were established in Bulawayo as the Zionist supervising organization in the region.
In the 1920s and 1930s, several Sephardic Jews arrived from Rhodes. By 1921, census data reported 1,289 Jews living in Rhodesia. In the late 1930s, several German refugees, moved to the country fleeing Nazi persecution. Following World War II, Rhodesia witnessed a period of economic prosperity; consequently a number of Jews arrived from South Africa and England.
In 1943, both the Rhodesian Zionist Council and the Rhodesian Jewish Board of Deputies were established to organize national Jewish and Zionist activities in the country. Jews became largely responsible for the national pioneering endeavors in transportation systems, mining, hotel corporations, and cattle selling, among other industries. By 1961, the Jewish population peaked at 7,060.
The Virtual Jewish History Tour: Zimbabwe
|
After the end of the racist regime of British Rhodesia, Jewry and consequently Zionism decayed in both Zambia and Zimbabwe. So it looks as if it would the exact opposite, since Zionist support thrived during British colonial rule, business as usual.
The fourth part in bold is just a rant like any pro-multicuturalist would do here. As in fact they do on a daily basis.
It is a trade-off if you want your "Germanic" fellows have the right to own lands, live and work in those African countries, that the fellows of the Bantus have the right to own, live and work in the European... no, Germanic... not even... just in Britain?
Since this comes from an established member of a forum for "Germanic preservation", I wonder if to agree to the right of the peoples other than Germanics, to their sovereign rule and preservation is inherently "anti-Germanic". Or if this is just a British thing.
p.s. also worth to notice how he calls "nations" to countries which are in reality multi-tribal states... the Zulu in South Africa are a nation. And so are the Shona in Zimbabwe and Zambia. But it appears that Zimbabwe or South Africa are being called nations under the same rule of thumb as one would call Britain a nation.