Zimbabwe signs billion-dollar deal to repay white farmers

submitted by yesofcoursenaturally from apnews.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 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 -  (9 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.

[–]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