Posts Tagged ‘africa’

Robert Mugabe, Leftist Success Story

Monday, December 4th, 2017

Former US President James Earl Carter had a reputation for being a bumbler. When he famously told Playboy Magazine about the lust in his heart, a significant plurality of the electorate probably questioned whether he had any in his pants.

The Iranian Revolutionaries under The Ayotollah Khommeni certainly experienced a sadistic joy in treating him as a eunuch. He barely beat the unelected place-holder who pardoned Richard M. Nixon in 1976 and was both subsequently and emphatically vanquished from making important decisions in the Election of 1980. He did, however, accomplish a thing or two before he went on to build houses and lecture people on Leftist Morality.

One rather regrettable accomplishment Carter and Andrew Young had an evil hand in was the rise of Zimbabwian Socialist Dictator and Scourge Robert Mugabe.

Messrs. Carter and Young would only countenance a settlement in which Mr. Mugabe, a Marxist who had repeatedly made clear his intention to turn Zimbabwe into a one-party state, played a leading role. Mr. Young, displaying the willful naiveté that came to characterize Mr. Carter’s mindset, told the London Times that Mr. Mugabe was a “very gentle man” whom he “can’t imagine … ever pulling the trigger on a gun to kill anyone.” Mr. Mugabe already had pulled the trigger on many innocent people, though. And not long after taking power in 1980, he killed about 25,000 people belonging to a minority tribe, the Ndebele. In spite of this, in 1989, Mr. Carter launched his “Project Africa” in Zimbabwe, a program aimed at helping African countries maintain food sustainability.

So how well did “Project Africa” do? After twenty years of gentle leadership, President For Life Mugabe resorted to white genocide when nobody in the Zimbabweian electorate with a brain would provide him with a fig leaf of legitimacy.

In 2000 Mugabe organized a referendum on a new Zimbabwean constitution that would expand the powers of the presidency and allow the government to seize white-owned land. Groups opposed to the constitution formed the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), which successfully campaigned for a “no” vote in the referendum. That same year, groups of individuals calling themselves “war veterans”—though many were not old enough to have been part of Zimbabwe’s independence struggle—began invading white-owned farms. Violence caused many of Zimbabwe’s whites to flee the country. Zimbabwe’s commercial farming collapsed, triggering years of hyperinflation and food shortages that created a nation of impoverished billionaires.

And just how well did Mr. Mugabe support Mr. Carter’s dedication to world democracy? Mugabe reminds me of Hillary Clinton in 2016. Elections are sancrosanct until a leftist actually fails to win one.

Before the 2008 elections, he said: “If you lose an election and are rejected by the people, it is time to leave politics.” But after coming second to Morgan Tsvangirai, Mr Mugabe displayed more characteristic defiance, swearing that “only God” could remove him from office.

And what impact did that have on the lives of his people? About what you’d expect from a guy who hired the North Koreans to train an internal repression force.

Mr Mugabe once famously said that a country could never go bankrupt – with the world’s fastest-shrinking economy and annual inflation of 231 million per cent in July 2008, it seemed as though he was determined to test his theory to the limit. Professor Tony Hawkins of the University of Zimbabwe once observed that with Zimbabwe’s former leader: “Whenever economics gets in the way of politics, politics wins every time.”

Ultimately Robert Mugabe accomplished what every Leftist who seeks power dreams of. He achieved equality. He destroyed the economy, the currency, the food production system and the entire old White Aristocracy represented by Ian Smith. Robert Mugabe did all of this while living in a $7 Million palatial estate. As befits a poor and dying nation; it serves as a Poor Man’s Versailles.

He often said he would only step down when his “revolution” was complete. He was referring to the redistribution of white-owned land but he also wanted to hand-pick his successor, who would of course have had to come from the ranks of his Zanu-PF party. Didymus Mutasa, once one of Mr Mugabe’s closest associates but who has since fallen out with him, once told the BBC that in Zimbabwean culture, kings were only replaced when they die “and Mugabe is our king”.

And now Mugabe reaches his twilight. He is a nonagenarian dotard clinging to consciousness as he simultaneously loses his grip on power. His purported successor is a former crony dubbed not-so-affectionately “The Crocodile”. The Crocodile will only devour the bloated corpse of a forlorn Land of Mordor laid to waste by a Leftist unfettered.

Even The Atlantic is forced to acknowledge the awful truth of unrestrained Socialism. Here they list the ten ways Robert Mugabe murdered Rhodesia.

  1. Destroy the engine of productivity – His genocide against White Farmers.
  2. Bury the truth – His control over media that makes MSNBC green with envy.
  3. Crush dissent – His ability to kill critics that makes ANTIFA green with envy.
  4. Legislate the impossible – His bevy of stupid scoialistic legislation that makes Obamacare look workable.
  5. Teach hate – His training an entire generation to hate his political enemies.
  6. Scare off foreigners – See steps 1 – 5.
  7. Invade a neighbor – His attempt to placate his military Kakistocracy by seizing Congolese diamond mines.
  8. Ignore a deadly enemy – Socialized medicine has worked about as well as you would expect it to against the African AIDS epidemic.
  9. Commit genocide – Both against white farmers and against other native Zimbabwian tribes.
  10. Blame the imperialists – You know, like Great Britain and Amerika who intervened to make sure he got into power back in 1980.

Now the Leftists try to run from Mugabe they way they are running from the Leftist Legacy of Charles Manson here in Amerika.

In June 2007 Mugabe became the first international figure to be stripped of an honorary degree by a British university when Edinburgh withdrew one it had awarded to him in 1984. The following year the University of Massachusetts revoked a law degree it had awarded in 1986 and the year after that, in September 2008, Michigan State University cancelled a law degree it had granted to Mugabe in 1990.

It is too late. The Left made Mugabe. The Left empowered Mugabe. The Left forever owns Mugabe. Who better achieved the goals every Leftist worshiper of The Zero holds near and dear to the heart? Certainly not Jimmy Carter who labors endlessly to build a habitat for a humanity that his leftist protegees like Yassir Arafat and Robert Mugabe labor manfully to exterminate or render forever equal in utter and complete immiseration.

Positive Views Of Slavery And Evolution

Tuesday, May 23rd, 2017

Olatunji Jesutomisin writes of the advantages of slavery in a provocative essay on the struggles of Africa:

You didn’t have ships when they sailed in on their ships into the African coast. You didn’t have anything comparable to defend against or valuable to trade with when they brought their guns and trinkets to your shores and sold it to your African lords in exchange for slaves. Africa is what African Americans would be if not for slavery. So where is this a example of massive development and wealth that the white man was supposed to have stifled and stole from you.

Get your priorities right sir. The problems of the African whether in Africa or America go deeper than something a white man stole. We are spoiled and lazy. We have never been forced out of life and death necessity to create value for ourselves — think electricity for warmth, trains, cars and ships for transportation, industrial level farming for sustainable food supply. The very things that define an industrialised and wealth creating society.

Slavery became the gift that kept on giving. The hill we would die on. And to this day we keep asserting that simply because we survived slavery and segregation that we deserved some hidden wealth without having to produce it. As if we are the only group who have had to go through massive suffering. We have a saying in Africa that we are a lucky continent in that we would literally all be wiped off if we had the earthquakes and hurricanes that frequently hit the northern hemisphere.

The whole thing is worth reading. In addition, it makes sense to mention that slaves sold were “excess population” — captives of war, political enemies, prisoners — who had no value, and by being bought and sold, were given value so that there was a reason to spare their lives. Then they were given a place in a thriving society and cradle-to-grave care.

Relentless realist nationalists like myself will note that slavery, like keeping the American Indians on the continent, was a form of diversity and in itself was detestable. Failing to rehome the freed slaves after the War Of Northern Aggression was also a mistake. However, we can correct this mistake now, and give Africa people with new learning who can give it a chance to thrive on its own terms.

Africa To Exceed America By 2050

Friday, September 30th, 2016


South Africa and $current_year America have many parallels; in particular, the latter is following a path to becoming the former, and will then rediscover what people there found when a Leftist diversity-oriented regime replaces a thriving society, making it into a wasteland.

Understanding South Africa requires seeing its in an African context, which is different in many ways from the West. Where the West is a first world society degenerating to third world levels, Africa is mostly a third-world society which has moments of first world interaction.

The Global Competitiveness Index puts America and various African countries on a single index, whereas it actually requires two indexes. Western peoples think that they can use the same yardstick as they would use for themselves to engage Africans, but this has led to inexplicable historic outcomes. (Imagine a “knighted” Mugabe for instance.)

Instead, whatever happens in Africa should therefore be categorized by:

  1. What external forces “exercise” in Africa.
  2. What internal forces are “living” by.

For example, external forces wanted Mandela to rule the southernmost country in Africa, while internal forces just wanted money (and running a country is not part of “money” though, because, what are borders again?).

A general characterization of African “rule” is that it is strategically focused on power. In the Western sphere we know that power corrupts, even that power is tragic as described in the biography of Tony Blair. A tragedy currently re-enacted by Hillary Clinton while it is no different in dark Africa (think about the “Big Men” in Africa).

When you notice a few protests in America, think that Africa is beset with thousands of protests such as here and here where the reasoning in all cases are flawed. All protests actually relate to some powered conflict also visible in political assassinations.

The longest South African mining worker strike in its history happened ten years after Mandela came to power and as it happens, the newly emerging labor union AMCU causing it, was supported by a newly emerging “political” entity called the EFF both of which were supported by George Soros and the British Monarchy.

The background provided above demonstrates that although Western NWO elites “put” Mandela in the Presidential seat, it now transpires that his governmental progress has failed “donor” expectations, resulting in financially stimulated protests, strikes and even a new political opposition.

External forces

The current state of Western exercises in Africa relates to various trade agreements with the EU and US such as the AGOA. However, trade agreements are also applicable to BRICS countries in a South-South Agreement.

The US has an Africa strategy described by the Bureau of African Affairs  also providing information on AGOA and “travel warnings”. The US Embassies (like other embassies), provide Trade Consuls advertising American products to local distributors.

Since western countries financially supported “democratization” of various African countries, they generally demanded payback in terms of Governmental procurement contracts. In the Mandela case, America received a nice gold stash; Britain received a large defense equipment procurement contract while France still waits to provide heavy airlift military aircraft. In the near future Russia will be rewarded with the procurement of nuclear power stations.

In terms of the vast mineral resources of South Africa, it is well known that the large contingent of mining labor affects the country’s well-being.  The Chamber of Mines consisting of multi-national Corporations, controls (by definition) life in Africa to a large extent. The person referred to in the article as “Trevor Manual” is a Rothschild representative in Africa.

The further connection is that the Reserve Bank also belongs to Rothschild. The way they exert pressure on the Mandela government is through rating agencies such as Moody’s. The international implication of having this “influence” is that South Africa’s inflation rate never drops below 4%. This gives American institutional investors a “piggy bank” to always do better than any Western savings account, by investing in the local stock exchange. In the short term it is good for local shares, but in the long-term it destroys the middle class because inflation is always more than 4%.

It is clear that Africa has to suffer two strong and one mild external influence. The strong Western influence is a coordinated effort between the US and Rothschild while the other equally strong Marxist influence emanates from Russia and China. The mild influence is a cucked Europe trying to appease the “noble” black man with donations in exchange for tourist “safaris.”

China has been an interesting competitor for external exercises. Their intention is not to influence via corruptive enterprise as such, but their apparent objective is to find place and space for their own people. For example, their criminals are “given” to Chinese construction companies in Africa with the promise that they can “stay” afterwards. They will also carefully evaluate a country and extract any novel capability back to China. In South Africa they extracted entire gene pools of African goat and ostrich because those animals are very “efficient” animals. Chinese not only scour the country side, but look also for technology, patents and markets, where they have forcefully entered the cellphone and cement markets. 

They also coordinate within one of their own overpopulated regions, instructing hundreds of thousands to enter a local country via different routes with instructions to disperse across the entire country selling clothes and sushi. Under the Leftist regime, Chinese are classed as “black” and therefore receive affirmative action rates. The takeaway from the Chinese is that they are not interested in taking over a country, because it’s not effective and too much trouble anyway. The implied geopolitical effect however, by “activating” a future diaspora, does not go unnoticed.

Russian Marxist ideology has been influencing the “comrades” fostering “revolutions” and leading to a culture of protests mostly stimulated by labor unions. In Africa labor unions sit on the same side of the table as political parties. The other side of the table is generally reserved for whites (or business donors). This Marxism is different to what Russians do because the local Communist party thinks they are doing it “better.”

The latest external exercise affecting daily life in South Africa is George Soros’ Open Society Foundation.

It is clear from above that external effects are not just influence, but actual “instructions” affecting the very lives of local people in a liberal-democratic ideological framework. In a two speed world, South Africa and Africa are supposed to be running at the higher emerging economic speed, but for some yet inexplicable reason it does not, therefore the 1st world donors (globalists) are not happy.

Internal forces

The important parameter in South Africa and Africa as a whole is perhaps demographics and languages. South Africa on its own has 10 “official” “tribal” languages but the Law is written in English. The cultural aspect that emerged is that voting patterns follow a racial divide. In other words not a tribal divide, but is race-based.

It is therefore not unexpected to observe an increase in the race narrative in conjunction with feverish attempts by the main political opposition to find ways assuaging this. The political parties in South Africa are numerous, but with the Mandela party (ANC) colluding with the biggest Labour Federation (Cosatu), the next biggest party is the minority Democratic Alliance (DA) representing most of the white “race.”

The interesting aspect of regulated life in South Africa is that western originated minority law such as affirmative action is routinely applied to the majority, as well as to the Chinese. That means whites in general must work harder to overcome their privilege. Since all donors support the black party, white party politics has become very difficult causing whites in general to “resign” or go dark as a defensive measure to combat politics-of-fear.

The exclusionary politics continued by classification of race in Mandela’s land, with the interesting difference; each person “must” decide himself what race he is. It’s just difficult for babies to do, but anyway.

The new South Africa has achieved a much touted objective: It created a black middle class. But the country has not lived up to its economic growth objectives and many say that the black middle class was merely a recycling of Government replacing white with black employees.

One private institution embracing affirmative action was Standard Bank. It apparently reduced job descriptions thereby reducing the risk of individual failure on the Bank as a whole, while allowing for an increased appointment of black employees. The CEO position was also split into two positions allowing for a black and white dual CEO appointment.  The Bank has positioned itself admirably by allowing Chinese shareholding too.

It was said that the South African economy is driven by five major corporations and by “playing along” with the new politicians they have driven the country into a progressive alcoholic party type simulacrum. As long as we can have an alcoholic party, everything will be all right. Those who want to make things work receives answers like “seriously?” while foreign visitors comment on the atmosphere of “mañana” which means “we’ll do it tomorrow.” Being a country of sunshine, beaches, wine and sports does not help to inhibit the party spirit. However, tourists and citizens still find the country enjoyable despite taking “necessary” precautions which do cost a premium of approximately 40%.

Meanwhile nothing (in society) gets done properly. This is noticeable in the return on tax invested where New Zealanders get a 71% return and South African taxpayers a measly 17% return.

Where the economy once performed well (above 6% growth per year), the current state is that it’s performing poorly (<2%), with sports following in lockstep too. Lucrative international bond funded infrastructural projects such as road tolling systems aimed at the “honey-pot” of citizenry, has become nightmarish resulting in unheard-of bond losses. Most State-Owned-Enterprises have to be subsidized by Treasury and 80% of municipalities are bankrupt. Link here for independent information on municipal performance and “hotspots” and here for a description of bad SOE performance while globalists expect the African continent to do better than ¡Amerika! by 2050. (Think about that)

Protests have become regular loot driven parties, something to look forward to, share and share alike by criminals and the general populace. All are equal in a dysfunctional society that everyone thought was due to Apartheid, but are now inexplicably promoted by Hollywood actresses.

The latest newspaper insight is that the “last frontier” is the IEC (Independent Electoral Commission) that is in charge of this year’s elections (in South Africa). In Australia the “frontline” is border patrol/customs, In America the frontline is soldiers fighting some war but in South Africa it is the Electoral Commission.

Meanwhile… most people lock themselves up at night, send their kids overseas and prepare for the worst retirement scenario. But even so, we still binge regularly just to forget for a few hours, because tomorrow the sun inexplicably shines again.

Reparations With Repatriation Meme Gains Steam

Tuesday, July 19th, 2016

This guy is ahead of the curve:

Larry Mitchell has a retort for every white supremacist, racist and Internet troll who has ever told him to go back to Africa….The chef from Kokomo, Ind., launched a GoFundMe campaign to finance his relocation to an African nation — maybe Sierra Leone, maybe Ghana.

…“If you want me to go back to Africa I will gladly go … you can help make your dream and mine come true,” he writes on his GoFundMe page. “Accepting all donations … KKK, Skin Heads and anyone else with like mind thinking are welcome to donate … Thank you … God bless you and America.”

He speaks clearly and strongly when he says this: you can help make your dream and mine come true.

Africa is a continent rich in natural resources, wildlife, jungle and plains. It is an agricultural dream. It is also the only place on earth where African-descended people feel they belong and that they are in control of their destiny.

Currently, it is being bought up and retro-colonized by Chinese, Arab and Indian corporations. These will move in, set up shop and then influence local politics. At that point, African self-determination starts to die.

A fresh infusion of its native sons and daughters from the Americas, armed with knowledge of technology and modern methods, could make this continent into one of the most thriving places on earth, under ownership and control of Africans as it should be.

Some of the most inspiring African Nationalists, such as Osiris Akkebala, have suggested similar things. In fact, Nationalists of all stripes are hinting at the idea repatriation, in groups as widespread as Irish, Polish, Italian, Japanese and Hispanic.

Only on their home continents and in their home nations do they have pride — an essential component of human life — and control over their future.

I suggest we resettle any whites in Africa into Texas, where they will find the climate and wildlife familiar and amenable.

Racial politics come full circle

Tuesday, January 26th, 2016


Back in the bad old dark ages, civilizations were based on the organic model. That is, unequal participation according to role, following a hierarchy based on purpose. In these societies, when something went wrong, the first thing they did was to purge the bowels by dumping all foreigners, known criminals and defects, then tackling the problem.

Under the organic model, this type of xenophobic differentiation makes a lot of sense. The goal is health and so when something goes wrong, get rid of anything that seems out of place and redirect energy to vital processes. You know what those are, and so anything else that stands in the way of the vital is a threat.

This process came to an end in 1940s. A talented artist named Hitler rose to power but, like most Europeans, he could not let go of his addiction to social welfare states. As a result, he hybridized his conservative leanings with leftism and made a muddle of things. This meant that instead of running a few pogroms and driving the Other out of town, he had to have a “final solution” to it. Since that time, anything smacking of nationalism or xenophobia has been taboo in the West.

And yet xenophobia as a virtue has revisited us. From Victor Davis Hanson:

America in the age of Obama is spiraling toward a historically familiar chaos of the sort found in 19th-century Austria-Hungary, the former Yugoslavia, and contemporary Iraq and Lebanon. When people of different races and religions cannot get along and are whipped up by their careerist tribal leaders, then the state, to survive, steps in, either to create separate racial enclaves or to rotate and distribute awards strictly on the basis of percentage representation within the general population.

Given the careers of racial fakers such as Ward Churchill, Rachel Dolezal, Shaun King, and Elizabeth Warren, it seems we must start demanding DNA checks — can we borrow from the Third Reich the concept of wearing identifying lapel pins? — perhaps with a mandatory 51 percent rule for formal inclusion in a designated minority category.

Hanson attributes this to Obama, but what we are really seeing is the return of a historical cycle. Diversity does not work because no two objects can occupy the same space, and thus as Hanson says, they will either become balkanized enclaves or constantly struggle for power over the society that includes them both. Diversity creates social chaos, entropy, internal division and distrust. It is, quite simply, a disaster. And so on a regular basis society purges it.

The first part of this return cycle can be seen in the racial enmity that grips the West. In both Europe and the USA, multicultural third-world populations threaten to replace the indigenous first-world ones. In all cases, the third-world population is as miserable as the natives about this because they will never get what they need, either, which is an organic society of their own. The first part of this cycle is coming to a close as minority groups demand segregation:

The notion that race is fixed and must override our character and behavior seems to be spreading even as America has become a fully diverse society in which, for example, many of the highest government positions — president, secretary of state, EPA director, energy secretary, attorney general, national security adviser, and director of NASA, to name a few — are currently or were recently held by people who are not white males.

…Under our present racial spoils system, 12 percent of all Oscar nominees each year apparently must be African-American — although so far Latino and Asian groups are not talking of boycotting the Oscars for real under-representation.

Remember those “Coexist” bumper stickers from the 1990s that suburban single women thought were so cute? This is the price of coexistence: each group becomes a partner buying into the scheme and milking the rest for whatever they can get because there is no unity and shared purpose. These groups see society as a whole as an oppressor and want to get from it whatever they can. They are acting in self-interest.

Only white suburbanites and limousine liberals see the kumbaya idea that we are all working together because of what our political system provides. We have freedom and stuff, so we’re all brothers, right? But the reality is that most people do not need “freedom”; they need only the liberty to conduct the type of stuff they are likely to do. However they do need a group identity because from that comes their sense of purpose and destiny, and from that comes the sense of well-being that allows them to say they are spending their lives on the right pursuits.

We thought we could deny the obvious truth of the racial cycle which is that each group must act in self-interest. This means that all other groups are working to overthrow you and take over your society if they can. For a time, that was limited by distance and the technological gap between the West and the rest of the world. That is no longer true. Now we are at each others’ throats, and only denial of reality keeps us from seeing that.

The solution here is to take what Mr. Spike Lee and others have advocated, namely African-American self-interest, to its logical conclusion. No ethnic group will be happy until it has control over its destiny and a purpose all of its own. This requires separating by a great distance to its continental home, and re-dedicating its efforts not to the abyss of diversity but toward self-improvement and self-rule.

Hanson calls it segregation but that word only applies if we believe it to be a permanent state. In the West, our racial tension has been there since the beginning and has always had a cycle of its own that alternates between riots and buying off the problem with more welfare, benefits and public recognition. Segregation would be two groups in the same society with different places; nationalism is each group has its own society and figures out its own future.

African-Americans can never co-exist with Euro-Americans, just like neither group can co-exist with any others. Someone has to be on top, and everyone else will resent that person and feel that if their fortunes go poorly, it is the fault of that other group. Even with an African-American president, your average citizen finds race an enigma. The white people who want to ignore it figure that with Obama’s election the issue is dead, but for everyone else, the desire is for the topic of race to have new life.

Even if we establish African-American communities in the USA the knowledge remains of the origins of this people here, and that their communities exist by the goodwill of the majority. They will always feel captive, scorned and under threat as a result. In their natural home of Africa, this is not the case, provided they can oust the Chinese and Indians who are currently occupying it with “soft” invasions of a corporate nature.

Every group must be its own master. It cannot do that under diversity. In that situation, it is either master or slave to at least one other group. This is why the best African-American minds of the last century, like Theodor Herzl and other nationalists before them, recognized that the safest and most prosperous path led in escaping the multiculture and reclaiming their continent of origin.

As the cycle picks up momentum again, we realize that it is time for racial separation. Yes, we could do so through warfare, and thus restart the cycle. Or we could opt out of the cycle by separating, exchanging some reparations as goodwill and a token of our hope for their luck, and escape this silly circular problem for once and for all

Why the USA should accept white South African refugees

Saturday, November 28th, 2015


During the 1898 – 1901 Anglo-Boer War in South Africa, thousands of Americans participated as volunteers on both sides. The US government was apparently indecisive because the policies it subsequently followed in South Africa were radically different from what it implemented just prior in the Philippines.

Political decisions create an inertia which limits leaders to kicking the can further down the road. This little war however, caused a lot of difficulty for the British Empire, with some opining that it was the straw that broke the camel’s back and initiated the 20th century British de-colonization policy, in part because (based on informal information) it took the Treasury a century to pay back the expenses incurred. However, in today’s world, the United States is the Empire required to address the world’s little conflicts, those low-probability but high severity risks some people refer to as “black swan events”.

Today South Africa has changed roles from the “Empire’s” black swan to its “canary in the coalmine.” It’s the “S” in the BRICS organization that supports transition from the dollar as the world’s reference currency, it is the Gate to Africa and a future influencer of world affairs (on the Security Council) if one considers Mandela’s doctrine of demography i.e. (majority) rule. African demographic growth is staggering international commentators with migrants (already) streaming into the West. If these migrants were of above average IQ, the situation would not be dire, but unfortunately their IQ is below average while their inherent culture is incompatible with the West (proven by the refusal of Eastern countries to accept them).

The situation the West finds itself in –- having been exporting “human rights” is in fact a paradox since it does not really want to “import” human rights — consists of telling the third world that the West will give them human rights in exchange for money (not other human rights). This is another form of “what’s good for thee is not good for me.” Africa doesn’t care about all of that. The African proposal is simply: “If you don’t give us money, you must take our people. But after you paid, you will have to take them anyway.” This sentiment was expressed by the “big” men in Africa i.e. Ghaddafi, Mugabe and Mandela.

Time has moved on and the next “big man” on the rise in South Africa is Julius Malema with the updated (African) proposal of “look after your employees, and they will buy your products.”

The environment in which this proposal is expressed relates to the “modern” Africa, where cell phone towers preceded transport infrastructure because cellular service allows migrants to transfer monies abroad. Africa itself is full of migrants since borders are not that important and migrants do not wish to walk all the way. For example, an African migrant can cross America in six months on foot.

Meanwhile in South Africa the political environment is one of continuous covert revolution. Sometimes they call it “Transition” where we are now active in the “Second Transition”, sometimes called the “revolutionary morality.” South Africa employs a dual cultural approach where they would do things at the political level to suit international observers while doing another thing locally. For example, they exclaim that “jobs are our highest priority” while at the same time making deals with crime bosses in order to expand their electorate, bringing in income for the political party.

So what Julius Malema is saying is that he expects a leaderless revolution where police will fire on their officers rather than criminals. He bases his observation on the black student revolts in local universities (not conservative, mostly white students) where they demanded change in University leadership in order to get lower tuition fees. In order to prevent the student revolt to roll-over into industry, employers should make haste in getting their employees “on their side.” Companies can get their employees “on their side” by giving them 51% of the shares. He adds one further tidbit of advice which is that should businesses have their “employees on their side” production will improve. Economically it can be deduced that he proposes disqualification of affirmative action, then to take the money that businesses already lose on AA, and re-route it to normal employee benefits (shares excluded in this part). The employees therefore benefit in the short and long term and will “rescue” all businesses as a result.

So, the situation in South Africa shows that a revolution is on hands either covertly or overtly, and it’s up to Western man to decide which he prefers. The old Boers from the Anglo-Boer War has since also moved on too, and have closer ties with European descendants than Africans, in part because they have been exposed to these revolutions already.

Thus spoke the Canary.

White people for Africa

Thursday, June 18th, 2015


Currently in Europe, we are witnessing a flood of refugees. It’s hard not to sympathize with the refugees, as they flee the damages created by naïve Western liberal policies. Many of those same liberals demand of us Europeans to allow millions upon millions of these refugees into our countries.

What happens if we allow 10% of the population of Africa to immigrate to Europe? Africa now has 1.1 billion people. This means its population would be reduced to 990 billion people. In Europe, the population would rise by 110 million people, further overpopulating our continent and especially our cities.

What would happen to Africa? The 10% of people who flee Africa would in all likelihood be the smartest ten percent of the nation. They would be the most secular oriented people, the least superstitious, the wealthiest, the best educated, the most innovative share of the population. Europe on the other hand, would be faced with the struggle of assimilating an ever growing minority of the population, who live in segregated neighborhoods where they hardly ever meet any Europeans.

If Europe makes the most generous gesture of ignorant empathy imaginable, by accepting 10% of the African population into our continent, Africa would be worse off. It would still be a continent where albinos are used for witchcraft and pygmies are eaten to acquire magical powers. It would still be a continent where girls have their clitoris sliced of with a broken bottle and their breasts ironed flat by their mothers to make them less attractive to rapists. It would still be a continent where babies are raped in an effort to cure HIV. It would be the same Africa we know today, but without its smartest, wealthiest, best educated, most secular share of its population, as those people would have been the first to flee to Europe.

Leftism is an outgrowth of Christianity, maintaining its values, without its faith in God. Ultimately, leftists don’t want to end suffering, they want to be seen addressing it, so that they are seen as good people. Mother Theresa used to say that suffering brings the poor closer to Jesus. Similarly, importing immigrants delivers you an opportunity to spend your whole life addressing an endless deluge of pointless suffering. If we recognize the Christian cultural values that govern our policies as a continent, we recognize how we arrived at our suicidal and unproductive policies.

Conservatives respond to this stupidity, by feigning autism. Intelligent right-wing men try to blend into the crowd of libertarian/conservative Joe Sixpacks and proclaim that they couldn’t care less if some young girl is gang-raped by the local village brutes or some particular African country just entered the genocide season again this week, because they fear that humanizing the third world inevitably leads to our governments pouring its population out over our own nations.

Thus the right wing response to the endless list of atrocities splattered on our newspapers on a daily basis is to claim that this is “not our responsibility”. I don’t think this is a very legitimate point to make. Besides the fact that humans are very bad at feigning autism for very long, it’s hard to defend the suggestion that we have no responsibility in regards to Africa whatsoever.

Besides the fact that these were our colonies for centuries, nations we used to fuel our industrialization and win world wars, our intervention never really stopped, decolonization just made our interventions more damaging. Now we were earning money selling technology to nations that were not ready to cope with its consequences.

We find nations with fertility rates of eight children per woman and forests turned into deserts thanks to agricultural practices we introduced to them. Rates of soil erosion in Africa have increased twenty fold between 1974 and 2004, according to the Worldwatch institute. Free market capitalism allows our companies to continue operating in Africa, but without any sort of ethical oversight, thus turning their presence there into a limbo dance of tax dodging, estimated to cost some nations up to 13% of their GDP.

So what would be a rational yet compassionate response to the seemingly endless catastrophe? First we have to ask ourselves what makes Europe so attractive in the first place Africans don’t come to Europe because of the weather. Like it or not, they come to Europe, because Europe is full of white people.

If the average African knew what Argentine, Australia, Canada or any other nation full of white people looks like, they would be more than happy to move there too if given the opportunity. Most however, are only familiar with England, seen as the paradise worth traversing the Sahara desert and the Mediterranean sea for.

The yearning for white people doesn’t stop as soon as they are in Europe. Children in Dutch multicultural schools demonstrate in the streets, asking for more white kids to attend their school. As these children grow up, they may flee to Tumblr, where they will proclaim that they “do not need a white savior” along the lines of Rachel Dolezal, but every action taken and every policy endorsed demonstrates the opposite, a desire to have white people around.

Now, the idea that has to be considered here is that rather than inviting Africans to enter a Darwinian triathlon, where most people drown, suffocate or starve, while the toughest make it to Europe and win the privilege of getting to live as a perpetual underclass in a majority-white society, why not try the opposite? Why not encourage white people to migrate to Africa instead?

Now, note that I am not calling for forceful annexation or anything along those lines. I am also not calling for some sort of genocidal replacement. Rather, I would suggest that African nations and European nations should seek to enter voluntary agreements, where African nations receive foreign aid in the form of European immigrants. It would probably be best for these immigrants to maintain European citizenship.

Sending young people to Africa would be a blessing for Europe too. All the type of people stirring up trouble now by sheltering illegal immigrants, calling people racists and Islamophobes and attempting to restrict free speech would have something better to do with their days. Europe would have a decisive majority again, of people who want to preserve Europe’s original cultural identity.

White people in Southern Europe are dealing with youth unemployment rates of anywhere around fifty percent. These young people spend their days stacking degrees on top of each other and moving from internship to internship, learning irrelevant information in the hope of one day finding a real job. In Africa, simply knowing how to use birth control can be a valuable skill. If the average IQ in an African country is 85, an estimate higher than most studies even by left wing academics suggest, with a standard deviation of 15, any white immigrant with an IQ above 115 would be smarter than 97.5% of the local population.

In the long run, such policies would also save us money. Instead of paying for our citizens’ endless educational expenses and unemployment benefits, they engage in productive activities abroad. We could stop patrolling the Mediterranean sea and avoid growing influxes of immigrants in our home countries. The demographic that votes for left-wing open border parties voluntarily leaves our continent.

There is a valid argument coming from the fringes of the political spectrum, that Africa does not per definition benefit from “development”. This depends of course on what kind of African we speak of. Is an Aka pygmy living in the rainforest of Congo, where he climbs in trees to gather honey and uses bow and arrow to hunt for animals, better off working in a call center? Obviously not. It shouldn’t be incredibly hard to make a drug addicted orphan on the streets of Monrovia better off however.

We have no obligation to assimilate every single African into a Western lifestyle. We merely have to guide the process of development into a trajectory that is least destructive, based on the lessons we learned during our own industrialization. Currently, the process of industrialization in Africa is leading to rampant deforestation and the genocide and displacement of primitive societies. Nigeria lost half of its remaining forest between 2000 and 2005, African elephants are expected to go extinct within a decade. Clearly, doing nothing isn’t working. It should certainly be possible for us to reign in the worst outgrowths, that both opponents and proponents of development can agree should be avoided.

For Africa to have a future, Europe needs to have a future. This requires Europe to develop a sense of self-respect again. Our history books and our movies will happily discuss slavery, but nobody is interested in hearing how the British empire fought wars in Africa to bring an end to slavery, as it doesn’t fit into our mood du jour of self-flagellation. Then, when our people return to a state of sanity, us fortunate few can finally share the fruit we harvested from the tree of knowledge, without injuring its roots.

Recommended Reading