For those who know anything much about the history of southeastern African nations, like South Africa and Zimbabwe, they will know that most of the propaganda spun by the whore-media is precisely that. Neither Zimbabwe, nor South Africa, nor Namibia, are multiracial paradises where the Black majorities live in harmony with their former White minority rulers. In reality, there has been an ongoing, relentless, extremely violent campaign of brutal ethnic cleansing of the White descendants of the Afrikaners who settled these regions, ever since those nations achieved independence.
The story of the Boers, particularly in South Africa, is heartbreaking. You do not have to like apartheid to realise that the Boers, who originated from some of the same Dutch Calvinist Protestant roots as many of the colonists who founded America, fought against tremendous odds and hardship to establish their farming communities in an extremely inhospitable land. They were good at farming – much, much better than the African locals that they displaced and eventually came to rule.
They were guided by a Christian work ethic and faith that was far better than that of the Blacks in the region. Eventually, their far greater productivity, entrepreneurial mindset, and risk appetite, put them in a position to carve out a land of their own. But they were always minorities in their new lands.
And then, eventually, came the Boer Wars.
Most people today think the German Nazis pioneered modern concentration camps. They did not. That dubious “honour” belongs to the likes of the Union leadership in the War Between the States, wherein they instituted real death-camps for captured Confederate POWs, and the British camps for captured Boers. At least 20,000 Afrikaners died in those camps, under conditions that might charitably described as “inhuman” and “Satanic”.
These factors resulted in a community of people that put survival of their race as their Prime Directive. The Boers had evolved a completely distinct language, cultural identity, and sense of self. They were (and remain) a legitimate separate people, a branch of White Europeans that has since evolved into its own nation.
Different Boer and settler communities in southern Africa expressed that Prime Directive differently. In what eventually became South Africa, that turned into the ugly realities of apartheid. For all that it was an evil system, it was also a survival mechanism – designed to keep the White minority safe and protected from the Black Zulu majority. (And, by the way, the Zulus were never the original inhabitants of much of the lands they now claim as “theirs” – the expansions under Shaka Zulu encroached directly on the lands of other African tribes, just as Boer expansions did.)
In what is now known as Zimbabwe, by contrast, they did not have apartheid. But they did take steps to ensure and preserve White minority rule in states like South West Africa (today’s Namibia), Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), and of course South Africa.
Yet, the Prime Directive of survival did not completely manage to destroy the liberal mind-virus – which, amazingly, even affects people as brutalised and hardened as the Boers.
Take a look at this video, which analyses how liberals among the Boers in Rhodesia and South Africa sold out their own people, and sided with the very Black Communist terrorists who wanted to destroy them:
The Rhodesian Bush Wars are very poorly known and understood in the West – in large measure because Western whore-media refuse to permit anything to change the narrative of “heroic Blacks rising up against their former White oppressors”. The truth is significantly more nuanced – to say the least. Many of those “heroic Blacks” were outright terrorists, funded by the Soviet Union and Cuba, through their proxy in Angola.
Almost equally poorly understood are the bush wars the South African military fought against Communist-funded Black terrorists, streaming in through Mozambique and Angola.
In both cases, White minorities fought to preserve their identities in a losing battle against the inevitable. They almost certainly could never have persevered. On the one side, they were facing Soviet- and Cuban-trained paramilitaries and terrorists, with substantial levels of funding and weapons. On the other hand, the Western Bloc was only too eager to sell out White minorities in South Africa, for the sake of detente in the 1970s, and did not want to be associated with “racism” in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement that swept the US in the late 1960s.
And that is before we get to the fact that their own efforts to preserve their lands, culture, and identity, were undermined by liberals among their own people.
As the video above points out to such great effect, there is something deeply defective in the liberal mind. There is real oikophobia at work – a deep-seated hatred of one’s own people, culture, and norms – which leads liberals to embrace the very people who hate them the most.
We see this writ large in the West at the moment, where self-loathing liberals have welcome literally tens of millions of invaders from lands that have nothing to do with the West, and want no part of liberal-democratic Western values. Many of these invaders come from Izzlamick Arab and African societies, which regard Christians as weak, immoral, pagan idolaters – I paraphrase minutely about their views of what we believe – and think that White Christian women are fair game for sexual harassment, threats, violence, and rape.
Much of the remainder comes from South Asia, where modern hygiene standards are unknown, people publicly and happily shit in the streets and on the beach, and basic civic sense is non-existent.
Yet modern liberals think having these foreigners in Western lands “enriches the stew in the melting pot”. They do not realise, because they cannot, that they are simply ensuring THEY are the ones who end up in the cannibal’s pot – which is the provocative title of Ilana Mercer’s excellent book on the subject of how South Africa’s White minority sowed the seeds of its own destruction.
I am not being hyperbolic about liberalism being a mental disease. Nor am I writing metaphorically. As Anonymous Conservative wrote, in his superb work on r/K selection theory and its applications to politics, liberals have an underdeveloped amygdala, relative to conservatives – though the “liberal/conservative” terminology no longer really applies in the modern day, given how thoroughly cuckservatives have sold out their own peoples and countries. The more appropriate terms might well be, “globalist/nationalist”, at this point, as this nomenclature far more accurately captures the oikophobia that is at the root of the globalist mental derangement.
Globalists are not capable of understanding the extreme dangers of welcoming in any and all foreigners, and foreign ways. They are incapable of feeling loyalty to their own kind – the very concept does not register. They do not have the fight-flight-freeze-fawn instinct that the rest of us do, because their brains are, quite literally, damaged.
This is why they believe things that are plainly insane and idiotic on their faces. That is why they think that they can legislate and lecture away the basic realities of human behaviour. It is why they cannot accept simple facts about reality.
To my mind, the signature example of this is one Dr. Robert Putnam, whose own work on social trust and capital so horrified him that he hid his data for years, while he desperately searched for alternative explanations to the view that more diversity equals less trust. And when he finally published it, he included a finger-wagging lecture on the need for greater education and more “tolerance training” – even though his own findings accounted for this factor.
The honest liberal is an increasingly rare creature. Dr. Putnam is one such example. Prof. Jeffrey Sachs is another – and his, shall we say, chequered past with respect to the implementation of shock-therapy economic policies in Russia, significantly taint his legacy, in my view. Most liberals are simply incapable of even trying to square the cognitive dissonance involved in the fact that more diversity leads to less trust, and therefore to higher crime, lower living standards, and poorer educational and health outcomes (among many other deleterious results).
The West now faces a serious and terrible choice. Either it expunges the liberals – really, globalists – and the mental illness that is their core problem, from within their societies. Or it ends up collapsed, broken, overrun, and wiped out – in the form of a shariah-compliant shithole, as PommieBastardLande, France, Germany, and much of Scandinavia are becoming, or a series of ethnic enclaves and ghettoes, with White minorities preyed upon by violent and dysgenic other races, as is already far too often the case in America.
Is there hope for a reconquista? Certainly. But my time among Europeans and White Westerners tells me that the fighting spirit within those nations has been thoroughly broken and bred out of the people. It will take a series of unthinkably violent events to reignite that spirit. I hope and pray that never happens, but I fear that the cowardice and amazing stupidity of Westerners – who still, unbelievably, think that voting actually has any effect whatsoever, and still believe in dumbocracy – will not permit the very necessary correction that becomes more inevitable with every passing day.
1 Comment
This is why the Chinese (and for that matter, East Asians in general) will inherit the earth. Say what you will regarding them but their sheer collectivism protects them from the liberal mind virus to an extraordinary extent. It’s like a positive version of Islam’s ability to violently (and inevitably) rebound to the 7th century AD.