Monday, 27 June 2011

The end of an era for Zimbabwe's last white farmers?

Click here for the Telegraph report

_____________
Hat Tip: Bryan K

19 comments:

PreatorianXVII said...

As tragic and absurd as this whole situation is, why do white people still want to contribute to aiding and maintaining a racist black government who clearly hates you, only because you are white?

Let them have their cake and see where the next one is coming from, we have kept millions of them alive, allowing then to breed beyond numbers that they themselves cannot feed and support, there is just so many more of them that are going to die in the end, you cannot prevent or interfere with nature, some people just have to learn the hard way.

syntec said...

While I greatly sympathise with Mr Cloete's plight, I have to, nonetheless, disagree with him that he is Zimbabwean. That would also make him African too since Zimbabwe is an African country. To be either you have to be indigenous and in this instance - Black.

Likewise, an non-White residing in ancestral White homelands cannot be deemed as belonging to a White nationality - ever for precisely the above reason.

Simply put, unless one is of the correct genetic stock which gave rise to the indigenous heritage, language, culture, belief system, political/judicial system and achievements legacy, one is not of that land, race or nationality and never will be.

In Britain, for example, we have Black/Asian only organisations agitating for political power in a White ancestral homeland. Such a development cannot be tolerated in any shape or form and in order to stop such a development in its tracks, native Britons must take back their homelands completely.

Citizenship rights granted to non-White immigrants over the past 65 years shall have to be re-examined since our Magna Carta and subsequent consitutional edicts expressly forbid genetically alien rights of residence and thus obviously voting privleges and the holding of political/judicial office as well.

The fact is that the Commonwealth institution and British Nationality Act which permit immigration/asylum of non-Whites into Britain are, in fact, illegal and successive native administrations since 1945 onwards have and still are commiting Treason.

It will be necessary to reinstate the British Consitution retroactively and enforce its conditions.

The Watcher On The Wall said...

Post 1980 there was a huge wave of White emigration from mugabeland. These Whites were predominately working and middle class urban dwellers.

But it was different out on the farm. Mugabe's White farmers enjoyed an economic boom surpassing that they experienced in the 1950's when tobacco really took off and industrialisation skyrocketed after the formation of the Federation.

Throughout the 1980's and much of the 1990's members of this sector were living a life of wealth, ease and [now that the Bush War was over] peace. However I well remember suggesting to those few I encountered in business and socially that they were, in fact, living on the side of an active volcano: a notion they greeted with derision "Mugabe knows what side his bread is buttered on. We hold the economy together. He'd never touch us!" was their stock response.

The next exodus was that of White industrialists and entrepreneurs who gave it up after 1991 when the bloody IMF insisted that zim "liberalise" its economy by dropping protective tariffs in exchange for hot money loans.

The final saga in the late 1990's is best illustrated by a chat I had with an White old university mate and lifelong "let's make this country a better place" starry-eyed optimist who had thrown himself eagerly into magabeland opposition politics [the MDF]. My feedback that the zim economy was cracked and that the MDF was "poking the beast from inside the cage" was laughed off in a welter of democratic and economic theories.

Bottom line. The volcano exploded and White farmers were caught in the pyroclastic wall.

What price your swimming pools, horses, antiques, pianos, power boats and holiday cottages at Kariba and Inyanga now chaps?

Franz said...

This guy is white humanity in a nutshell: He gets kicked in the head over and over and over and he still can't shake that emotional confusion which he mistakes for patriotism.

In that hellhole of a country, a diligent farmer is Atlas. Yet he can't quite bring himself to shrugging. Tragic.

Anonymous said...

@Syntec

So White people living in America and Australia are not Americans or Australians either?
White people have been in South Africa and Zim for as long as some and longer than many white people in Aus, NZ and America.
Mr. Cloete has only a Zim Passport. And as a South African (with only a SA passport) I can tell you that we are not particularly welcome in our lands of origin (France, the Netherlands, Germany and the UK)
Where would you have him go?

Anonymous said...

Anon 13.35
The Dutch are changing their attitude albeit slowly towards their South African cousins. They have a a lot of Solidarity groups springing up which are now actively engaged in helping to assist Boers with new lives in Holland. I think the French and Germans are too.

Only the UK now is too weak willed and and retarded to recognise its white 'prodigal children' from Southern Africa. They'd sooner look after a black Somalian murderer

syntec said...

"So White people living in America and Australia are not Americans or Australians either?
White people have been in South Africa and Zim for as long as some and longer than many white people in Aus, NZ and America.
Mr. Cloete has only a Zim Passport. And as a South African (with only a SA passport) I can tell you that we are not particularly welcome in our lands of origin (France, the Netherlands, Germany and the UK)
Where would you have him go?"


If a country is still inhabited by its indigenous people when alien ethnicities encroach upon and occupy it, the aliens can never be deemed to belong to that country or claim the nationality of the indigenous peoples regardless of when the aliens first encroached.

Possession of a passport has nothing to do with it since it is not necessary to be native born of any territory to hold one in the first place. Besides, in the case of Zim and SA, passport issuing would have been initiated by White Europeans to begin with, not the indigenous inhabitants.

Invaders/encroachers have no natural claims to a territory and so have no rights to be on such.

The moral obligation for the physical safety of the Whites of Zim and SA, lie with the governments of their respective countries of origin who are aiding and abetting mass murder if they fail to evacuate them from danger zones like these including anywhere in the world.

Jack Boot said...

Being a Nationalist, I support the rights of all nations to preserve their territory for their own kind,

Ergo, I support the efforts of Zimbabwe to purge the white colonizers.

And not only support them but hold them up as a shining example of what the brainwashed English should, but for the lack of moral fibre, be doing.

Namely sending the unwanted colonizers back where they came from, vertically or horizontally, at their option.

Celtic Warrior said...

Hi Syntec, let me play the devil’s advocate here.

From the usual reading of history the following would apply to the British/Celtic Isles:-

The Isles were invaded by the Celts about 2300 years ago, so they “can never be deemed to belong to the country or claim the nationality of the indigenous peoples regardless of when the aliens first encroached”.

The area of land subsequently known as England was then invaded by the Anglo Saxons 1550 years ago, so they “can never be deemed to belong to the country or claim the nationality of the indigenous peoples regardless of when the aliens first encroached”.

England was then invaded by the Normans 950 years ago, so they “can never be deemed to belong to the country or claim the nationality of the indigenous peoples regardless of when the aliens first encroached”.

Of course that still leaves the question, who were the original inhabitants of the Isles? In other words who preceded the Celts? We have no written sources to tell us who were here first but we do know that people lived in the Isles as long ago as 14000 years. Who were they?

Answers will be provided in part 2 if none are forthcoming in the blog.

Brian said...

@ syntec.

Invaders/encroachers have no natural claims to a territory and so have no rights to be on such.

Syntec you have been reading then wrong history books. The Black "invaders/encroachers" moved down Africa from the north and the White "invaders/encroachers" moved up from the south and they met for the first time at the Fish River. And Africa has never been the same since.

Anonymous said...

@syntec
Invaders/encroachers have no natural claims to a territory and so have no rights to be on such.

Black "invaders/encroachers" moved down from central Africa and came up against the White "invaders/encroachers" from the South at the Fish River. Africa has never been the same since.

Who would you have occupy the land that was developed from raw bush? The original nomad tribes? Sorry they are practically extinct.

syntec said...

"Who would you have occupy the land that was developed from raw bush? The original nomad tribes? Sorry they are practically extinct."

South Africa is part of the African continent and the indigenous tribes have always been black albeit The Negroid race being separate but still related to the Bushmen.

The (Bushmen, San, Sho, Barwa, Kung, or Khwenative to South Africa) weren't practically extinct when White Europeans first invaded that continent although their numbers have been diminishing steadily for decades largely due to discrimination and deprivation caused by land grabs and denial of access to water by black encroachers from other parts of Africa into their living spaces.

The 17th century Fish River confrontation between the Bushmen and Whites has nothing to do with the issue of indigenous status which happens to belong to the Bushman tribes anyway.

The Bushman tribes are still very much alive and fighting even with their numbers dwindling and they are able to mount repeated legal battles over land and water rights which they're still doing at the present time.

I would prefer if the native tribes were left alone to occupy and run what are their ancestral homelands and that also includes judicial rights to deport trespassers of any kind not native to the areas.

Just because an outgroup proceeds to build upon a territory it has encroached upon, doesn't make that territory the property of the outgroup. The outgroup will always remain the alien while the native people continue existing no matter the population level of the native people.

syntec said...

Celtic Warrior, dear! dear! dear!!

You need to get hold of a copy of the well-known best-seller,
Clash of the Titans by Arthur Kemp.

Th ancient Celts in Britannia were finally defeated by the Romans and were gradually absorbed into the genepool of the later Viking and Saxon invaders whilst some of the Celts continued their existence in various other parts of the British Isles.

You are forgetting that the Vikings, Saxons and Normans were of WHITE European stock, i.e. the same closely related race to that of the Britons so, in reality, no genetic miscegenation took place only exchanges of cultural influences in parts of the UK where the Vikings and Saxons in particular, were mainly concentrated.

It is racial miscegenation with non-White races which is the primary danger as the inidgenous White British themselves end up genocided out of existence altogether.

The presence of the Normans in Britain had less effect on the indigenous peoples of Britain.

Celtic Warrior said...

Syntec, you seemed to have missed the bit about me playing the devil’s advocate.

I don’t disagree with your general proposition, but I thought it an interesting dichotomy to use your words “can never be deemed to belong to the country or claim the nationality of the indigenous peoples regardless of when the aliens first encroached”, as I did.

The need for brevity caused me to omit the Vikings because as you point out, they had a similar genetic make up as the Anglo Saxons (but see below).

Britannia was conquered by the Roman Empire in a similar manner as India was conquered by the British Empire. The Romans were a ruling aristocracy in a similar manner as the British were a ruling aristocracy and the Romans had as much effect on the Celtic gene pool as the British had on the Indian gene pool, virtually nil.

You might like to consider the following as it would eliminate the possibility of arguments such as I made.

Much of the following is still denied by many. Understandably so, as for hundreds of years it has been drilled into us that we are either Celt or Anglo Saxon with a dash of Viking and Norman thrown in for good measure. The contrary argument to this lies with modern science but for a full understanding one needs to be well versed in genetics or else accept it at face value as I do.

Modern professional historians tell us that written histories, which have been the main source of information on our ancient ancestors, can be notoriously inaccurate, if not downright lies. Histories are usually written from the point of view of a conqueror or a ruling aristocracy and have been manipulated from time immemorial by rulers and politicians, as they still are today.

Recent genetic studies have shown that the inhabitants of the British/Celtic Isles can trace their ancestry back to the end of the last Ice Age, some 15,000 years ago.

The original inhabitants came from the Basque region and account for over 70% of our indigenous ancestors. When one looks at the different areas of the Isles, these ancestors account for 88% of the Irish, 81% of the Welsh, 79% of the Cornish, 70% of Scots and 68% of the English.

20% or more of the gene pool has its origin in the Balkan Ice Age refuges. As the ice retreated, these people moved to Scandinavia, and it is from there that the remaining people of the Isles can trace their forefathers. These Scandinavians settled on the Eastern coast of what is now England, while the more numerous Iberians occupied the Western part of the Isles.

The final few % of our genes come from the post Roman invasions of the Anglo Saxons and Vikings and only added to the Northern European genes already here. The Normans were a ruling aristocracy who made hardly a ripple on our gene pool but then the Normans were themselves descendents of the Vikings.

The fact that the Isles have been separated from the continent for about 9000 years has ensured that our ancestors suffered less from invasions by other peoples than our neighbours on the continent. For this reason the people of the Isles are probably the most genetically homogeneous of all peoples.

The scientific testing of DNA, tells us that the “Celtic” people of the West of Britain and the “Germanic” people of the East were settled here many thousands of years before the supposed split between Celt and Anglo-Saxon in 450AD.

Studies of DNA suggest that the biological influence on Britain of immigration from the Norman conquests till the 20th century was rather small; marked more by stability than change. This however is already changing and is going to change even more dramatically over the next few generations. THAT IS THE DANGER if we wish to retain our unique genetic heritage.

Most of the above information is gleaned from; "Blood of the Isles" by Dr. Bryan Sykes, Professor of Human Genetics and "The Origins of the British" by Professor Stephen Oppenheimer.
For more information click on;
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2006/10/mythsofbritishancestry/

syntec said...

Historians long believed, based on linguistic and archeaological evidence, that the Celts are descended from a tribe of Indo-Europeans who settled in central Europe several thousand years ago. According to the traditional theory, the Celts began a period of expansion about 3,000 to 5,000 years ago, and eventually conquered much of western Europe and the British Isles. However, what happened to the original native western Europeans has been an enduring mystery.

There are also stories about mysterious tribes still living in Britain at the time of the Romans. Julius Caesar, who led the Roman invasion of Britain in 55 B.C., wrote that the "....interior portion of Britain is inhabited by those of whom they say it is handed down by tradition that they were born on the island itself; the maritime portion by those who passed over from the country of the Belgae [Belgium] for purpose of plunder and making war and having waged war, continued there and began to cultivate the lands." (De Bello Gallico, Book 5, sec.12.) The Belgae were a Celtic people who were skilled in metal-working and agriculture; the native Britons, according to Caeser, "do not sow corn [wheat], but live on milk and flesh, and are clad with skins." (Id., sec.14).

Some time after the arrival of the Celts, the original native Britons disappeared off the face of the earth. They left behind pottery, burial mounds, and some amazing archeaological relics like Stonehenge,* but little else - or so it seemed.

Genetic studies are now rewriting this history. Celtic people such as the Welsh and Irish speak Indo-European languages, yet their Y-DNA is similar to that of the Basques. In other words, the Welsh and Irish appear to be more closely related (by and large) to the non-Indo-European Basques than they are to Indo-European groups elsewhere in northern Europe, such as Germans and Scandinavians. Note, this does not mean that the Basques were direct ancestors of the Celts or visa versa. It simply suggests that the Basques and the Celts have a common origin dating back many thousands of years, before the arrival of Indo-European tribes. Only the Basques managed to keep their native (non-Indo-European) language alive to the present day. In the British Isles and elsewhere, the people lost their original languages, probably as a result of trade, military conquest, and intermarriage with Indo-Europeans. Eventually, and somewhat confusingly, both the people on the continent and the people in the British Isles became known as Celtic, because of their common languages and other cultural features. These geographically separate groups of Celts may have had quite different historical origins. In other words, some aspects of Celtic culture, such as language and technology, may have spread to people living in other geographic areas because of cultural diffusion, not because of military invasion leading to total population replacement. (It is important to remember that biological descent is not the same as cultural inheritance or heritage!)

The indigenous status of the contemporary European-originated peoples of the British Isles is usually accepted to have occurred some 15,000 years ago at the closing of the last mini Ice Age when nomadic peoples of European origin began resettling Britain and presumably Ireland.

Indo-Europeans were, in reality, peoples of European stock, a number of whose tribes migrated back and forth between India and Europe during intermittent periods of later millennias. It also helps explain why the ancient Welsh language still retains similarities with Hindi.

yorkshirebob said...

Well really, I'm beginning to change my opinion. Let's open wide the gates and let them all come in. It might not be all that serious after all.

Anonymous said...

@yorkshirebob

"Well really, I'm beginning to change my opinion. Let's open wide the gates and let them all come in. It might not be all that serious after all."

Steady on there! Read the following first.

"Hinduism' refers not to an entity; it is a name that the West has given to a prodigiously variegated series of facts. It is a notion in men's minds--and a notion that cannot but be inadequate. To use this term at all is inescapably a gross oversimplification."

"[There was] no such thing as Hinduism before the British invented the holdall category in the early nineteenth century, and made India seem the home of a 'world religion' as organised and theologically coherent as Christianity and Islam. The concepts of a 'world religion' and 'religion' as we know them now, emerged during the late 18th and early 19th century, as objects of academic study, at a time of widespread secularisation in western Europe. The idea, as inspired by the Enlightenment, was to study religion as a set of beliefs, and to open it up to rational enquiry."

"Hinduism--the word and perhaps the reality too--was born in the 19th century, a notoriously illegitimate child. The father was middle-class and British, and the mother, of course, was India. The circumstances of the conception are not altogether clear. One heard of the 'goodly habits and observances of Hindooism' in a Bengali-English grammar written in 1829, and the Reverend William Tennant had spoken of 'the Hindoo system' in a book on Indian manners and history written at the beginning of the century. Yet it was not until the inexpensive handbook 'Hinduism' was published by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge in 1877 that the term came into general English usage."

Anonymous said...

The British Isles were almost 100% uninhabitable due to the last Ice Age which ended just over 10,000 years ago when it was subsequently peopled by those of Basque origin and later others of European stock so the true indigenous peoples of the British Isles are of Basque and other largely same-race European ancestry, not Arab, Indian, Negrite or Oriental.

The fact that there were present numbers of non-White ethnicities brought over on and off during the course of later centuries by military functionaries or various White slaveowners, does not mean they have any racial and ethnic claim(s) to the British Isles. They don't.

The Roman Empire extended into the native lands of non-Whites for centuries, but that does not mean that Europeans can lay claim by ethnic entitlement to those territories as it is indigenous race and ethnic entitlement/rights that count, not manmade political decrees which are predominately created out of military and commercial expediency and not any recognition let alone respect for existing inherent indigenous racial, ethnic and cultural rights and interests.

We can safely declare, therefore, that those who are not indigenous to a territory, but have been conferred with citizenship and privileges by ruling elites acting without the permission of the indigenous, can also have such citizenship and social/political privileges removed at any time by elected true indigenous representatives of the indigenous peoples themselves.

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Britons

Anonymous said...

These boring gits going on about Celts. Let us state the fact. There are no Celts nor for that matter were there any Celts.
There was a migrationary period up to Roman times of Caucasian people in Europe. They used a common artistic style. That is all. this idea that certain parts of the european population are descended from these Celts is as misguided as saying (as some people stil do) that Europeans are descended from the lost tribes of Israel. It is all Balderdash.