Here's what really isn't understood when I say "the South Africanization of America":
It's not just that crime is going up; crime always happens. It's that everywhere turns into a potential scene of crime and bloody murder, with no respite.
It's total war, but with crime 🧵👇
The stabbing at the University of Arizona really shows this
Some girl was going to a school where she thought she'd have fun, but instead, she was attacked by some knife-wielding black woman for no real "reason"
What should be a relatively nice and calm place is instead, now, beset by violent crime and stabbings motivated not even by a desire to steal, but just anti-white hatred and a desire to harm
Were this to happen in some slum in Chicago, burned-out crack house in Detroit, or street corner in East St. Louis, it's not a story. Such things have always and will always happen in such areas; the solution is just to avoid them
But what's new is this happening in nice places; what used to be confined to the slums and "bad areas" has spread to everyone everywhere, with no clear way to avoid it other than to live in some secluded spot where the "fellow classmates" of the world dare not tread
So now you have homeless crack addicts lighting up on Venice Beach, shooting and stabbings in the nice parts of Manhattan, and "fellow classmates" stabbing their white classmates on pleasant college campuses
What used to be confined to the slums has now spread like a cancer to everywhere, and the natural result is that everywhere now feels like Rorke's Drift under siege with the Zulus charging in a Bull's Head, and some potentially already inside the biscuit box perimeter
Hence the stress, the fear, the worry becoming omnipresent: there's no escape, and often even protesting attack is seen as beyond the pale and "racist"
But while this is new to America, at least in the post-1970s era, it's not new to Africa
Nowhere is safe from crime in the Congo. No farm in Zimbabwe was safe when Mugabe came for them.
And, most importantly, the same is true of South Africa, where only Orania and a few other similarly secluded spots are safe. Everywhere else, from neighborhoods to big cities, face a constant onslaught of crime and the potential for disaster
Take Johannesburg and Durban. They used to not only be safe, but were beautiful. Mike Hoare, for example, describes the Durban of the pre-Mandela period as a jewel
But then came the South Africanization of South Africa with Mandela, and quickly car flamethrowers became a reasonable thing to strap onto your car if you had to take a trip outside the gate of your house
Then things got even worse and even houses with electric fences became unsafe due to the plethora of predatory criminals roaming about; and isolated farms were placed under siege, much as they had been in Rhodesia during the Bush War
Now, what's easy to see is that pretty much the whole country has to deal with the constant threat of "fellow classmate"-style stabbings
There's often not even a reason for it, as @k9_reaper has pointed out when describing the farm attacks; just hatred of the Boers and a desire to destroy. And destroy they do, with horrific results
So now entire cities like Johannesburg are effectively rotten hulks taken over by criminals and squatters, even the nice neighborhoods face the threat of crime and destruction (as became all too evident during the 2021 riots), and its highly dangerous to live on a farm
Everywhere, in short, is the potential scene of an unspeakably brutal crime, and the only solution is to leave for Orania or leave for somewhere safe like Switzerland, if they'll let you in
That is what South Africanization will mean when it comes to America
We're, unfortunately, used to the idea of areas in cities being no go zones for normal people, taxpayers. But as this progresses, it will mean entire cities, entire regions become no-go zones where one is unsafe for merely existing and the government either can't or won't protect you from the rampaging criminals
Private security does what it can, but that's only so much
Take from that what you will
IMO it means unpleasantness in heavily populated and isolated but attackable areas, as in South Africa, not "collapse," which is yet to happen there and so unlikely to happen here
But it's not unhelpful to understand self-defense in all manner of situations, with books like those of @wayofftheres and @DonShift3 being quite helpful in understanding what further South Africanization will probably mean and how you can fight it
Here's what it looked like, for example, as a white and Indian militia fought off an advancing column of rioters in 2021
"We're all Rhodesians now," as the meme goes, because they want to Mugabify the world
But we're also all South Africans now, as soft-on-crime, "rehabilitative justice" policies mean criminals face no consequences of note, anti-white hatred is common, and everyone's unsafe
A government-funded food pantry in Minnesota is now excluding whites
If you needed yet more evidence that we’re drifting toward the South Africanization of America, or even the Mugabe-style Zimbabwification, this is it
Illinois explain in the 🧵👇
Key to understanding what’s happening in America right now, particularly the blue areas, is understanding the Race Communism of Africa
That ideology is, I think, best seen through the lens of Rhodesia’s transformation into Zimbabwe and the post-1994 destruction of South Africa by the African National Congress and its more honest colleagues in the EFF
So, what is the race communist ideology?
It is very much not the idea that, say, the state really ought care about and work your improve the lives of random blacks living in the slums of Johannesburg
Rather, it’s the idea that *some* blacks ought be raised above *all* whites and that whites ought pay for that, with blood and pain if necessary
The crown is lying in the gutter and anyone who presented a reasonable plan for dealing with these invaders could pluck it up with ease
So why won’t existing governments deal with it?
The humiliation and destruction is the entire point🧵👇
Often, mass migration is explained away as an an economic thing
They need more warm bodies and mirror foggers to keep GDP up and to the right and pension plans fully funded so the retired crowd doesn’t riot, or so they say
But that doesn’t pass the smell test. The Danes studied migration and found migrants from the Middle East and North Africa are huge drains on the public treasury. Far from funding pensions, they detract from them in a huge way, to the tune of thousands of euros a year
So why import them? Obviously not for economic reasons…
It’s because they want their native populations humiliated and depressed so they don’t revolt (ours want this too)…and hordes of migrants that commit crimes and can’t be spoken against on pain of imprisonment are a great way to do that
What must be remembered is that this is 100% intentional
Some NGO, thought, "Well I hate the native population of X patch of land, so let's flood it with infinity unassimilable invaders"
And now they're doing exactly that, and it's motivated by hate
A very short 🧵👇
It's one thing when it is economic migration...that's awful and just as bad in reality, but can be hidden under the guise of "well they want to pick fruit for like a dollar a day, so your strawberries are cheaper
All the negative externalities are still there, of course...but it's generally not just open, undisguised hate against the native population. There's a veneer of (false) reasonability to it
That's very much not the case with things like the story at the top...
What will the Comoros Islands do with thousands of Subsaharan invaders? What will Lampedusa, the Italian island, do now that there are more African invaders on it than native Italians?
There's only one answer...those places will die even faster than the rest of the invader-allowing West
Mugabe enthusiasts post ridiculous memes like this on posts about Rhodesia, and how it is a rebuke of modern egalitarianism's ill effects
The thing is, are "Zimbabweans" of whatever class any better off now than they were under Ian Smith and his sort?
No, very much not 🧵👇
First, a quick reminder for those who haven't seen my previous posts:
Rhodesia did not have an apartheid system like South Africa. Rather, it had a property-tied voting system similar to America before Andrew Jackson or England in the 1800s, where to vote, you needed to own a requisite amount of Rhodesian property, such as real estate or a business. One could also qualify via educational attainment
Generally that meant that it was primarily whites voting, but anyone could who was educated and/or propertied
The result was, as they called it, "responsible government" that served the needs of all Rhodesians
The country industrialized, had a thriving agricultural sector that was the breadbasket of Africa, and the government invested heavily in raising the standard of living in tribal villages
So, no one was starving, the country was stable and ruled well, and things continued getting better and better
Because it was a normal Western country typical of the century prior to its destruction, one "more British than the British."
In fact, that's the very reason it was destroyed 🧵👇
Key to Rhodesia's national identity and success was that it wasn't a land of reprobates and freebooters picking their teeth with Bowie knives
Rather, from the time of the Pioneer Column into the Bush War, it was on the hunt for the best men of England. Particularly, it used restrictive immigration policies to ensure only those who would be able to assimilate into its "more British than the British," pink gin sundowner culture would be allowed to immigrate
So, those men who immigrated to Rhodesia were like the Duke of Montrose: gentlemen who wanted to be landowners who used their position to guide the Rhodesian state with a paternalistic hand
The result was a country with a small (250k or so) European population, nearly all of which was English and deeply steeped in English culture
Hunting, pink gin, gentlemanly behavior, modern agriculture on a large scale, national service in a daring and small military: it was the Britain of a century earlier
What six books should you read for an alternative look at history?
I'm known for my alternative views on history, particularly on Rhodesia, so what books do I recommend to start learning the tragic history of the past few centuries in a similar way
I'll show you in the 🧵👇
First up is "The Great Betrayal" by former Rhodesian PM Ian Douglas Smith
It's his autobiography, with a focus on his leadership during the Bush War and how he tried to save the country from the communist and Western-supported rebel attacks
It focuses on how the British and Americans stabbed Rhodesia in the back, throwing their ethnic cousins in Rhodesai to the bloodthirsty, communist wolves in the name of "democracy" and egalitarianism
It also shows Smith's care for the natives of Rhodesia, black and white alike, and how he wanted what was best for them (which wasn't mass democracy), in contrast to the Mugabe-supporting West that just wanted to do what would make it feel good
That is critical to understanding the second half of the twentieth century, as it shows what the Cold War and decolonization were about: not resisting communism, but pushing mass democracy on every patch of Earth in the name of ideological egalitarianism
The book was reprinted as "Bitter Harvest," which is sometimes easier to find. Both are easiest to find on AbeBooks
If you like this one, "Three Sips of Gin" by Tim Bax is superb, as is "Rhodesia Accuses" by Peck
Second is "Defenders of the West" by Raymond Ibrahim
It charts Christian resistance to Muslim aggression, with its key focus being on the few heroes who resisted the advance of Islam, often against great odds
It is critical because it shows the truth about Islam: today, a few fools on the right are trying to present Muslims as allies of true Christians in the fight against degeneracy. Nothing could be further from the truth; where the crescent moon of Islam goes, backwardness and blood-soaked horror always follows. The path out of this abominable world, both in live and after, is true Christianity, the Christianity of the heroes cataloged in the book; not allying with those who have tortured, oppressed, and killed Christians for centuries
@ChivalryGuild has written a great deal about this one, and is worth checking out
If you like this one, another great book on a similar subject is God's Battalions by Rodney Stark.