Post: #576

(08-30-2018 08:17 AM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  The girls visiting in the 1990s were not rich - just standard middle class.

Unfortunately this is still the case today in 2018. My grandmother never ironed a single shirt in her life or my grandfather did never move a finger in his garden.

They have a black maid and a black gardener who work for €20 a day. Of course my grandparents threat them well providing them with food and pay them for transport but at the end of the day it still feels like some kind of slavery.

This is also the reason why so many white South African expats struggle to integrate into Western society when they arrive. In London there is no one who cleans their apartments for next to nothing. There is also no Uber driver who drives them around almost for free. I also think this point is one of many reasons why the idea to bring farmers to Russia is not going to work at all. In Russia these farmers will not find cheap work force who are doing the hard work for them while being treated like shit.

Because of these cheap labor force many white South Africans became very wealthy between the 70s and the 90s. Especially in the construction, the f&b industry and farming industry. People were just able to hire black people for next to nothing, pay a low class white guy a few bucks to supervise them while they were counting the money.

Now you can argue these black people would have no other opportunity and it is still better than starving but this whole system of underpaying black people while taking advantage of them lead to the situation in which the country is right now.

Post: #577

How did Australia industrialize? I know most civilisations relied on child labour and exploiting the proletariat, but how did places like Sweden and other other countries develop?

Post: #578

(08-30-2018 10:06 AM)Pride male Wrote:  How did Australia industrialize? I know most civilisations relied on child labour and exploiting the proletariat, but how did places like Sweden and other other countries develop?

Europe entered the Renaissance and later the industrial revolution due in part to the plague. The high casualty rates caused labor shortages that broke down the feudal system (not enough serfs) and put the pricing power more in the hands of the laborer.

When labor became less cheap, alternatives were sought.

On Sweden in particular: Sweden modernized from a half starved backward agrarian society when it went into empire building mode. There was one Swedish prince (I have to dig through my history books to remember his name) who went through the archives of the Vatican, pulling out as much information as how the Roman Legions operated.

He used that information to create a modern Swedish army. Unfortunately, that army at one point invaded Russia....

Post: #579

(08-30-2018 10:06 AM)Pride male Wrote:  How did Australia industrialize? I know most civilisations relied on child labour and exploiting the proletariat, but how did places like Sweden and other other countries develop?

Ordinary workers who grouped into labor unions, who then grouped into various political parties, pension funds, healthcare funds etc.

Post: #580

Post: #581

Post: #582

(08-30-2018 09:17 AM)superschalk Wrote:  They have a black maid and a black gardener who work for €20 a day. Of course my grandparents threat them well providing them with food and pay them for transport but at the end of the day it still feels like some kind of slavery.

Is that for both? Here live in maid works out to around €2-3/day

Post: #583

(08-30-2018 10:14 PM)KYT88 Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 09:17 AM)superschalk Wrote:  They have a black maid and a black gardener who work for €20 a day. Of course my grandparents threat them well providing them with food and pay them for transport but at the end of the day it still feels like some kind of slavery.

Is that for both? Here live in maid works out to around €2-3/day

It will be for 2-3$ per day when the Whites are gone.

Post: #584

2-3 USD is essentially feudalism damn.

Post: #585

Boer hottie thanks Trump





Is this the same girl?

Post: #586

If the British had been allowed to properly rule South Africa it would be in a much better state than it is now. There were probably more Aborigines in Australia than there were Blacks in South Africa at the time of first settling. The Dutch/Afrikaners basically had no experience in colonising, they sort of just wandered aimlessly. If I remember correctly, it was 200 or so years after first settling that they even bothered to venture in to the interior (modern day Vrystaat en Gauteng). Added to that the fact that the Boers were hostile towards English settlers, this greatly decreased the numbers of immigrants wanting to move there. South Africa is in fact much more habitable than Australia, the population growth could have been incredibly exponential.

This isn't an anti-Afrikaner rant, I can completely see why they wouldn't want to be ruled by us and probably (I'm guessing here) be forced to drop their language and culture, and compete with English, Scots and Irish workers. But that also led to the current state of South Africa.

Post: #587

Post: #588

(08-31-2018 12:49 PM)britchard Wrote:  If the British had been allowed to properly rule South Africa it would be in a much better state than it is now. There were probably more Aborigines in Australia than there were Blacks in South Africa at the time of first settling.

The British settlers in Australia had an effective method of dealing with Aborigines...just shoot them.

Post: #589

(08-31-2018 03:41 PM)Sgt Donger Wrote:  

(08-31-2018 12:49 PM)britchard Wrote:  If the British had been allowed to properly rule South Africa it would be in a much better state than it is now. There were probably more Aborigines in Australia than there were Blacks in South Africa at the time of first settling.

The British settlers in Australia had an effective method of dealing with Aborigines...just shoot them.

Whatever, but that isn't my main point. South Africa was being settled since 1652, Around 50 years after the US was being settled, and 135 years before Australia. Yet their white population is only around 4 million people. Sure, there's a lot of expats but at most I'd estimate them at around 1 million.

Post: #590

(09-01-2018 11:07 AM)britchard Wrote:  

(08-31-2018 03:41 PM)Sgt Donger Wrote:  

(08-31-2018 12:49 PM)britchard Wrote:  If the British had been allowed to properly rule South Africa it would be in a much better state than it is now. There were probably more Aborigines in Australia than there were Blacks in South Africa at the time of first settling.

The British settlers in Australia had an effective method of dealing with Aborigines...just shoot them.

Whatever, but that isn't my main point. South Africa was being settled since 1652, Around 50 years after the US was being settled, and 135 years before Australia. Yet their white population is only around 4 million people. Sure, there's a lot of expats but at most I'd estimate them at around 1 million.

British colonization only begain in the early 19th century when they established the Cape Colony. The Afrikaaners had already been there 150 years by that point. British presence is what led to the Great Trek, when Orange Free State and Tranvaal were establised by the Afrikaaners. It wasn't until early 20th century that Cape Colony, Transvaal, Orange Free State and Natal merged to form the Union of South Africa, which comprises the modern borders of South Africa.

Post: #591

https://www.thesouthafrican.com/how-many...call-home/

4.3 mio. White South-Africans seem to have migrated in the 20th to 21st century.

So without migration the population may have been 10 mio. by now. I had family myself who lived in South Africa shortly in the 1980s, but found it too far away from European lifestyle. They later moved to Canada which they found more to their liking.

The US had a period of settler mothers having 8+ surviving children from the 18th century right up until the beginning of the 20th century. The majority of the US population growth was derived from that - it's funny that it at one time ever surpassed the Euro-immigration. Saw a presentation by a demographer and it was strange to find out that the bulk of the US population growth beginning around 1750 was due to massive birth rates of the Euro-tribes.

It's interesting why the Whites in South Africa did not go down the same route despite sufficient food production and living standards that ware amenable to most kids surviving. My personal guess is the reality that Whites are badly adapted to African climates. Of course now you can have all races be living everywhere due to modern technology, prolific heating and clothing, air-conditioning, vitamin supplementation, modern medicine etc. But back in the day it was common for the colonist armies to suffer immense losses due to various diseases. While the survivors were certainly better adapted, it likely cut down their population growth.

Post: #592

Low-voice tradthot Lauren Southern was on Michael Savage's show to discuss the problems in SA. Michael also has a petition he will send to Trump if it gets 100,000 signatures.

http://conservativestream.com/recorded-s...B_FULL.mp3

Interview starts at about 18:00 but the entire 1st hour is about SA.

https://michaelsavage.com/petition-urgin...n-farmers/

Quote:We the People call upon President Donald J. Trump and his State Department to apply immigration priority to the South African Farmers facing the violent confiscation of their lands by the African National Congress.
The white South African population currently faces ethnic cleansing and persecutions at the hands of the ANC government, the EFF, and various individual anti-white aggressors. White farmers have been brutally murdered, often including torture and rape and mutilation. Many white South Africans today live in poverty and squalor as a consequence of the ANC government’s Black Economic Empowerment policy which shuts whites out of the labor pool.
These common injustices have lead to more violent rhetoric in recent years as leaders in South Africa, such as Julius Malema has stated that he is “not calling for the slaughter of white people – at least for now.”
This South African minority group faces extinction under this oppressive regime. It is the duty of the United States to properly vet and assist this population to safety.
Therefore, we hereby add our names to this petition calling on President Donald J. Trump and his State Department to grant priority to this persecuted group who pose virtually no threat to the American people and way of life.

Post: #593

(08-31-2018 01:07 PM)budoslavic Wrote:  

And who is this Montfort Mllachila fellow, the the IMF’s senior resident representative in South Africa?



Ahhh, yes, seems legit, I'm sure he will be fair and unbiased in this situation.

What was it that the evil and racist Enoch Powell said? Something about a whip and a hand?

Post: #594

(09-01-2018 11:37 AM)Horus Wrote:  

(09-01-2018 11:07 AM)britchard Wrote:  

(08-31-2018 03:41 PM)Sgt Donger Wrote:  

(08-31-2018 12:49 PM)britchard Wrote:  If the British had been allowed to properly rule South Africa it would be in a much better state than it is now. There were probably more Aborigines in Australia than there were Blacks in South Africa at the time of first settling.

The British settlers in Australia had an effective method of dealing with Aborigines...just shoot them.

Whatever, but that isn't my main point. South Africa was being settled since 1652, Around 50 years after the US was being settled, and 135 years before Australia. Yet their white population is only around 4 million people. Sure, there's a lot of expats but at most I'd estimate them at around 1 million.

British colonization only begain in the early 19th century when they established the Cape Colony. The Afrikaaners had already been there 150 years by that point. British presence is what led to the Great Trek, when Orange Free State and Tranvaal were establised by the Afrikaaners. It wasn't until early 20th century that Cape Colony, Transvaal, Orange Free State and Natal merged to form the Union of South Africa, which comprises the modern borders of South Africa.

Yes, I know. But the Afrikaners had been there for 150 years and didn't even bother to settle the interior (with some of the most fertile lands) until some of them were effectively told to fuck off by the British. They were amateurs in colonisation and population growth.

English South Africans are disliked and distrusted by the Afrikaners, and are often shunned. A common insult is 'soutie', derived from the word 'salt' because English South Africans were seen as having 1 foot in SA and 1 foot in England, so their balls were dangling in the salt water of the oceans.

Post: #595

Meet the old boss, he is the new boss - just less money will be flowing into common hands:

Quote:The Chinese are going to invest $2 billion into mining in the Limpopo region where the first two game parks have been served with legal papers demanding they hand over their lands to the South African government without compensation. This is a really disturbing development.

So grab the land from Whites. Give the licenses to the Chinese. The Chinese will transfer likely some 100-200 mio. $ in effective bribes for the top, then invest the other 1.8 bio. $ in infrastructure and various other projects that will be built and constructed with Chinese suppliers and even Chinese labor. Essentially the country will get mostly some top-down payments that might trickle down to some very limited degree.

And I am personally not against purchasing land even forcibly when it's for strategic interests. Just pay the owners fairly and kick them off the land. They can all recover from their shock on some private island with 10 model-escorts - those poor sods.

But we were talking about this - either Chinese, or other Jewish and Whites elite families are going to pretend to be black-owned and grab some more land. It's only interesting what happens further down the line of how all of that is managed.

Post: #596

(09-01-2018 01:56 PM)britchard Wrote:  

(09-01-2018 11:37 AM)Horus Wrote:  

(09-01-2018 11:07 AM)britchard Wrote:  

(08-31-2018 03:41 PM)Sgt Donger Wrote:  

(08-31-2018 12:49 PM)britchard Wrote:  If the British had been allowed to properly rule South Africa it would be in a much better state than it is now. There were probably more Aborigines in Australia than there were Blacks in South Africa at the time of first settling.

The British settlers in Australia had an effective method of dealing with Aborigines...just shoot them.

Whatever, but that isn't my main point. South Africa was being settled since 1652, Around 50 years after the US was being settled, and 135 years before Australia. Yet their white population is only around 4 million people. Sure, there's a lot of expats but at most I'd estimate them at around 1 million.

British colonization only begain in the early 19th century when they established the Cape Colony. The Afrikaaners had already been there 150 years by that point. British presence is what led to the Great Trek, when Orange Free State and Tranvaal were establised by the Afrikaaners. It wasn't until early 20th century that Cape Colony, Transvaal, Orange Free State and Natal merged to form the Union of South Africa, which comprises the modern borders of South Africa.

Yes, I know. But the Afrikaners had been there for 150 years and didn't even bother to settle the interior (with some of the most fertile lands) until some of them were effectively told to fuck off by the British. They were amateurs in colonisation and population growth.

English South Africans are disliked and distrusted by the Afrikaners, and are often shunned. A common insult is 'soutie', derived from the word 'salt' because English South Africans were seen as having 1 foot in SA and 1 foot in England, so their balls were dangling in the salt water of the oceans.

The lack of Afrikaner people is likely related to the Dutch and French demographic crises. After all most Afrikaners came from those two places.

Year 1600

Netherlands: 1 million
France: 20 million
Russia: 14 million (yes even for a long time, even during the Napoleonic Wars, France had more people than Russia! Russian human wave was more the 20th century)

Nobody has really explain why the French stopped having kids or even why the Afrikaners (with all the land you're talking about) weren't multiplying like insects either.

Post: #597

(09-04-2018 03:41 AM)BaatumMania Wrote:  Nobody has really explain why the French stopped having kids or even why the Afrikaners (with all the land you're talking about) weren't multiplying like insects either.

Protestant faith putting a much lower emphasis on having large families (vs. Catholics)?

Post: #598

(09-04-2018 09:37 AM)Hell_Is_Like_Newark Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 03:41 AM)BaatumMania Wrote:  Nobody has really explain why the French stopped having kids or even why the Afrikaners (with all the land you're talking about) weren't multiplying like insects either.

Protestant faith putting a much lower emphasis on having large families (vs. Catholics)?

Nope. American protestant families had 8+ children each in the US and outclassed even the large immigration in the up until the late 19th century.

My guess is that many children - much more than in the US - died from diseases. Africa isn't as conducive to the health of Whites without massive technology. For example - the UK has found that black and brown-skinned children are incredibly low in vitamin D and they have decided to supplement food of all children. Do it all without modern technology and they would die at much higher rates. The colonial armies had massive death rates in those times - read somewhere reports of over 40-50% (many would return, but die soon later).

Adaption for tens of thousands of years counts for something if you don't have modern science to balance it all out. The South Africans would have required some advanced tech to reach 8+ surviving child births as was the case with American settlers.

Post: #599

(09-04-2018 09:51 AM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 09:37 AM)Hell_Is_Like_Newark Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 03:41 AM)BaatumMania Wrote:  Nobody has really explain why the French stopped having kids or even why the Afrikaners (with all the land you're talking about) weren't multiplying like insects either.

Protestant faith putting a much lower emphasis on having large families (vs. Catholics)?

Nope. American protestant families had 8+ children each in the US and outclassed even the large immigration in the up until the late 19th century.

My guess is that many children - much more than in the US - died from diseases. Africa isn't as conducive to the health of Whites without massive technology. For example - the UK has found that black and brown-skinned children are incredibly low in vitamin D and they have decided to supplement food of all children. Do it all without modern technology and they would die at much higher rates. The colonial armies had massive death rates in those times - read somewhere reports of over 40-50% (many would return, but die soon later).

Adaption for tens of thousands of years counts for something if you don't have modern science to balance it all out. The South Africans would have required some advanced tech to reach 8+ surviving child births as was the case with American settlers.

Look here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Sout...lity_rates

I suspect western poz is playing a significant role even there. Depressing fertility.

Post: #600

< That is data from the Western-influenced tribes starting in 1950s - there is none from 1700-1900. Back in Europe anyone who could had 8-10 kids in the 19th century. The elite did not (their women did not feel like it similar to modern women), but many of the upper-middle, middle and even well-fed lower classes had so many surviving kids. The US enjoyed some of the best lifestyles from 1700-1900 - the timeframe where rampant childbirth with some moderate medical awareness was present in Europe. That was the time of immense population growth of Europeans and it seems that White South Africans missed out on that due to mal-adaptation to the climate/environment. You can forget about it in the 20th century - everything changed then, lifestyles, technology, parental investments, women's lib etc.