To survive the 21st century and ahead, recolonization of Africa is a must

[poiuytrewq0987]

In WW2, the war between Germany and Russia came down to one thing. Resources. Hitler's war with Russia was really about resources Hitler needed to be victorious by ways of making Germany impossible to defeat. What Russia had was far ahead compared to the oilfields in Romania or anything else the Axis had. Vast stretches of empty land with sparse colonization of Russians however the same vast stretches of land are extremely rich in resources. It is little Africa. With that, Russia has managed to grow to be the largest European ethnic group and essentially able to maintain the largest military out of all European nations.

Without those things, if her emperors didn't set out to conquer for Third Rome, Russia would have been a minor power. And China in charge of Siberia, possibly, a global power today. But that didn't happen, Russians forestalled that fate and ensured that Europeans would rule the world and continue to do so but today we are essentially handing over the harness to non-Europeans and leaving our fate up to them. Control of such resources are extremely important for from them we can create wealth and wealth is what drives man to excellence.

Today, China have been colonizing Africa for some while but this hasn't been noted by the Western media except for a story there and there put out to be only buried quickly. If they continue to do so, they will have absolute control over much of Africa and her resources. The Russians found a seemingly bottomless well of black gold in Siberia but in Africa? That bottomless well is likely to be outnumbered by many bottomless wells of black gold. Africa is a gold mine, left still untouched and with the European scramble for Africa only scratched the surface.

If we are to survive the future then we have to change things. We have to dig in Africa until we reach the planet core. We have to become absolute rulers of Africa. This is only a simple case of Darwinism. If we don't do it, they will, and they'll triumph over us eventually.

[Saruman]

Firstly 'us' must have a government which cares about 'us', and then we can talk about grandiose conquests.

[Susi]

Recolonise or reassert?

[Albion]

I think Britain should retake "Zimbabwe" and partition it into two nations - a black Zimbabwe and a European Rhodesia for the white settlers and new settlers.
Same with South Africa, recreate a boer state separate from the black one.

[Arne]

Should England kill the Boers once again ??

[Invictus_88]

There's a lot of nonsense being spouted here;

Voinstvennyi,
China's economic involvement in Africa can't reasonably be described as colonisation, given the absence of colonies, military settlement or annexation. It is simple economic involvement, and not nearly so politically engaged at the British "economic involvement" in India and the West Indies under the East India and West Indian Companies.
In light of this, your view resembles pretty audacious scaremongering - an effect only deepened by your reference to conflicts on the scale of the Second World War.
Overall, I can't see that there's real argument for doing more than reassessing the type of economic and political engagement which western countries have in Africa. It's been noted - for example - that China's edge over 'the West' in securing contracts in African countries lies in their willingness to deal less scrupulously with nations with poor human rights records, and that this effect lessens the degree to with western countries are able to affect positive change, and the degree to which they are able to capitalise on the mineral wealth of African nations.
The answer certainly can't lie in rhetoric and neocolonialism (if nothing else, 'the West' no longer possesses the economic supremacy necessary to do that), but can only - surely - lie in a reassassment of the way in which western nations trade with African nations in light of Chinese competition.

Celtabria,
i. The baffling idiocy of a country with an army of fewer than 100,000 taking a country the size of Zimbabwe by force, and then somehow enforcing a new apartheid system, would be amusing if I didn't have such a hunch that you meant it seriously.
ii. There are barely any white farmers still working in southern Africa, they've rightly jumped ship apart from a few die-hards.
iii. Please, tell me you're joking.

[Albion]

Should England kill the Boers once again ??

Always "England", never "Britain" when something bad happens No, "England" (Britain) shouldn't.
To clarify what I said earlier, such a republic for the "Boers" or Afrikaans in South Africa would be a separate sovereign nation apart from South Africa, who would create it and how I don't know, unlike Zimbabwe South Africa would be pretty hard to take.

Celtabria,
i. The baffling idiocy of a country with an army of fewer than 100,000 taking a country the size of Zimbabwe by force, and then somehow enforcing a new apartheid system, would be amusing if I didn't have such a hunch that you meant it seriously.
ii. There are barely any white farmers still working in southern Africa, they've rightly jumped ship apart from a few die-hards.
iii. Please, tell me you're joking.

i. Actually its more like 435,500 compared to Zimbabwe's 53,800 and no, you completely missed the point, by two states / nations that's what I meant, two fully sovereign nations - the remnant of Zimbabwe for the blacks and a smaller state for the White Rhodesians. Apatheid doesn't come into it because blacks wouldn't be allowed in, think "White Australia policy"
And how exactly is it amusing? I hardly think its anything to joke about, so you really reckon Mugabe's banana republic can take on a European country? Maybe if it were Iceland then yeah maybe it could
And before you go accusing me of being an imperialist its like this - Rhodesia would become a independent republic once it had been created, as would the remnant of Zimbabwe.
Really, when did you become such a defeatist and African-lover?

ii. So what, that's only because like you say, most have been forced out. It could be repopulated.

iii. No its not a joke, but then again I know it'll probably never happen, its about as likely as Guernsey invading America and winning (no offence USA)

The UK isn't a big superpower any more although some would like to think it is, neither are France or Germany but they can all pull their weight and still perform quite well on the world stage, I hardly think a few banana republics could stand up to them.
And as for native resistance, disunity is rife in Zimbabwe and all of Africa basically, I doubt they'd unite against a "common enemy" and even if they did what are they going to fight with? Sticks? Stones? Also white farming communities would prefer the sparsely populated highlands and would only take up a small area of Zimbabwe's actual land area, I think it could be done either by Britain, America or a range of allies because I'm not a defeatist.

Some stats:

Number of troops per country
Aircraft carriers by country (alas, no use in Zimbabwe)
Level of military equipment by country
List of countries with nukes (which would be unlikely to use in such a war)
Military budget per capita by nation

[Michael Vilmar Avery]

Yes it is very interesting that the China-man colonization of Africa doesn't get more play in the media.

Could the Elites not want to tip off to the Populace how weak they are in the face of the China-man?

Do the Elites not want to call abusive China-men 'racists' for hurting Africans because they want that slur to be used on only Whites?

Anyhow have always thought that one of the dumbest moves the USA has made was getting rid of Subic Bay ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Naval_Base_Subic_Bay ) That baby was right smack dab in Chinas maritime traffic lane and could be used to really mess with them! Of all the bases to close down it had to be that one! Oh well America is going downhill anyways probably.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Private interests from warlords to unscrupulous corporations to arms dealers and organized crime have helped to fuel African conflicts over the past decade as they vie for control over valuable resources.


Globalization has added a key dimension to contemporary warfare - armed groups from some of the world's most remote places can be directly linked with commerce in the 'technological heartland of metropolitan society'.

A complex international network of smugglers, brokers and traders means that everything from diamond rings and garden furniture to the components of mobile phones and Playstations may have originated as the booty of Africa's conflicts.


The Congo will not forget Leopold 2.


Africa is vastly rich in natural resources but the continent has paid a terrible price for this wealth. In the past decade horrendous wars in Angola, Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan and Liberia have been fuelled by fighting for control over diamonds, timber, gold, minerals and oil.

If you think China is interested investing in Africa at a grand scale and later to be told to leave(like the Indians in Uganda),you are wrong.

ABSTRACT There is an ongoing debate about the presence of Chinese in Lesotho with respect to their trade and investments and how they are helping the economy and at the same time exploiting the local masses.
The paper shows that some people appreciate and acknowledge the role played by the Chinese through their trade and investments in fighting poverty and therefore helping in poverty alleviation among poor households.
Many others however argue that the Chinese are very exploitative.
The paper concludes that in reality, the Chinese have invested much in Lesotho through which the low-income consumers and poor Basotho are benefiting despite the shortcomings levied against them.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...6ljD5Etro6vptQ

[Curtis24]

I recall reading somewhere there are several hundred thousand Chinese nationals living in Africa. That sure sounds like "colonization" to me...