The Scramble for Africa in the 19th century was one of the major geopolitical events that preceded both the First and Second World Wars. While seldom discussed, it was out of the continent that the powers of Europe were able to extract the needed resources in order to power their economies and militaries, and without her it would have been impossible for them to go to war.
Africa was crucial to every nation, and is evidenced by the extensive European colonization of the continent. It was one of the few areas where not merely the major French, British, Portuguese, Spanish, and Dutch conquerors had or exercised control over territory, but also European players who did not have major imperial possessions overseas. The Belgians controlled the lands of the Congo (sometimes called Zaire) in central Africa. The Italians exercised influence over parts of Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and Sudan in the East. But most importantly, Germany exercised control over various regions including the modern nations of Cameroon, Tanzania, Togo, and Namibia into the southern regions of Africa.
While all nations expand territory for power and influence, the motivations behind the expansions are as important as the expansion itself. In the case of the Belgians and the Italians, it was an attempt to mimic the other nations of Europe driven by anxiety and fear. Given the vast expanse of lands in Africa over which control was not fully defined, it was one of the last areas on earth that could be reasonably invaded and colonized without directly starting another war, and was resource-heavy so to justify a return on any investments.
The German case was different because while she too was driven by a desire to expand and Africa provided room to so do in a minimally confrontational way, it was also because Germany was actively attempting to return to her imperial ways in the past on the European continent. While there are stories of struggles between the minor states of Western Europe or the city-states of Italy, one does not see attempts by said smaller states to form a major empire on the European continent and subjugate their neighbors in a systematic manner. This has always been the case for Germany, that while she was historically a series of warring states, she never stopped attempting to conquer or find a reason to conquer her neighbors, especially those among the Slavic nations. The German expansion into Africa that began under Bismarck was the Prussian Empire’s long-term preparations for war as she had done in the past.
In the view of the British, Germany’s rise was considered a threat that she would attempt to form a pan-European army to oppose and potentially attack Britain. In one book, Germany’s Former Colonies, written at the time of the First World War, author Gordon le Sueur argues that the reason the British needed to invade and take Germany’s colonies from her is that she intended to use them to overtake the British Empire as a world power:
No doubt every aspect will be taken into consideration. It will be noted that from the moment Germany decided to establish a colonial Empire her envious hatred of Great Britian took root. She realized that at the British Empire’s expense alone could she fully develop her ideal. This feeling has grown and intensified until, in recent years, she has barely cloaked her ambitious design to replace us as a world power. When the final word is spoken, and compensation for loss in life and treasure if forced on us by her unscrupulous action is discussed, it will, I think, be ruled that we are more than justified in absorbing, as part payment, those possessions which she had designed to expand at the expense of ours. (source)
Germany’s four territories
Direct German possessions numbered modern nations as well as a series of small outposts in nations such as Ghana, Nigeria, and Congo. For the time we will consider the four major nations which Germany controlled: Togo, Cameroon, Tanzania, and Namibia
Togo was the first area taken by Germany. Located on the West African “gold coast” or “slave coast” near Benin, Prussian Chancellor Otto von Bismarck’s order to seize the area was inspired by Gustav Nachtigal, a Lutheran pastor and surgeon who worked for many years in Africa and described the people and land. Nachtigal was later appointed to a special commission by von Bismarck to oversee the German control and management of the country.
Germany has been criticized in Africa for her attitudes towards the people. While abuses did happen in Togo, Germany’s presence there was not abnormal for any colonial power in Africa. To her credit, she build cities and infrastructure that did not exist before, cultivated and successful agriculture program, and made the small territory she possessed into a net exporter of many natural products including cacao, palm oil, rubber, and cotton. The success of the Togo colony furthered German expansion into Africa.
German merchants had small territorial possessions off of Equitoreal Guinea in the 1860s and moved into Cameroon during the 1870s, where they met with great success. At around the time von Bismarck seized Togo, he also took Cameroon for the Reich. Like Togo, Cameroon produced a great many of the same products, but the difference was that whereas Togo was smaller and so were the farms, the size of Cameroon allowed for an influx of companies and massive, plantation-like expansion with companies such as Ekona AG, African Fruit Company, and the West African Planting Company along with many others. Additionally, there was a greater emphasis placed upon rubber due to competition from other European powers, and that the Congo area possessed one of the largest stocks of rubber in the world.
Tanzania, also known as German East Africa, was taken by Bismarck in 1885. She is an interesting case because the German expansion into the nation was done in a more aggressive and calculated way and also faced more resistance to her intrusions. German Togoland and Kamerun were taken with minor issues involving the natives. Tanzania was already claimed by the Sultanate of Zanzibar, a small island but a powerful ruler with ties to Oman and throughout East Africa. The current sultan, Barghash bin Said, had already worked with the British to help abolish the slave trade in his territories. Much like a 19th century Muammar Gaddhafi, bin Said was a Muslim ruler with a contemporary mind who wanted to modernize his territories and so attempted and succeeded in bringing national infrastructure, architechture, public safety, and plumbing to his nation. He was also a highly skilled diplomat who, while naturally being forced into a position of vassalage by the more powerful European nations, also resisted further attempts at subjugation and successfully was able to leverage himself against the other nations, removing conflict from being directed towards him and instead to the other powers.
What the Germans have done for centuries in Europe they applied to use against bin Said and his successor, Khalifa bin Said. The man assigned to the task was Carl Peters, the son of a Lutheran clergyman and an avid proponent of both darwinism and the nascent völkisch philosophy that promoted German racial supremacy and was the basis for the National Socialist movement in the 20th century. He went to the native tribes of the interior and convinced the tribal leaders to sign a paper saying that they were under German protection, at which point the Germans immediately brought companies into the area to establish their colonial presence. When the Sultan of Zanzibar tried to fight back, he used the “pledge” the tribesmen signed to say they were under German protection and if he fought he would be invaded by the Germans.
Peters’ “assitance” he provided by tricking the natives was soon exposed in the brutality of the treatment they received, as he was known to be excessively cruel and went so far as to round up people and force them to work on German corporate plantations. Those who refused to obey orders were beaten, tortured, or executed. The Germans additionally used further trickery to acquire territory, such as starting rebellions in Tanzania and then going in and destroying the rebellions they started as an excuse to expand their presence:
In 1888 the whole remaining territory of the Sultan of Zanzibar on the mainland was placed under the administration of Germany by virtue of lease from the Sultan. The new area included the magnificent harbor of Dar-es-Salaam, which became the principal port on that portion of the east coast.
Five days after taking possession of the newly leased territory, the Germans managed to organize an “insurrection” amongst the natives; and the assistance of the Imperial (German) Government was invoked by the German East Africa Society to “repress” the rebellion which they had deliberately incited. (source, page 95)
This precipitated a series of rebellions, such as the Abushiri Revolt, where natives rose up and killed most of the agents for the German East Africa company, the parent company under which the other corporations operated and the German government had to formally intervene by sending in troops. However, Peters and the German East Africa company did not relent, which only worsened the hatred of the natives against the imperialists.
In 1905, there was an uprising from the locals from a man who claimed he had magic powers to stop the Germans. This happened a year after the Herero War started in Namibia, and so with Germany feeling threatened, the German Governor of East Africa, Gustav Adolf von Gutzen, ordered a “scorched earth” policy against the natives. Crops and villages were destroyed and what was left was cut off from the locals. The Germans lost 15 native soldiers and 389 African troops under German control, while the rebels and rest of the nation lost between 75,000 to 300,000 people, mostly from starvation.
German East Africa was eventually taken over by Great Britian and Belgium following Germany’s defeat in the First World War.
Namibia is the most important of the German African territories because she was both exploited for her resources and her people. It was in Namibia that the Germans possessed the greatest power on the African continent, but it is also the place they used as a laboratory for testing their social plans for eugenics and “racial hygene” during the Second World War.
The history of Namibia begins with northern migrations of Boers (the descendants of Dutch and other Germanic peoples who settled in South Africa in the 17th century) northwards into what is known as Namibia today. They fought many wars against the various Bantu peoples who lived in the region but began establishing farms in the region successfully. Given that most were protestant, they were aided y the Rheinish Mission Society, who also spread Lutheranism and Calvinism into that area. While this was going on, the Boers continued also to fight with the British, who had established a presence in South Africa.
In Fall 1882, German businessman Adolf Luderitz purchased a tract of land which he then asked for German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck to annex in order to establish a permanent German presence to counter British influence in the area, which by extension also established Germany’s first colony in that region. By 1885 German bankers and industrialists working together (and on a side note, a pattern which would repeat in World Wars I, II, and today) formed the German Colonial Society for Southwest Africa, where they pooled their resources so to exploit the considerable natural resources in the area which included gold, silver, copper, and diamonds.
Tribal rebellions against the Germans began almost immediately, and were a problem that Germany did not want to have for fear of being pulled into a full-scale tribal war, when what she wanted was to be able ot have political and economic sovereignty in Namibia but with minimal direct involvement in native affairs. However, this was going to be difficult because many of the tribes in the area were well-armed with modern rifles and accustomed to fighting, having already fought against he Boers in the early part of the 19th century during the initial expansions into Namibia. Likewise, there were complaints from the tribes, the Herero and Nama, of mistreatment from the settlers.
While it is not demonstrated by historical evidence, that given the conflict with the British in the area that had already existed for centuries, it is not unreasonable to consider that some of the tribes may have obtained weapons from the British as a proxy war against the Germans.
Lothar von Trotha
The Germans fought continually against the Herero and Nama until 1904 when Germany sent Commander Lothar von Trotha to Namibia to take control over the situation. von Trotha ordered the genocide of the Herero and Nama:
I, the great general of the German soldiers, send this letter to the Herero. The Herero are German subjects no longer. They have killed, stolen, cut off the ears and other parts of the body of wounded soldiers, and now are too cowardly to want to fight any longer. I announce to the people that whoever hands me one of the chiefs shall receive 1,000 marks, and 5,000 marks for Samuel Maherero. The Herero nation must now leave the country. If it refuses, I shall compel it to do so with the ‘long tube’ (cannon). Any Herero found inside the German frontier, with or without a gun or cattle, will be executed. I shall spare neither women nor children. I shall give the order to drive them away and fire on them. Such are my words to the Herero people. (source)
von Lothar gave orders to, after engaging the tribes in battle, cut off all escape routes and shoot any member of the tribe, whether they were in military conflict or not. Thousands died and the survivors were rounded up and placed into work camps where, being deprived of food and forced into hard labor, many died. It is said that almost the entire Herero tribe was exterminated:
German soldiers surrounded Herero villages. Thousands of men and women were taken from their homes and shot. Those who escaped fled into the desert—and German forces guarded its borders, trapping survivors in a wasteland without food or water. They poisoned wells to make the inhuman conditions even worse—tactics that were already considered war crimes under the Hague Convention, which were first agreed to in 1899. (German soldiers would use the same strategy a decade later, when they poisoned wells in France during World War I.)
In the course of just a few years, 80 percent of the Herero tribe died, and many survivors were imprisoned in forced labor camps. After a rebellion of Nama fighters, these same tactics were used against Nama men, women, and children. In a colony where indigenous people vastly outnumbered the thousands of German settlers, the numbers are staggering: about 65,000 Herero and 10,000 Nama were murdered.
Survivors of the 1904 genocide
Images from the period make it difficult not to think of the Holocaust. The survivors’ chests and cheeks are hollowed out from the slow process of starvation. Their ribs and shoulders jut through their skin. (source)
The Germans referred to the Namibian people as Untermenschen– a term which would be used in the Third Reich- and having defeated the tribes began to study “racial differences” at the camp on Shark Island, which is where many of the captured peoples were kept. Among the experiments conducted were “skull measurements,” in which dead prisoners were beheaded and the tissue was skinned and scraped from the skull to reveal the bone, a task which was done by other Namibian prisoners- and then “studied” for “differences”.
The skulls collected from this experiment were done through the Kaiser Wilhelm Society that received funding from both the German government and the Rockefeller Family. Eugen Fischer, who was also the founder of the Society for Racial Hygene, was one of the chief scientists involved in studying the skulls and overseeing the Shark Island eugenics program, and it was his work on “miscegenation” that influence the Nuremberg laws and the policies of Hitler’s Germany towards race, especially the idea of the “pure Aryan” race.
Interestingly, the Kaiser Wilhelm society was renamed after World War II as the Max Planck Society and as we have written at Shoebat.org, still is involved in promoting eugenics to this very day through abortion and the experimentation on aborted babies.
The German genocides of World War II are spoken of at length. Still discussed but less so is the Armenian massacres by the Ottoman Empire, and to a lesser extend the recent genocides of Pol Pot In Cambodia and the Hutu-Tutsi massacres of Rwanda. The Holodomor in Ukraine is barely discussed. Yet in spite of all of these massacres, the Namibian Genocide, which was the first genocide of the 20th century, is never, ever mentioned, yet all that happened in it- the massacres of the innocent, the extermination of entire peoples, concentration camps, people being worked to death, and people being experimented on- all happened in 1904 first in Africa.
Germany remained in control over Namibia until after World War I, when they were defeated by a united British and Portuguese force and Namibia was annexed to what is now South Africa and later broken off into its own nation.
History teaches that in European affairs, Serbia is a flashpoint between conflicts involving Germany and Russia. It was in Serbia that World War I began with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. In the Second World War, allies by German and Italy with Croatia brought the conflict into the Balkans and with Serbia (later Yugoslavia). After World War II, now Yugoslavia was instrumental in establishing and propagating the Non-Aligned Movement, although for practical purposes it was allied to the USSR. Since the breakup of the USSR in 1991 and Yugoslavia thereafter, Serbia has remained a Russian ally but has also worked with and been involved with Germany, such as with the recent “refugee crisis” were many of the “refugees” have passed through Serbia on their way to Germany.
Interestingly, in a recent story the Serbian government has offered to train members of the Angola armed forces:
At least twenty-five cadets of the Angolan Armed Forces (FAA) may be trained in the military and medical areas in the Republic of Serbia in 2019, within the framework of existing cooperation between Angolan and Serbian Defense Ministries.
In the framework of a trade agreement, Serbia intends to instruct 10 cadets in basic military training and 15 in academic medical studies in the Military Academy of Medicine, three of whom will participate free of charge in their training.
The intention was presented Monday in Luanda by the Serbian Secretary of State, Aleksandar Zivkovic, at the 4th meeting of the Angola-Serbia Defense Cooperation Committee, which runs until the 13th of this month. The Secretary of State for Material Resources and Infrastructure, Afonso Carlos Neto, represents the Angolan party.
If Angola gives green light to the intention, the cadets will begin their studies next January, according to the Secretary of State of Serbia, Aleksandar Zivkovic.
Serbia also proposed an agreement on the mutual exchange and protection of confidential data, cooperation in the security services and the fight against terrorism. (source)
Governments act out of self-interest for their survival. They seldom do anything for “humanitarian good,” and when they do, it is usually for selfish ends.
Serbia has absolutely no relationship with Angola that makes geopolitical sense on the surface. It makes no sense for Serbia to pay for military training at all to a country in southern Africa. The only context in which Serbian intervention into Angola would make sense is given the history of her a a piece in a geopolitical puzzle, and this makes sense if one looks south, as Namibia is Angola’s southern neighbor.
Curiously, as Serbia has been aggressively building relations with Angola, Germany has also chosen to open up relations too with Namibia, now offering “business partnership”:
The Namibian government welcomes German businesses to assists in its industrialisation efforts in partnership with Namibian industries.
The participation is to share a collective dream of transforming both Namibia and Germany’s political and social ties into deepened economic cooperation and trade. (source)
This also comes at a time when German businesses are going into Eritrea, one of the major source countries from which “migrants” to Germany originate from, and is aggressively establishing business contracts within Eritrea while Russia is also working to establish relations in Eritrea as well.
Notice too that Serbia will be involved in “counterterrorism” training within Angola.
We know that America has effectively used terrorism- ISIS in the Middle East and Boko Haram in Nigeria- to subvert Russian and Chinese economic interests respectively, while all the time promoting in these same areas “counter-terrorism” programs and training. Since times and places change but people do not, what is to say that the Russians, who have also used these same techniques but with far less measured success in recent times, would not be ready to use such techinques to undercut German economic influence, and since Russia is far more limited in what she can do because the US is looking for reasons to go to war against her, to use a proxy ally such as Serbia to achieve this goal?
The German colonial experiment began as a series of economic expansions mimicking the other powers of Western Europe into Africa and immediately became both an empire unto itself as well as a place for testing philosophical ideas already present among the people and in the government. While the incursions into Togo and Cameroon were generally “normal” as far as colonial expansion is concerned for any nation, the further incursions into Tanzania and the experiments of Namibia show the use of a “justification” for actions that are more extensive and less easily able to be justified or hide in themselves.
British Empire vs. German Empire
The nation of South Africa was settled in the 17th century by Dutch merchant. While the Dutch are a distinct people and nation from Germany, they are still a Germanic people and share close cultural, linguistic, and geographic ties to each other. “Dutch” simply is a modification of the word “Deutsch,” meaning “German,” and so while the two maintain their own spheres of influence, they also assist each other just as the Americans assist the British.
South Africa is in an interesting position because it was colonized by the British. The British tended to concentrate in the southern and western parts, and the Dutch in the northern and eastern areas. During the First World War, the British and Germans fought each other in Namibia with South Africa being split between the two Empires. The southern and Western part, formally recognized as the nation of South Africa, was allied to the British. The Transvaal region, however, rebelled and formed its own army called the Union of South Africa and defeated the British in an incident called the Maritz Uprising that started a year-long campaign until it was finally crushed in 1915.
This was not the first time this happened. In 1880, the First Boer War resulted in a British defeat and the creation of the Transvaal and Orange Free States in 1881. The Second Boer war from 1899 to 1902 resulted in the defeat of the Boers and British administration over all of South Africa.
The fighting between the British and the Dutch leading up to the First World War was taking place at the same time that Germany, and ally of the Dutch, was conducting her eugenicist experiments in German East Africa and especially Namibia. This will be important for the future.
Germany was eventually stripped of her territories after her loss in the First World War by the British and the French.
When World War II started, Germany did not directly control any territories in Africa as during the First World War. Most of her actions are remembered in the context of the wars in North Africa, where due to her alliance with Italy, she had a strong presence in Libya. However, North Africa is but one side of the story, for Germany’s influence was all throughout Africa during that time as much as during the First World War.
What Germany did in East Africa was to follow in working through the territories controlled by her Italian ally, which included most of the nations of Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Somalia. The British and French also possessed small territorial holding in respectively what is today the Somalia-Ethiopia border and Djibouti. The Italians attacked and seized British Somaliland in August 1940. The British and French then went to war in the East Africa Campaign, and by November 1943 had defeated the Italians, reconquering the lost territory and seizing Italy’s holdings in East Africa.
South Africa was in a different position because of her relationship with the British Empire. Formally speaking, South Africa fought with the Empire and was a member of the allies during the Second World War. However, a large number of South Africans, almost entirely of Dutch or German extraction, rebelled and chose to support the German National Socialists. This had existed prior to the Second World War through a secret society called the Afrikaner Broederbund, which sought for the creation of an equivalent South Afrikaner ethnostate and was directly inspired by the National Socialists. Members of the Broederbund formed a group known as the Ossewabrandwag, and rooted in the ideology of Blut und Boden fought for the national socialist cause through acts of sabotage in South Africa against British targets by using “shock troops,” which they called Stormjaers. Some of them even traveled to Germany to fight on behalf of the National Socialists in Europe.
The fall of Hitler’s Reich did not end the influence of the Broederbund, which continued to dominate albeit in secret South Afrikaner politics up through the 1990s. Likewise, National Socialism did not die but assumed different forms, such as the emergence of the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging, which again advocates for the creation of the state of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State just as during the wars with the British more than a century ago.
Germany in Eastern Europe and Beyond
The national boundaries of Europe do not accurately reflect the historical distribution of persons within Europe. Boundaries have changed many times and reflect contemporary politics more than exact distributions of people.
Germany has been known to attempt to take over Europe many times. While there are predominately Anglo people in England, Danes in Denmark, Poles in Poland, and Italians in Italy, likewise there is a predominance of Germans in Germany, but there are also large diaspora German communities all throughout Europe that have maintained their identities for centuries. Even among communities that have disappeared, they had persisted for centuries in many cases and must be accounted for to understand the state of European politics.
Major German communities throughout Europe include and have included:
-Silesia/Pomerania: These are the border states of Western Poland that historically have been invaded and seized first by Germany whenever she attacks Poland.
-Kaliningrad/Koenigsberg: This was a German territory from about 1200 until 1945, and many Germans are still angry at the Soviet seizure of the area after World War II and its subsequent destruction.
–Crimea: Gothic peoples settled in Crimea over 1500 years ago, and there was a sizeable German community for centuries. Even after the invasion by the Tatars, Germans were reinvited back in the 18th century and have remained there since.
–Volga region: Many Germans settled in the Volga river basin of Russia north of the Caucasus near what is today Kazakhstan. While many of them were deported or put to death by the Soviets, there are over a half-million that remain and exercise considerable economic power in the area.
–Caucasus region: These are German peoples who live in the nations of Azerbaijan, Turkey, Georgia, Armenia, and constitute an ethnic minority on their own. Their community has considerable decreased, but they still exist and are a political and social force.
Germany has a historical pattern of not so much seeking to establish new colonies for military operations, but rather to use existing colonies and outposts to conduct said operations through. In the case of her invasions of Russia in the First and Second World Wars, both times she sought to get to Azerbaijan because of Azerbaijan’s importance for oil and gas access, and both times she made use of the Volga German and Caucasian German communities to prepare the way to Azerbaijan, also with the assistance of her ally in Turkey. This is another important fact that one must remember.
“White Genocide” Is Just What Germany Wants
Shoebat.com has warned about the use of racialism in order to further militarism with an emphasis being placed not so much on the obvious violence being committed against European peoples, but on the permitting of said violence by the governments with the curious and simultaneous rise of “nationalism” as the answer.
Remember the story of the Sultan of Zanzibar in German East Africa. Germany went to the peoples of the sultanate and offered protection, and then used a signed paper to “justify” their claims against the Sultan. Once they seized the territory, the Germans then forced the peoples the claimed to protect to work on their corporate plantations, and when they rebelled the Germans took away their food and starved them to death.
It is undoubtedly true that the violence of the “refugees” in Germany or the violence of black African Bantu racists against White European South African people is real. Only a fool would deny this because it is painfully obvious this is happening. However, what one must focus on is the fact said conditions are being allowed to rise because the people that the governments are enabling are but pawns for reviving nationalism and preparing for a future war.
Shoebat.com noted this in a story about 15,000 refugees from South African, all of European stock, who are petitioning Russia for asylum, and curiously, they all want to travel and settle in the Volga region of Russia. It does not make sense, as the Volga region is a violent part of Russia, that one would escape one war zone to flee to another. This suggests that there is more happening here than just one trying to get away from the violence.
Right now there are farm seizures taking place by the South African Government in the name of essentially black racialist nationalism. Many people are going to be hurt and killed in what will be outright racist violence coming predominately from the African National Congress. As I noted:
hat would people think to watch some of the African nationalists laugh at the pain of those whose homes and lives they have destroyed?
It would cause a massive outrage.
It would be a galvanizing moment for the new nationalist movement.
It would shock the entire world, and they would NEVER forget those videos and images.
It would be an ideal way to supercharge racial tensions, which are already strained in the Western world, and give way to justify violence against “foreigners.”
It would give the nationalists of the time a “reason” to engage in eugenics and human experimentation again against people considered “inferior.”
But while the world is watching South Africa, nobody is taking care to notice yet that the same is also beginning to happen in Namibia, the land that was Germany’s eugenicist experiment a century ago:
Namibia will hold countrywide land expropriation talks for the first time since independence as the small southern African nation grapples with political and ethnic tensions over the transfer of wealth to its majority black population.
President Hage Gottfried Geingob, speaking at a Heroes’ Day commemoration event in Rundu, about 700 kms (440 miles) from the capital Windhoek, said the Second National Land Conference would begin in October.
He said the conference would address the willing-seller, willing-buyer principle, ancestral land claims for restitution, expropriation in public interest with just compensation, urban land reform and resettlement criteria.
Namibia’s neighbor and regional economic powerhouse South Africa is also in the process of amending land ownership laws, causing investor jitters locally and abroad, leading to a controversial tweet by United States President Donald Trump this week criticizing the move by South Africa.
Namibia wants to transfer 43 percent, or 15 million hectares of its arable agricultural land, to previously disadvantaged blacks by 2020. By the end of 2015, 27 percent was redistributed, according to the Namibia Agriculture Union.
Critics say the current land resettlement program has failed to adequately address the land question in Namibia whose ownership is currently skewed in favor of a tiny white minority.
“Government is opening up these difficult policy conversations because no one should be under the illusion that our fight for freedom is complete,” Geingob said.
Geingob has previously said the government should evoke part of the Constitution allowing for land expropriation with fair compensation since the redistribution process has been slow.
In April Namibia scrapped a clause in its economic empowerment framework that would have forced white businesses to sell a 25 percent stake to previously disadvantaged blacks, saying the state did not have enough resources to invest in empowerment transactions. (source)
Currently, Germany does not have a “reason” to go into South Africa. However, because she has a historical relationship with Namibia that endures to this day, if there was a sufficient bout of violence against German targets and the German Namibian population that lives there, it would be an ideal reason to bring German troops into Namibia in the name of “peace keeping.” Given that South Africa is right on the Namibian border and there were many Boer trekkers who settled in that area, Germany would not need time to find an acceptable “reason” to engage in “peace keeping” and “regional stability operations” in South Africa.
This is why I said earlier that the conflict between the British and the Dutch last century was so important and must be remembered, because it was all based in ideas about racialism and the Germans have not forgotten this, and they are setting up conditions to repeat history once again.
If this is true, then given the horrors of eugenics that the German government funded Max Planck Institute partakes of and how such horrors began with the first concentration camps of the 20th century in Namibia, one must also take note that the philosophy and character of the German people has not fundamentally changed in spite of two world wars. The same darwinian ideas which naturally give way to eugenics by denying the intrinsic creation of man in the image and likeness of God are as present today as they were a century ago, except that instead of experimenting on the disembodied heads of Africans it is on the newly formed bodies of babies who have never even been given a chance to be born.
There are good and evil people in all societies. However, all governments are a reflection of the average character of the people, as it is the people of the society who make up the members that operate the organs of government.
The history of the past is just as important then as it is today, because times change but people generally do not change, and patterns for success that have worked before are likely to be used again because they worked before. Germany knows what has worked in the past, and she is simply repeating what she has always done, albeit this time with a few better tools and perhaps a more socially accepted way of presenting those desire to the public.
The USA Is Complicit In This
Recently, President Trump made a tweet from his account about attacks on “white farmers”:
President Donald Trump on Thursday tweeted a “disproven racial myth” about the killing of white farmers in South Africa to distract from his own problems at home, the former U.S. ambassador to the country charged.
Trump — making the claims after a segment on the issue on Fox News — said he had asked Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to study “land and farm seizures” and the “large scale killing of farmers” in South Africa — prompting an angry response from Pretoria accusing the president of stoking racial divisions.
The Trump administration has yet to appoint an ambassador to South Africa, but the previous holder of the post, Patrick Gaspard, accused the president of using the issue of land seizures to distract from his domestic political problems. (source)
Remember that Germany’s rise is being directly supported by the USA, as the USA, Germany, and Turkey are all allies as a part of Operation Gladio and work together, of which one of the major goals of the operation is the destruction of Russia and her fractioning into a series of warring nations.
The question to ask is, is Trump talking about the South Africa situation because he actually cares about the people, or is it because it aligns with the geopolitical objectives which the US has been working at for the last century? Given that American foreign policy has been strictly defined in utilitarian terms, helping and then turning on said people in the proportion to which the USA believes it advances her foreign policy aims, the answer should be obvious.
Trump is not a “savior” at all, and the stories about TRUMP VERSIZZ DA DEAP STAYT are a distraction from what is happening under his presidency. We can say, as we have covered, that Trump is promoting the re-militarization of both Japan and Germany, is helping Japan and Germany update and acquire nuclear technologies, has expanded American military operations against Russia, and has also promoted American isolationism as well as the support of Communist terrorists under the neoconservative warmonger John Bolton to invade the nation of Iran. The calls to “BUILD THE WALL” have virtually gone silent, being blamed on the “deep state” who is said to be the “obstacle” stopping Trump, and is almost forgotten at this point. In the future, historians will not remember Trump as being the man who “made America great again,” but the president who set up the conditions for the Third World War by enabling the antagonists of the past two world wars to position themselves for another fight.
Beware of the groups and people who talk about these events, and who want one to choose a “side.” It is better to help the people and in situations on a case-by-case basis if one so desires, because there is no good or right “side” as all support death and violence in the name of power and gain.