“Der Ewige Anglo” is a rather common meme that runs around alt-right circles. For those not in the know, it is a play on the 1930s German propaganda art depicting the eternal Jew. The Englishman is so dubbed because of his frequent and disastrous meddling in the geopolitical sphere. Truly, he has more than earned his fair share of derision and scorn. Suffice it to say, that in my study of history, there is little that the English have gotten right in this theater since the Cromwellian revolt of 1642. Indeed, it would seem that every mistake that could have been made was made, whether for reasons of ineptitude, political expediency, or outright treachery. The moniker “Perfidious Albion” is one which is richly deserved when describing that shitty, rainy, nigh on Communist Island. Our ancestors left with good reason and I’m glad for that fact.
Where the memers lose me, however, is when they take the sins of the father and seek to impart them upon the sons and daughters of Britannia. I’ve had this conversation with many people, including with Southrons. Given that Dixie is a land which is overwhelmingly of British stock, this self-hatred is an irritating and perplexing symptom of the deracination that plagues us a people. I find this line of thinking similarly confusing when the matter of Southern Africa comes up.
Young white Americans/Dixians will slander the English living in Africa while posting pictures of the South African and Rhodesian flags and quoting Ian Douglas Smith, an Anglo. Every white in South Africa is a Boer according to these blockheads (people wise to the history of SA will appreciate that pun). Any attempt to point out the reality of the ethnic composition of white South Africa is met with: “fuck the British, let them burn. Save the Boer!” The truth is, of course, more complex than the poster children of Dunning-Kruger make it appear. The whites of South Africa are majority British. White Rhodesia was all but entirely British. The British Empire fucked them both in due course, but how that imparts blame to the Britishers living in Africa (or the US or anywhere else), I know not.
Hyper defined nationalism works in Europe, because the various countries therein achieved homogeneous status as a result of centuries of internal and external strife which banded the people together. This was never the case in Africa, given the fact that whites were always a super-minority, despite their financial and political power. Where whites needed to come together in order to shore up the future of their grandchildren, they remained hopelessly divided because of ancient grudges.
The history of Anglo-Dutch relations in South Africa is a complicated one with slights committed by both Anglo and Dutch against the other. I can categorically say that there is no justification for what the Empire did during the 2nd Boer War. Placing Dutch women and children into concentration camps was one of the many geopolitical errors committed by the British as mentioned earlier. But the misplaced bitterness over a 50-year-old war crime, committed not by the South African Anglos but a now foreign government, was the first a series of dominoes that has led to the current plight of whites in South Africa today.
To whit, in the wake of the Second World War, many British and other Europeans sought a new future in South Africa. Here was a land unstained by the horrors of war, full of wealth and opportunity. White immigrants poured in in droves. This fact maddened the Dutch Nationalists, as they saw their political influence dwindling in the face of an already slim Anglo majority becoming a large one. The major question of the election of 1948 centered on this immigration question and the nationalists, thanks to an electoral system not unlike our own which gives weight to rural areas, were able to squeak out a narrow victory and eject the government of Jan Smuts. A victory so slight that Ian Smith would lament many years later that had Southern Rhodesia elected to join the Republic of South Africa in 1922, the Smuts government would have won, and the entire course of history altered. The light of white Christian civilization in Southern Africa would still burn on. Alas.
Returning to the world that “was” instead of one of “what if,” one of the National Party’s first orders of business was to cut off foreign immigration and the second was to codify Apartheid into law. Of course, both of these would have catastrophic effects in the future. Ian Smith, Prime Minister of Rhodesia from 1965-1979, estimated in his book The Great Betrayal that cutting off this pipeline of white faces meant eventual disaster when the international community inflicted majority rule on the country in the early 1990s. By redirecting these immigrants from South Africa to Australia and New Zealand, instead of having one white person for every two or three black persons, there was one for every ten. As history went, the whites were in no place to barter for a better deal when forced to the table by international pressure. In a world where the white population was 25-33% instead of 8%, it is conceivable that a coalition government could have been formed with non-communist blacks in order to preserve some semblance of normalcy in South Africa. Instead, the Mandela led communist tide swamped what was a prosperous country, and we see how that has gone. The irony of an alt-righter lamenting a ban on immigration is not lost on me, but when you are a people facing minority status and destruction, you cannot differentiate between the white faces standing in the ranks next to you. A lesson the Dutch nationalists sadly never got.
Which brings me to their second grave error, putting Apartheid into law. I’m sure to raise some eyebrows with that statement, maybe even invite a little scorn. A few of my readers might even call me a leftist. But the simple fact of the matter is that it was a policy that was sure to invite international condemnation. The system in Rhodesia, which was not racially oriented but, due to financial and intellectual discrepancies between white and black did exclude more of the latter than the former, was lambasted as racist. Apartheid, which overtly made blacks second class citizens, had no hope of acceptance abroad. That is not to say I have a moral objection to Apartheid. When circumstances have us living together, blacks and whites need to be separated and blacks need to be ruled with a strong hand in order to save them from their baser instincts. A truism seen in the United States and in South Africa. But the way in which this was achieved was short-sighted and a poor political decision.
Fast forward 17 years, and after half a decade of treachery by the English government, both Labour and Conservative, Smith’s Rhodesian Front unilaterally declared independence from the British Empire. They did so to protect the ideals of the British Empire which were being set alight in the name of expediency all over Africa. One man, one vote one time was more important to the spineless politicians than ensuring that the benefits of colonialism which had been bestowed on Africa lived on. As communism was knocking on the Zambezi and thus all of lower Africa, 250,000 white Britishers delivered a resounding no to this perfidy.
Smith would describe his brave people as “[Having] the reward of being part of a small nation which not only believed in but put into practice those old-fashioned ideals and principles which throughout history had created great nations. They were built on the indestructible foundations of courage, integrity, loyalty and a determination to put into practice the philosophy of ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’ Let us not deny that the conditions under which Rhodesians had been living for the past decade tended to instill in people those desirable characteristics…Good people, in similar circumstances, brought up under those same traditions, no doubt would have reacted in the same way. So let me emphasise that in no way is this a claim that Rhodesians were a superior people. We simply happened to be living in Rhodesia at this point in history, when we were challenged by the forces of evil. We decided to close our ranks and make a stand for those ideals of Western Christian civilisation on which our country had been built. It was a time when it was a privilege to be able to say ‘I am a Rhodesian.’” Poetic words which brought a tear to my eye when first I read them. Der ewige Anglo, my ass.
Far from being deserving of the aspersions cast upon them, the Rhodesians are heroes among men and women. Our set is right in honoring them but should do so with the knowledge that they are of English stock (mostly). The Rhodies fought the fight we now find ourselves embroiled in a full 50 years earlier, and serve as a warning of the price of failure. Yet as heavily as the odds were stacked against them and as hard as England worked to destroy its grandchildren, Rhodesia would have lived on if not for betrayal at the hands of the Dutch National Party.
As the Rhodesian experiment turned a decade old, the communist leaders of Africa and in the UK (for there is no other way to describe a Labour government) grew weary of the steadfast intransigence shown by Smith in his defense of the ideals of Christian civilization. Little birds whispered in the ear of the South Africans that if they solved the Rhodesian Question, South Africa would be spared the same fate. Somehow, the Dutch National Party believed both the communist Blacks and Perfidious Albion despite decades of evidence which spoke to the untrustworthiness of such promises. The plug was pulled on 10 years of economic and military support so as to pressure Rhodesia into accepting whatever settlement the international community was willing to offer. Given the choice of conceding or watching the butchery of those under his charge, Smith reluctantly agreed, while predicting disaster for his own country and that the wolves would descend on South Africa. Sadly, he was proven right on both counts.
Within a period of a few years after Mugabe took power, foreign governments imposed sanctions on South Africa just as they had on Rhodesia. The rest was, as they say, history.
The record shows that Dutch South Africans wounded themselves and the Anglos of SA and Rhodesia through their pursuit of a hyper-nationalist policy. And yet those in our circles still, because of a German National Socialist fetish, offer hosannas for “the Boer” (never mind that not all the Dutch are farmers) and heap calumnies upon the Anglos. Because those Anglos living in Africa are somehow to blame for the policies of their ancestral home which destroyed Rhodesia and South Africa alike.
What is the point of all this, you ask? It is long past time to stop carving up the white minority of South Africa and the rest of that region. Dutch. English. It makes no difference. They are white, and they need to be evacuated from that horrid continent. Mistakes were made in ages long past. By both groups. Let us not continue that error by subdividing a minority and ensuring that these brave and hearty souls are lost to us forever. We need all the help we can get here, and who knows better of the dangers of being ruled by a nonwhite majority than a White African?
After all, this isn’t Europe we’re talking about. TIA.