/rg/ - Imperium Afrika

Brother, why do you care what /pol/ thinks?

They still see you as a savage. You shouldn't pander to those that indulge in that sort of thought process.

>>1610

/pol/ doesn't support black nationalism. We simply want you out of our countries via any means. That includes the nations of Rhodesia and South Africa.

Pack your shit and head over to Liberia, it exists for a reason.

Also stop using the entire continent of Africa on your maps. You have no claim on Saharan Africa.

>>1664

>That includes the nations of Rhodesia and South Africa.

Africa for Africa, Europe for Europeans right? Oh but I forgot white people always get to play by special rules, tight?

>>1666

Did you create either of the two nations? There were some squatters in the land that became Rhodesia, but they had about as much claim to it as the local fauna.

South Africa was essentially uninhabited before the Afrikaners moved in. Then niggers noticed that there's a civilization flourishing down south and moved in for gibsmedat.

>>1674

Just wanted to see what happens if a post references itself.

>>1673

like i said, africa for africans, europe for europeans. it doesn't matter who built it, whites are not native to that part of africa just like blacks aren't native to europe. go back home

>>1673

I already touched on this >>1670

However, you do bring a very important point; that being that the only reason that Blacks would want these parts of Africa is because whites made it civilized.

First, I want to say that the purpose of /rg/ was to build leaders, no true great leader in history should behave or act in a manner described as this. That being said, responding to Blacks going to these lands because Whites made it civilized does have truth… but we here do NOT want them for Imperium Afrika for that reason. We want these lands because they belong to the people they bred.

NOTE: I am not advocating "stealing" or "occupying" these lands, I do understand that in a post-chosen world there will be a lot of land-grabbing but we shouldn't fall in a position where we then war against each other over petty things. We can work something out; as we MUST also work in a way in which we don't create The Chosen 2.0

>TL;DR: We can work something out to make Europe for Whites and Africa for Blacks.

>>1673

Blacks created Rhodesia and South Africa, given they were the largest population there.

>>South Africa was essentially uninhabited before the Afrikaners moved in. Then niggers noticed that there's a civilization flourishing down south and moved in for gibsmedat.

Lies. The Afrikaners moved in in the aftermath of Shaka Zulu's annexation of other African countries. You're full of shit faggot.

>>1681

Blacks want the land because it's Black Land. Not because it's "civilized". Zimbabwe had its' own c1iviization (Great Zimbabwe monumbers) before whites came into the land.

>>1686

partition the American South into a black and a white republic, with caveat that the black republic annexes and unified the black countries of the carribean and parts of south america.

>>1686

Also, partition the rest of the american continents as well. Transfer the white population from Peru and Bolivia, for example. Establish a Mayan Republic in Mexico and Guatemala, etc.

>>1686

i sho is glad dat duh good ol' wyte man is suppotin my nigga ass, tank yu missa boss sur!

>>1676

I'm not from /pol/ because the board is a bit too intense for me, but I am a white passerby with nationalist leanings.

>>1687

Rhodesia was inhabited by black Africans before the whites, true. The whites did have their own country in that land for quite some time and had a legitimate claim. Now that blacks have taken the whole country the claim is expiring. Squatters rights apply on a national scale, believe it or not. If you can defend your claim to a territory it becomes yours.

South Africa is tricky, but I would like to see Afrikaners remain in the area with their own country. I'm not a fan of the rainbow nation thing and neither do I support colonial empires, so I would advocate a split up of the territory. Probably if the SA government continues as they wish they'll get rid of all the whites within the next 200 years, leaving only blacks, coloureds and indians. If you're a black nationalist I suppose there's no reason to support a split of territory since the white Africans are losing power and might get wiped out.

Whites do have a history in the area, just like how blacks have a history in the American south. If you'd advocate kicking out all the white Africans then you'd have to get rid of all the black (and white) Americans.

>>1692

>if a white person says anything good then it's patronizing

Get a grip. You're still a child if you can't take a kind word without being offended

Black nationalism works to the advantage of the white nationalist because it legitimizes the idea of nationalism while being difficult for SJW to attack, so it's only logical that a white nationalist would support other kinds of nationalism. He's simply expressing his awareness of this. You might also do well to understand that most nationalist ideologies are compatible, and that a black nationalist would logically have the same ideological enemies as a white nationalist. If you don't understand how you can use this for your own gain then there's no reason for you to be posting on a politics board.

>>2028

>If you'd advocate kicking out all the white Africans then you'd have to get rid of all the black (and white) Americans.

not really, people have legitamate reasons for wanting to kick whites out of the southern african countries they inhabited but there really isnt a reason to kick just black americans out of the south, a more accurate comparison would be kicking all white/black/asian/latino americans out of america.

>>1625

>Cut shinning

I'm sorry, what?