Feed me white pills

thank you based user for looking out for me keeping the discord tranny away
times are rough personally so i need some hope
based
checked

daily reminder that Rhodesia was founded as a diamond enterprise by the Rothschilds and anybody who idolizes it is celebrating global kikery

give more info or fuck off kike shill

>When he first came to Africa, Rhodes lived on money lent by his aunt Sophia.[10][page needed] After a brief stay with the Surveyor-General of Natal, Dr. P.C. Sutherland, in Pietermaritzburg, Rhodes took an interest in agriculture. He joined his brother Herbert on his cotton farm in the Umkomazi valley in Natal. The land was unsuitable for cotton, and the venture failed.

>In October 1871, 18-year-old Rhodes and his 26 year-old brother Herbert left the colony for the diamond fields of Kimberley in Northern Cape Province. Financed by N M Rothschild & Sons, Rhodes succeeded over the next 17 years in buying up all the smaller diamond mining operations in the Kimberley area. In 1873, he returned to Britain to study at Oxford, but stayed there for only one term, after which he went back to South Africa.

>On 13 March 1888, Rhodes and Rudd launched De Beers Consolidated Mines after the amalgamation of a number of individual claims. With £200,000 of capital, the company, of which Rhodes was secretary, owned the largest interest in the mine (£200,000 in 1880 = £12.9m in 2004 = $22.5m USD[22]). Rhodes was named the chairman of De Beers at the company's founding in 1888. De Beers was established with funding from N M Rothschild & Sons Limited in 1887.

>With the provision of funding for the creation of De Beers in 1887, Rothschild also turned to investment in the mining of precious stones, in Africa and India. Today it markets 40% of the world's rough diamonds, and at one time marketed 90%

can you think of a more realistic reason why the eternal anglo would take interest in an African shithole? screaming shill at uncomfortable truths proves you aren't open to anything but a bluepill painted white. this information is openly available on the internet and I suspect the source hardly matters to you because no matter what you're going to kvetch that it's fake. Why would a Jew be denouncing a Jewish enterprise? The reality is that Anglos had no business in africa

adding to this there are nearly unlimited sources that document the fact that De Beers was intitally funded by N M Rothschild & Sons

>Kimberley
>Northern Cape Province
>rhodesia
??? plus the republic of rhodesia was not the same as the british colony

there is a fly in the ointment leafanon

Cecil Rhodes was the founder of Rhodesia, and he went there solely to establish a diamond mining enterprise on a loan from N M Rothschild & Sons, if it weren't for the colony there would have never been a secondary republic. It might be a hard pill to swallow but just as much as the nigger has no business in white countries the white man has no business in nigger country.

There is absolutely no reason to support the global Jew simply because in one particular instance he started something that is now romanticized. Colonialism is cancer and an implement of the globalist

rhodes died in 1902. southern rhodesia was founded in 1923
>he went there solely to establish a diamond mining enterprise
your text says that he went to kimberly, which is not where rhodesia is

The sweetest white sugar pill ever:
You ready user?
Ok, here:
> Girls don't even need to like you to fuck you.

>In the late 19th century, the territory north of the Transvaal was chartered to the British South Africa Company, led by Cecil Rhodes. Rhodes and his Pioneer Column marched north in 1890, acquiring a huge bloc of territory that the Company would rule until the early 1920s. In 1923, the Company's charter was revoked, and Southern Rhodesia attained self-government and established a legislature. Between 1953 and 1963, Southern Rhodesia was joined with Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland in the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.

I understand the associated cognitive dissonance but again, colonialism is bad new. What was the end result of this enterprise? A lot of dead white men, a lot of dead africans and some kikes made a ton of money. You need to learn to accept that no intruder is welcome, no exceptions. Just as the nigger pillages modern western societies in the form of welfare, the colonialists pillaged other races' countries for material gain.

Colonialism is centralized globalism, end of story.

i'm not making any judgements on colonialism. your implication is that rhodesia was a jewish front, but i'm not seeing much evidence for that beyond jews playing a role in rhodes' business activities. if you have some strong evidence that rhodesia was actually a jew country then i'll gladly agree with you

My boi Ganowicz, dem props

We are winning.
Look at the fucking Overton shift in Trumps presidency alone.
He is bringing mankind, kicking and screaming, into the redpill.
The future looks violent, and glorious.

You're misunderstanding me. Rhodesia would have never existed at all had it not been for some kike bankers trying to exploit somebody else's land for capital. I can't think of a single other reason why a bunch of white men would willingly choose to inhabit malaria infested Niggerville. Cecil Rhodes started his enterprise solely to extract Diamonds through De Beers. The area was referred to as an faction of the British South Africa Company for the longest time, and the only reason why anybody went there was to make money. Let's reverse the situation to your reference frame. If a bunch of niggers took out a loan from a Jewish bank because they found out there were diamonds in South Australia, and fought the natives to the death for them with superior technology, would you consider the niggers to be the rightful owners of that clay? I sure as fucking hell wouldn't.

The only thing that capitalism remedies is relative poverty which is a symptom of capitalism itself. People need to learn to give up the money Jew.

white rhodesians were the "rightful owners" because they built and maintained a functional and prosperous society, from which blacks also benefited. since blacks took it over, they've done nothing but destroy that society and cause misery and destitution. colonialism is morally wrong and a regrettable part of history, but in purely utilitarian terms successful rhodesia is preferable to failed state zimbabwe

From a Chinese perspective, emigration to Australia is fixing what they see as primitive Australian society. Do you think they therefore have the right to inhabit your country simply because they think they're improving it? Zimbabwe was a reaction to Rhodesia, not vice versa. Let the niggers be niggers in their own domain instead of capitalizing their resources under the guise of humanitarianism. If everybody stayed in their own homeland and didn't intervene in foreign lands the world would be a better place for everybody, no exceptions. Immigrants are technically, from their own perspective, building a prosperous society by moving their diaspora to another country for more capital and security than they would have in their country of origin. Pretending the end justifies the means is categorical apologism. Nobody is entitled to other people's property no matter how much they think they're improving it.

I don't know how to explain this to you in a way you can understand. Do you not believe in the concept of an ethnostate?

i didn't say whites had the right to colonise africa. only that a successful colony is better than an impoverished hellhole. colonialism shouldn't have happened, but if you ask the average zimbabwean today if they'd rather live in 1970s rhodesia or 2019 zimbabwe, most would choose the former
>Do you not believe in the concept of an ethnostate?
i do. blacks have the right to rule and destroy zimbabwe if they want. but that doesn't mean rhodesia's destruction was good for anyone or that we must be glad it happened

>if you ask the average zimbabwean today if they'd rather live in 1970s rhodesia or 2019 zimbabwe, most would choose the former
You really believe that niggers are going to take a pragmatic approach to that?

well, they're choosing to flee their own ethnostates and live in europe, so they apparently have some grasp of better vs worse

Got whooped by a communist country in a war. It’s a point of pride to remain a sore loser even decades after

checked. unfortunately you're subject to a fallacy that most people still abide by, which is that better vs. worse is measured by capital. Africa isn't poor, it's poor by European standards, definitive globalism. these niggers wouldn't be fleeing to Europe in the first place if Jews weren't encouraging such an event.

It's Jews all the way down my friend.