The leader of Afrikan Youth in Norway (yes, we have several state-sponsored organizations for Africans in Norway), the Norwegian-Nigerian (at least that's the official term, he appears to think more as a Nigerian than as a Norwegian) Sam Chimaobi Ahamba suggests that Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe is a freedom fighter, and that the Western media focus on him stems from Western (meaning white racist) anger at an African freedom fighter. "Yes, people get beat up and women get raped, but this happens in all countries, not just in Zimbabwe. But only Zimbabwe generates this incredible media attention," says Ahamba.
"I don't agree with the idea that just because I support Mugabe, I have to defend the fact that he has killed a lot of people." No, he supports Mr. Mugabe "from a pan-African principle. He is a leader who really tries to liberate his people from European powers. There must be enough freedom of speech in this country for me to have such a viewpoint," Ahamba states.
According to Sam Chimaobi Ahamba, "Zimbabwe is a country born on the expulsion and disenfranchisement of whites, which could explain all the attention and media coverage" it receives. Its struggle for independence was a "milestone which symbolized that we no longer needed to be afraid of white power and oppression, or be the slaves of a neo-colonialist economy. It was black power – and it was without apology." He claims that democracy in Africa has often been obstructed by "white nations" and that they "see through the West's tactics of humiliating African countries' right to total and absolute independence from the West's imperialist and capitalist stranglehold" on the African continent. "As soon as the West doesn't get things the way it wants, the so-called Third World gets to suffer for this."
In Zimbabwe, "The people had liberated themselves from neo-colonialists, taken back what rightfully belongs to them and appointed a leader." This is why many Africans now cheer for Mugabe. "In a true pan-African spirit we support Mugabe because we see that the West employs all its dirty tricks in order to oust him from the government. This means that they fear the power he has to liberate Zimbabwe from their system, and the example he will thereby set for other African nations."
Mr. Ahamba concludes that "The case of Zimbabwe is important to us because it affects our families, our continent and our destinies as a united people. That people of European origins should deny us Africans a cultural nationalism, a pride and a fighting spirit is not acceptable, just or democratic. It is classic Eurocentrism and bordering on racism to call us racists and supporters of genocide just because we support our own leaders. Africans, whether they are at home on the continent or in the diaspora have a natural enthusiasm for and emotional links to Zimbabwe because it is our home and our struggle against oppression."
I'm sure the irony of pointing out the fact that Mr. Ahamba talks about "fighting for native rights" as an African in Europe is completely lost on him, or that the natives in Norway provide him, in their naivety, with a much better standard of living than he would have had in any African nation. If native Europeans talk about limiting mass immigration (which really is a form of colonization), the same "African diaspora" are always among the first to complain about "racism." They should have the right to expel whites from Africa, and then they should follow them abroad. In other words: Africa for Africans - and Europe for Africans, too.
I would like to ask Mr. Sam Chimaobi Ahamba the following: Since you feel so "oppressed" by evil white people, why did you move to a country and a continent full of them? Isn't it emotionally challenging for you to see so many of them on a daily basis? I'm also curious about this organization Afrikan Youth in Norway, which Ahamba leads. We are usually told that Europeans now come in all shapes and colors, and that equating "European" with "white" is redundant, racist and evil. Yet when I look at photos from this "African" youth organization, I don't see many white South Africans or for that matter Asians from East Africa. They all seem to be black. Does that mean that while "Europeans" come in all colors, "Africans" come in just one? How confusing.
Could I move to Nigeria out of my own free will and set up a European Youth in Nigeria organization sponsored by native taxpayers, in the name of "cultural diversity"? I suspect not. What if I publicly supported brutal attacks and ethnic cleansing of people in Europe who happened to have the same skin color as the majority population in the country I lived in? Could I call this "free speech" and get away with it? Again, I suspect not. Only white people are cowed and self-loathing enough to pay for getting insulted in their own countries.
In fact, we don't have to insult or vilify anybody in order to be attacked, it is enough merely to suggest that we exist and have a right to exist. If we make organizations specifically dedicated to taking care of our interests and promoting our cultural heritage, we will quickly be demonized as "right-wing extremists" or "neo-Nazis" by the left-wing media, and quite possibly face legal prosecution by the authorities. My ancestors have lived in this country since the end of the last Ice Age, yet we have no status as a distinct group. Pakistanis, Somalis and Kurds have the right to preserve their culture in my country, but I don't. Which is another way of saying that native Europeans are second-rate citizens in our own countries, and are intentionally made to be so according to the ruling Multicultural paradigm promoted by the cultural elites on a national level and the European Union and others on a supranational level.
The only ones who are specifically denied displaying any pride in their cultural heritage are people of European origins. That's the whole point of Multiculturalism. You didn't think there was another point, did you? This is how for instance the "conservative" Swedish PM Fredrik Reinfeldt can say in public that the native culture in his country was just barbarism, and that everything that was good was imported from abroad. The Swedish people, just like the Norwegian, the Finnish, the English, the Flemish, the Swiss, the Austrian, the Italian people etc. have been linguistically deconstructed and abolished. Our countries no longer exist as cultural entities, only as empty vessels to be filled with the "human rights" of other peoples.
Native Europeans are being told that we don't have a culture and that we thus "gain" culture when others move to our countries. This is an insult to thousands of years of European history, to the Celtic, Germanic and Slavic legacies and the Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian heritage we all share in. The next moment we are told that we do have a culture, but it consists of nothing but a long line of crimes and is thus not worth preserving, anyway.
My nation doesn't have a colonial history. It gained its independence as late as the twentieth century, at which point it was a poor country, yet because I am white, I am held personally responsible for every bad act, perceived or real, committed by every person who happens to have roughly similar skin color throughout recorded history. American novelist Susan Sontag once stated that "The white race is the cancer of human history." I am told that I am evil specifically because of my race, and five minutes later I'm told that "race" doesn't exist, it's socially constructed. What this means is that people of European origins can be verbally (and sometimes physically) attacked for being white, yet are systematically deprived of any means of defending themselves against these attacks or identifying the cause of them.
I do not hold Abdullah the kebab salesman personally responsible for sacking Constantinople, abducting millions of Europeans to slavery, colonizing the Iberian Peninsula, ruining the Balkans or threatening Vienna several times. I criticize Islam because Muslims have never admitted their past and will continue to commit atrocities as long as the institution of Jihad is alive. I do not believe in collective responsibility, and I do not think a person should be held responsible for actions done by his ancestors centuries ago. On the other hand, if I am to take the blame, personally, for every bad act, perceived or real, committed by any white person in the past, it is only fair that I, personally, should also take credit for their achievements.
It was to an overwhelming degree people of European stock who created the modern world. If I am to be held personally responsible for colonialism or the transatlantic slave trade, I want personal credit for the greatest advances for mankind made by any civilization that has ever existed on this planet. The next time our children are taught to feel bad for something that happened centuries ago, we should inform them that they should take pride in discovering electromagnetism and thus the telegraph, the telephone, radio, TV and the Internet, making chemistry into a scientific discipline (as opposed to alchemy), coining the concept of "gravity" and inventing rockets that could defy the earth's gravity and explore space (Asian rockets used gunpowder and weighed a few kilograms at most), making the first accurate scientific measurements of the speed of light, creating barometers and thermometers, thus establishing meteorology and the only mathematical temperature scales ever made by humans, inventing light bulbs, refrigerators, beer cans, chocolate bars, cars, airplanes and virtually all modern means of transportation, inventing microscopes and founding microbiology and antiseptics in medicine. We did all of these things, and much more. Nobody else did, despite how much they claim otherwise.
If current immigration continues, France will soon become an African Muslim country that just happens to be north of the Mediterranean. If non-Europeans have the right to resist colonization, shouldn't Europeans have the same right? No Eastern European country has a colonial history and many Western European countries have only marginal ones. The Germans had a colony in Namibia. Why should they accept millions of Turks, who have a thousand years of extremely brutal colonial history of their own, because of this? There are not many Dutch people left in Indonesia, so why should the Dutch be rendered a minority in their major cities by Moroccans and others? And why should Portugal, Spain and Greece, which have suffered from centuries of Islamic colonization, have to accept Muslims into their lands? Switzerland, Sweden, Finland and Norway hardly have any colonial history at all, yet are still subject to mass immigration. The truth is that immigration policies bear little correlation to past history, population density or size. Ireland, Denmark, Britain, France, Sweden, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands have one, and only one, thing in common: The natives are white, and therefore seemingly have no legitimate claim to their own countries.
As I've written in my previous essay Creating a European Indigenous People's Movement, an American friend of mine has proposed that native Europeans should create a European Indigenous People's Movement. I hesitated with supporting this at first. However, in more and more European cities, the native population is being pushed out of their own neighborhoods by immigrant gangs. The natives receive little or no aid from their authorities, sometimes blatant hostility, when faced with immigrant violence. In an age where the global population increases with billions of people in a few decades, it is entirely plausible, indeed likely, that the West could soon become demographically overwhelmed. Not few of our intellectuals seem to derive pleasure from this thought.
Bat Ye'or in her book about Eurabia has documented how the European Union is actively allowing Muslims to colonize European countries. The next time EU leaders complain about China's treatment of minorities, I suggest the Chinese answer the following: "Yes, we represent an anti-democratic organization dedicated to subduing the indigenous people of Tibet, but you represent an anti-democratic organization dedicated to displacing the indigenous peoples of an entire continent." There is no love lost between me and the Chinese Communist Party, an organization responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of its citizens, but even Chinese authorities do not actively seek to displace their own people with violent Muslims. European authorities do.
In decadent societies of the past, the authorities didn't open the gates to hostile nations and ban opposition to this as intolerance and barbarophobia. What we are dealing with in the modern West is not merely decadence; it's one of the greatest betrayals in history. Our so-called leaders pass laws banning the opposition to our dispossession as "racism and hate speech." To native Europeans, when listening to our media and our leaders, it's as if we don't even exist, as if it were normal for them to put the interests of other nations over their own. Despite having "democratic" governments, many Western countries have authorities that are more hostile to their own people than dictators in some developing countries. Why? I can think of several possible reasons, but either way, it's time for that policy to end.