In the next few years two movies will hit the circuit, both are about Hannibal, the Carthaginian General (247-182 BCE). One will be, "Hannibal the Conqueror", staring Vin Diesel and the other, not named yet, staring Denzel Washington as Hannibal. This is not only an outrage, but it will make both of them look like fools. Why, because Hannibal was a white man. These movies are nothing but Liberal propaganda trying to portray blacks as conquerors of whites and I want to urge every single respecting white out there to boycott these movies.
The Carthaginians were descendants of the Phoenicians, a white race who inhabited the area where Lebanon is today. From coins and other artifacts it can clearly be seen that the Phoenicians were not only white, but highly advanced. They were master ship builders whose ships’ carrying capacity of 100 tons, steel ships only bettered. The Phoenicians circumnavigated Africa (in three years) around 600BC and in 1992 two of their galleys were dug up in Pinelands near Cape Town, where they used a riverbank as a dry dock. The Phoenicians were also brilliant architects and master builders. King Hiram I of Tyre designed and built the temple of Solomon. Their alphabet was even adopted by the Greeks and their language so closely resemble Hebrew that Hebrew is used to translate their manuscripts. There is even doubt whether they were Semitic or more Caucasian.
The Phoenicians were merchants and traders and their ships had to be replenished along the merchant routes. The Phoenicians therefore had many colonies around the Mediterranean. One of them was Carthage, where modern Tunisia is in North Africa. Unfortunately many of the Carthaginian records were destroyed in the third Punic war by Rome and most of the records today about the Carthaginians are from a biased Greek or Roman perspective. What we do know is that Hannibal was from the Carthaginian upper class that were pure blood Phoenicians and therefore white. The local people around Carthage were Berbers and Kabyles, not Negroids. If you want to know how a Kabyle or a Berber looks like, look at Zinedine Zidane who is a Kabyle, from Algeria.
It could have been possible that some Carthaginians intermixed with the locals, just as in South Africa some whites intermixed with local coloureds (who are not blacks), but the majority never did. Certainly not the Aristocracy of Carthage such as Hannibal's parents.
If there is any doubt about how Carthaginians looked like, look at their coins.
http://www.bio.vu.nl/home/vwielink/WWW_MGC/Punic_map/Zeugitana_map/Zeugitana.html
To claim that Hannibal was a black man, just because he came from Africa is like claiming that General Koos De La Rey was a Black Man, because he was born in Africa. Are history books, five hundred years from now going to portray Afrikaners as black people who gave the British hell in the Boer war? One has to wonder.
This is where many parallels between Carthage and South Africa enter.
* Both were colonies in Africa settled and run by white people.
* Both built majestic cities, ports, infrastructure, etc.
* Both made use of locals as cheap labour.
* Both treated their locals well.
* Both employed the locals into their militaries.
* Both fought against the whole known world...and lost.
* Both had excellent generals who won just about every battle, but eventually lost the war.
* Both countries were wealthy with minerals and the wars against them were always about money.
* Both countries went down, because of liberal diplomacy with the enemy.
The Romans fought three major wars with Carthage called the Punic wars. Punic comes from the Roman word for Phoenicians. The Romans called the Carthaginians Phoenicians, much like the whites from South Africa are called Europeans although they were born in South Africa. Although this concept is easy to understand for whites from South Africa, foreigners battle to get their heads around this one. If you are from Africa, you must be black! Ridiculous!
I don't want to digress too much into the well-documented Punic wars, but briefly it went like this.
* Punic war 1: Rome and Carthage fight over Sicily. No real winner. A treaty gets signed. Carthage will give up Sicily, but get to keep Corsica and Sardinia. The Romans will stop their aggression against Carthaginian colonies.
* Punic war 2: The Romans break the agreements of the treaties and conquer Corsica and Sardinia. The Carthaginians decide to go to war again. Hannibal crosses the Alps with about 100,000 troops (50,000 made it) and in a 15 year campaign almost conquers Rome.
* Punic war 3: The Romans unable to defeat Hannibal inside Italy attacks the Carthaginian colonies in modern Spain and then Carthage itself, cutting off all Hannibal's supplies. Hannibal returns to Carthage, defeated at Zama and becomes a politician. Another treaty is signed. Peace; Carthage is to disarm and if anybody attacks Carthage, the Roman Senate will decide what should be done, but Carthage is not allowed to defend itself, Rome will defend Carthage. All the time Rome had a secret Agenda. Cato made a series of speeches to the senate all of which ended with "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam." (Moreover, I advise that Carthage should be destroyed.
* The Numidians, who were the neighbours of the Carthaginians, knew about the treaty and attacked Carthage constantly, knowing they were not allowed to fight back. The Romans sided with the Numidians and eventually destroyed Carthage completely. Every man and his dog was killed or enslaved. Even the land was strewn with salt so that no crops would ever grow there again.
It all sounds so familiar.
The Romans had a "Grand strategy". They wanted to dominate the known world. They did not care much for anybody from anywhere else in the world.
They wanted their paws on the mineral and economic wealth of Carthage. They wanted to dominate the trade routes. They used the neighbours of Carthage to destroy them trough conniving treaties. No matter what peace was signed for, Rome always carried on with the war.
Today we see South Africa in the same boat as Carthage. We went through everything that the Carthaginians went. South Africa even took on the entire world (Not just the communists but also the West) with our best generals and won every battle with the best soldiers, yet we lost the war through liberal politician's treaties with the enemy that was going to "Secure our future". We would be allowed to practice our language and culture, our own schools, etc. So far the ANC has broken every single treaty or agreement.
The Punic wars against Carthage did not stop with the signing of any treaty, ever. It carried on, and on, and on...
There could only be peace when Rome had achieved her goal; total destruction of Carthage. Every peace treaty was just another step closer to the total destruction of Carthage, an insignificant little colony of white people in the way of a global empire rising. They wanted the gold, silver, trade routes etc. and Carthage was simply in the way.
What makes this so hard to swallow is that Rome was also white people. One has to wonder why whites destroy whites? The story of the demise of Carthage is heart rendering, but the question for South Africans is this:
"Are we going to allow the "Romans" to conquer us?"
"Is our gold, diamonds, copper ours...or shall we give it to the world?"
"Are we willing to fight, not just for our language and culture, but also for our wealth of minerals.
If one looks at how the French treated the Germans after the First World War, we can see even more similarities with South Africa. When Jan Smuts signed the Paris peace treaty after World War one, he wrote a letter to his wife, Isie in which he said that "Today I signed a treaty that will cause another World War".
How true those prophetic words turned out to be. Smuts knew this, because he saw the same situation after the Second Anglo-Boer War.
When two sides go to war and they make peace, then it should be just that, peace. However, when the victor is not content and carries on with the war, bent on the total destruction of the defeated, the seeds for rebellion is sowed.
In the case of Germany, the French occupied the industrial and mining heart of Germany, the Ruhr. They imposed such heavy taxes on the Germans that they bankrupted the country. They did it in such a shrewd way, so as to make it just bearable for the Germans so that they don’t strike or revolt. Eventually when Germany couldn’t give anymore, the French wanted them to work as slaves to pay off the war costs. The war did not end with the treaty of Versailles, the French carried on with the war. They wanted Germany destroyed. The Germans were not allowed to have a Navy, Air Force, Tanks or any heavy artillery; all the while France and Britain were arming themselves to the teeth in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. Little wonder then that when Hitler came to power, one of the first things he did was to take back the Ruhr and re-arm Germany.
Today we see the same situation in South Africa. We see that the peace negotiations of the early 1990’s in Kempton Park that led to the "Great Afrikaner Betrayal", were of only academic value. The Afrikaners voluntarily stopped fighting, but the ANC carried on. They are not content to have the country and all its riches; they want to destroy the Afrikaners, completely, once and for all. No compromise, treaty or agreement will stop the ANC/Communist regime from trying to achieve this goal. Besides, how do you negotiate when your opponent is fully armed and you have nothing? The negotiations will always be on the terms of the one who is the better armed.
People like Hitler and Hannibal do not fall out of the sky. They are molded under conditions of severe oppression. We saw it in Carthage in the second century BC, in South Africa at the end of the Anglo-Boer war, and in Germany after World War One. History is bound to repeat itself.
If I could be prophetic for a moment, I would say that it is only a matter of time before an Afrikaner Hannibal stands up and says, "Stuff You, this is our land, our wealth and we are willing to fight for it!
The current so-called "Opposition" politicians in South Africa are too weak to ever have any meaningful impact on the ANC. They have already decided that South Africa is lost, should go the same way as Zimbabwe and be ruled by blacks forever. Further they have no real desire to annihilate the evil forces of the Communist regime currently in power.
Their recent antics in Parliament and marches against crime is nothing more than shadow boxing to fool the white public into believing that they are doing something for them. At the same time these white Liberals and moderate Conservatives shake hands and dine with the enemy around the funeral feast of what was once a beautiful country.
This passive resistance will not work against a Marxist regime. No one can influence his enemy by sitting with folded arms. There has to be serious action taken, but that can only happen once the Afrikaners identify and exorcise the traitors from their ranks. Clean house first and then take on the enemy.
That day the enemy must not try to negotiate peace, because there will be no mercy for them.
The Afrikaners made the mistake of not finishing off their enemies when they had the military advantage once; they will not make that same mistake again. The day the Afrikaners start seeing the light and start praying for freedom, is when the enemy will have to wake up, because it is not going to be pretty. Not just the enemy, but also the traitors of the Afrikaner nation. They will not be forgotten or forgiven and there will be no mercy for them. Those ones who collaborated with the enemy and shook hands whilst selling their brothers and sisters to the enemy will have to answer one day.
The enemies of the Afrikaners should enjoy their festive orgy of death and destruction, because it will not last forever as history has shown.
For see, the day is coming, it is burning like an oven; all the men of pride and all who do evil will be dry stems of grass: and in the day which is coming they will be burned up, says the Lord of armies, till they have not a root or a branch. Malachi 4:1