112 thoughts on “An Unsung Hero: The Legend Of Danny Roxo”

1. Thank you for this contribution.
   Someone needs to make an article on Vlad the Impaler’s battle tactics.

2. Very interesting article.
   His life is a model for every man.

3. To live and die in that fashion is to be envied by any man.
   I live in a town filled with ex-university people living “the good life” into their 80’s and 90’s in very expensive, well protected retirement pens.
   We all die, please let me go out in good form. Not in a fucking retirement village.

4. Danny Roxo doesn’t turn on the shower. He just stares at it until it starts to cry.

5. Wow – What an impressive man

6. Oh, and if someone is confused by the term “mass abduction”, it went like that:
   A bunch of terrorists ransacks a kraal (village), pillages it for everything that isn’t nailed down, shoots the elderly and the cripples, then rounds up the entire population and herds them to one of their camps. There, men are given a choice – either join the terrorists or watch their families get raped and murdered.
   Thousands of terrorists who rampaged across Africa in the second half of the 20th century were “converted at gunpoint” like that. However, this does not excuse the atrocities they committed in any way.

7. His story is pretty awesome, and it’s useful in telling that part of African history.
   The part where you begin to realize that without a strong national identity, the people living in a particular area will become Balkanized and one day kill each other.

   1. The part where you begin to realize that without a strong national identity, the people living in a particular area will become Balkanized and one day kill each other.

      It shows that whites must stop caring about niggers.
      The White Man’s Burden.

      1. Which itself is the precursor to modern leftist thought, because it’s predicated on one critical idea, namely:
         “They don’t know what’s best for them, but WE DO… therefore we’ll tell them what to do because it’s good for them and (most importantly) makes us feel good about ourselves so we can go to bed without hating ourselves.”

   2. The future fate of Europe.

8. White people should have stayed out of Africa.
   How many ways does the Dark Continent have to say, “Not for you White man,” before he listens? Malaria, Ebola, Sleeping Sickness, brain eating amoebas, tsetse flies, bot flies, dengue fever, on and on.
   White Man’s weather is cool and rainy like the Scottish Highlands not a 100 degree fetid swamp, not 120 degrees in the American Southwest.
   Also, the same mentality that White people brought with them during the Colonial era – that of the White Man’s burden in uplifting the Noble Savage is the same mentality of Leftists today that refugees and immigrants from Africa and the Middle East will assimilate. White people thought bringing Christianity and their “enlightened” way of thinking was going to turn Africans and Arabs into proper Englishmen 100 years ago and they’re still thinking the same fucking thing (only now they’re bringing the Africans and Arabs into their home countries).

   1. White people should have overtaken Africa completely and fed everyone who disagreed to crocodiles. Native population should have been thinned and confined to reservations, much like today’s Injuns.
      The Boers had the right approach when it came to dealing with kaffirs, but of course the English could not help themselves from intervening and ruining everything with their humanist garbage.
      And African conditions and weather are hardly an issue, given that Whites have managed to either adapt or deal with them. However, Whites have missed their chance to take the richest continent on Earth for themselves. Now the Chinese are moving in, and the natives will soon find themselves praying for the humane White man’s return. They already are, in fact.

      1. Don’t get me wrong: this was an interesting read and it is imperative to keep the memory of accomplished Whites alive. This is where the Jews outshine the Gentiles. The Jews always keep the memory of their accomplished peoples alive and fresh in the minds of people. Jewish journalists will trot out some new “discovery” or unearth some new correspondence of Einstein or Golda Meir etc or explore some fresh new avenue etc.
         Depending on how strongly you feel, I’m sure you could expand this expose into a full length book. It was not so long ago, that those who knew Roxo would still be alive.

         1. I plan to write another article or two about history and valor of Whites in Africa on RoK. Given the heroic deeds accomplished by them only a few decades ago, it could serve as an excellent motivational material in times where masculinity and all that makes a man a proper man is demonized.

         2. What about Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck, the commander of German forces in East Africa during WW1? That would be a good read.

         3. So you’re encouraging Whites to be more like Jews?
            Whites, ( and most other ethnic groups) by nature are not that manipulative. Judaism makes the Jewish experience unique.

      2. Impossible. European settlers in Africa were always outnumbered like 10,000 to 1. You can drain a swamp or reclaim some arable land in Holland but you can’t take a similar approach to Africa.
         This is an excerpt from Michael Crichton’s Congo:
         “Only prejudice, and a trick of the Mercator projection, prevents us from recognizing the enormity of the African continent.
         Covering nearly twelve million square miles, Africa is almost as large as North America and Europe combined. It is nearly twice the
         size of South America. As we mistake its dimensions, we also mistake its essential nature: the Dark Continent is mostly hot desert and open grassy plains.
         In fact, Africa is called the Dark Continent for one reason only: the vast equatorial rain forests of its central region. This is the
         drainage basin of the Congo River, and one-tenth of the continent is given over to it – a million and a half square miles of silent, damp, dark forest, a
         single uniform geographical feature nearly half the size of the continental United States. This primeval forest has stood, unchanged and unchallenged, for
         more than sixty million years.”

      3. You would have to be insane to go in a wagon convoy across the plains of Africa where each night you would have to worry if 10,000 Zulu warriors were going to encircle your camp and massacre you in your sleep. Or every time you went for supplies you had to worry about returning to find your wife and children hacked to pieces with an axe.

      4. And there’s no such thing a rich continent. It’s the people who make a land wealthy not the land itself.
         100 years ago, Palestine was a backward part of the Ottoman Empire with desert, fig trees, and no oil. Then when the Jews kicked out the Arabs, it became a superpower with a thriving economy, tons of startups, and greenhouses and hyroponically grown fruits and vegetables.
         It wasn’t the land. it was the people.

         1. And Western power and money, don’t forget that.

         2. That is such bs, I couldn’t let it go. Do you load up on red bull before you go on with the Jewish supremacist lies?
            Palestine was a very fertile land with a strong culture until the Jews came and Disneyfied it. And the majority of financial accomplishments from Israel are on the backs of the American and European taxpayer.

         3. Mesopotamia in general has been salted over for several thousand years. It was very productive once, but not in the 1800’s.

      5. You are right about the Chinese, they are taking over Africa. In Angola at least the natives yearn for the return of the white man, the black population was living much better when the Portuguese were there than they are now under black leaders.

      6. There was no need for additional living space back then and there still is no need.
         Hitler was misguided about the need for Lebensraum – the Eurasian steppe was unpopulated 100 years ago and it’s still unpopulated. It’s common for people to claim we’re running out of real estate and that we should colonize other planets etc when in fact we’re nowhere near the carrying capacity of the Earth.
         When Germany was blockaded during WW1 and it found its supply of nitrates (essential for making explosives) from South America cut off, a German chemist Fritz Haber (a Jew by the way) developed a process for the fixation of ammonia so that explosives could be created artificially. Without this development, Germany would have been forced to capitulate by 1915-16.

         1. Rather, space colonization would allow for the polarization of humanity into tribes of Earthmen vs Spacemen. Not that it would be that easy or clean-cut though.

         2. The Haber process which has depleted our soils ever since. That’s not something I would call an achievement, at least not an everlasting one.

            There was no need for additional living space back then and there still is no need.

            Maybe back then it was not necessary but now it is, at least if the current population wants to live with a 21st century standard of living. Moreover space exploration is the key to solve our pollution problems, however that’s not what our elites want so don’t worry it won’t take off (pun intended).

         3. How has it depleted the soils?

         4. The process in detail is explained here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19875786 but in a nutshell artificial fertilizers contribute to top soil depletion and start a vicious circle in which you need more fertilizer for the same yields while the fertilizer disrupts the soil microbacterial processes. That’s why conventional vegetables have less and less nutritional content.

         5. Fertilizer has nothing to do with less nutritional content of vegetables, it’s mostly due to breeding and selecting plants for long shelf life, resistance to damage from shipping and handling and uniform look and size.
            Fertilizer also does not contribute to top soil depletion, that would be a product of erosion. Urea (nitrogen fertilizer) is used in some high yielding no till situations to HELP foster growth of soil borne microbes who NEED nitrogen to survive. The microbes are needed to break down large amounts of organic matter from previous crop residue to make it possible to plant another crop without tillage therefore reducing erosion.
            Yields of crops have more than quadrupled since the 1940s when fertilizer began to be widely used. Yields don’t quadruple from depleted soils. The reason more fertilizer is applied is because yields have grown, meaning that as yields grow higher more nutrients are taken from the field with the removal of the crop. More crop taken from the field=more nutrients go with it, that have to be replaced.
            There is no “vicious cycle” where you need more fertilizer for the same yields, more fertilizer is needed because yields are higher.
            Yields of major field crops in my area have more than doubled in the last 15 years mostly due to wise use of fertilization (soil sampling and variable rate fertilization on gps grids) and irrigation management.

         6. A review of the literature shows the decline is real http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15637215
            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-and-nutrition-loss/
            And many more. Moreover I never stated nitrogen was not necessary for plant development so stop using strawmen. Besides the deleterious effects of fertilizers in the environment (runoff, rivers and water sources pollution which is well documented as well) is the fact that humans need many things well beyond the componentes traditionally used in NPK traditional fertilizers. And precision agriculture is relative new and not practiced by all farmers in your country, let alone worldwide.

         7. Fertilizer increases protein production, hence increasing total produce. However, you are not providing the soil the necessary correspondent of other water soluble minerals, like magnesium, selenium or zinc, and general nutritional value will dwindle at each crop.
            Something, I must say, that is already known since the British Agricultural Revolution. Malthus was right. Malthus was RIGHT!

         8. That’s why water soluble micronutrients such as boron,manganese,magnesium,iron copper,molybdenum,zinc, etc are also applied with NPK.
            Malthus was right, there’s no doubt at some point population will increase past the carrying capacity of the earth but, Malthus didn’t know didley squat about fertilizer.

         9. Davis and his colleagues chalk up this declining nutritional content to the preponderance of agricultural practices designed to improve traits (size, growth rate, pest resistance) other than nutrition.
            I copied and pasted that from the article you linked to.
            No straw men hereabouts, you said fertilizer disrupts soil microbe processes, I simply gave an example of how it is used in some instances to HELP them.
            Yields didn’t quadruple from depleted soils. I also didn’t imply that precision agriculture is used everywhere but can easily be used as a tool to reduce runoff from fertilizer. Stop using strawmen.
            There’s pretty much nothing you can buy in the grocery store or at the hippy farmers market that can live on its own without human intervention,none of that stuff just grows wild in the form of being commercially available.
            http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/opinion/sunday/breeding-the-nutrition-out-of-our-food.html?pagewanted=all

         10. Malthus was not right. Well-fed, well-rested humans are more productive than their ill-fed counterparts, due to body mass and brain size. If there ever reached a point where humans were running out of the capacity to grow food, population limits would be set by food prices, and only the well-fed would be productive enough to afford children. The problem only starts when the poor are subsidized to have children, which actually does tax the limits of resource production.

         11. You are close to be right, but small details render what you’ve written false.
             “Well-fed, well-rested humans are more productive” – they AREN’T. They COULD be. Just pick someone living on social security alimony in Europe (with all their basic needs covered plus extra gifts) and compare their inexistant productivity with that of undernourished, no-shelter, “disposable” humans of China, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Vietnam, etc.
             “running out of the capacity to grow food, population limits would be set by food prices”. False. Miserable people are the result of generations after generations of inability in predicting the future or simple incapacity to manage their lives. This is why “refugees” impregnate their wives, while having lost their home countries, having no safe shelter or food supply, and already possessing 3, 4, 5 children more under their responsability. This is also why India sterilized millions of “dalit” people; and why, on the other hand, reasonable Europeans, who predict future uncertainty of their economies and socio-political environment, stoped having children.
             “the poor are subsidized to have children”. The problem is wider, because the poorest will always have more children than the higher strata. Subsidizing them maximizes the problem. Stoping subsidies will solve nothing (still, I support the idea). You’d need to find a way to make them less fecund and we both know how they can’t be hostilized. They can unleash hell by sheer number.
             Malthus was right, and we are about to witness that not at a national scale, but at a worldwide one. UNLESS, following the biological model, we can start a war massive enough to replace the predators our species lacks (unfortunately, wars eliminate the best people, and let most of the lesser ones “open field” and free resources). Current elites decided for a state of continuous, never ending civil wars, and that is why they are pushing the “diversity+terrorism+clash of civilizations” agenda. Probably, they think open international war would be too dangerous, because of mass destruction weapons and general outcome unpredictability. Ralph Peters and american geostrategists are pushing for this model for a long time, and they have largely succeeded.

         12. Good soil engineering is expensive, and agricultural margins are already short. Correction of soils will become (it is, already) more expensive, as it requires large amounts of soluble elements, who are washed way, and world reserves are exhaustible.
             And then, there is the problem of soil integrity. The more dense your crop is, the more fractured the soil will be after the harvest. Americans already had their historical tasting of the seriousness of fractured soil with the Dust Bowl. Windbreakers and general decline of agriculture “sort of” diminished the observable effects, but soil continues to be in danger. After each crop, it is more fractured, and more easily washed out of its ingredients. Then, you’ll need more soil correction and more fertilizer. However, organic matter and bacterial richness diminish and porosity increases. Result: plants have less time to absorb mineral nutrients. This is more grave if you have highly irrigated cultures or a windy environment. Dryland farming of wheat at low altitude is relatively safe for soil integrity. But we both know this kind of agriculture is the least profitable nowadays.

         13. Can’t argue with you on the expense, growing crop in the 21st century ain’t cheap.
             The dust bowl was mostly a product of long term drought and clean tillage agriculture,wind+dry,bare soil= dust and a lot of it.
             The thing with erosion is that any sort of crop land is going to be subject to it, the key is to use practices to eliminate as much of it as possible.

         14. This is also why India sterilized millions of “dalit” people; and why,
             on the other hand, reasonable Europeans, who predict future uncertainty
             of their economies and socio-political environment, stoped having
             children.

             What a load of BS. If that were the case, Europeans would have gone extinct long before the end of MIddle Ages or by the second world war. I guess spinning rationalizations to justify the unjustifiable is on the rise.

         15. Europeans of our days are not the same Europeans of medieval times. Basically, the equivalent of “dalit” in Western Europe, were long ago exported to the New World (a good part by their own decision to improve their lives; others were deliberately sent there by the ruling powers of their time); there, they were still discriminated as a lower caste EVEN by black slaves -> and this is how the concept of “white trash” was created. Research it, if you doubt my words.
             Moreover, castes in Europe were never so well defined as in India, which allowed some social mobility for some. European “Kshatryas” were a surviving closed caste (the aristocrats), but european “Brahmins” (druids and priestly families) were eliminated by Christianism. European “Vaishya” started to redefine themselves as a caste with the rise of bourgeoisie in Europe, in late Middle Ages.
             Sorry if you misinterpreted what I said as a complete explanation of how European demographics came to be as disastrous as they are. To grasp the whole picture, you’ll have to add to that the advent of medical birth control, the social effect of a thousand years of almost continuous wars, and a lot of cultural marxism in recent times.

      7. So it’s perfectly OK for Africans to be exterminated and their lands taken from them?
         But it’s completely out of the question for Europeans, eh?

   2. Despite being painted by historical revisionists as cruel, the Colonial Era was marked by the exact same ideology driving Merkel’s suicidal influx of “refugees” into Europe: that people are all fundamentally the same. Whereas in the Colonial Era, missionaries felt the “savages” were simply lacking Christianity and the colonial powers thought the natives were simply lacking “enlightenment ideals,” today’s Leftists similarly feel that Arabs and Africans are simply lacking opportunity, a safe environment, and a good education. It’s exactly the same. Just like Dr. Moreau in that H.G. Wells novel thinking he can turn animals into people.

   3. Instead of going into Africa and the Middle East and bringing democracy, science, and Christianity in an attempt to “uplift” the natives and turn them into Europeans, the Europeans should have stayed home and worked on seeing if they could evolve themselves even more. Why bring others up to your level? Rather, they should have seen what their own limits were and tried to surpass them.

   4. There is a Walmart in Lagos, Nigeria. Not sure if that is good or bad.

   5. Christianity was never brought to Africa don’t be so ignorant. Christianity was decadent in Europe by the time the Scramble for Africa started. Whites made many mistakes in the colonization of Africa but bringing Christianity with them was not one of them, otherwise the approach would have been this: http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/d8/d832b77e3e8b0c173a0a7664bc5f6fb3a9a44e92a2f27eb0bc1e6379cacd37f8.jpg

9. When things started to go pear-shaped, Portugal, Italy, and the other colonial powers should have evacuated their peoples on cargo planes and let Africa descend into a Level 5 Chimpout.
   Why the fuck would you insist on being surrounded by people who either hate you or whom you hold in contempt? Same thing with former slave owners: you can’t simultaneously hold blacks as inferior but let them be nannies to your children or wrist deep in the bread dough. It’s one way or the other.

   1. Angolans loved Portuguese rule. Independentists were foreign (Algerians, Cubans, Congolese, etc.) and minoritary. However, both Italians and Portuguese were undermanned and ill-equipped.
      Imagine this war effort for a 10 million people nation:
      http://lh5.ggpht.com/_FkKgTDI7ngU/TLAzfL1AySI/AAAAAAAAJIk/hLo9yZl-XQ0/expo85_thumb%5B3%5D.jpg?imgmax=800

   2. It was desolate, barren and uninhabited. No one lived there except a few scattered bush people. That’s why.
      Zulus later arrived to steal what the Durch built

      1. The Boers didn’t have to let the Zulus in. But they did. Why?
         The truth is the Boers were lazy and greedy. They wanted to take advantage of cheap black labor while at the same time remaining separate from them and treating them as second class citizens. If they hadn’t been lazy and greedy they wouldn’t be in their current situation.

         1. Anything but lazy!
            They needed manpower and negros offered it and cheaply. Obviously it was a mistake

10. Great article, and very well done. These are the kinds of stories we need to be talking about.

    1. When I first read the title I could have sworn you were posting your second article this week. I am always game for more Quintus articles.

    2. Yes, I love these articles about true “heroes” as in men that faced unsurmountable odds and succeeded. When I was a kid I used to buy a magazine called The Elite. Still have some of them. One of the best articles was on the Sealous Scouts. Part of the article I still remember was how they could salvage meat from a maggot infested monkey corpse.

       1. Even better when the main character in the story comes from the region in Portugal as Hugo’s father.
          And my uncle who fought in Mozambique, still shakes his head about what the Marxists did to Mozambique. It’s disheartening.
          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatnews/6415377/Slum-that-used-to-be-one-of-Africas-most-opulent-hotels.html

          1. <<o. ★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★:::::::!!be830p:….,.

    3. This guy danny roxo sounds like a real life Big Boss. amazing story

    4. Second that.

11. Not unrelated to this was Italy’s 1935 invasion of Abyssinia (Ethiopia). All of the other great colonial powers (Britain, France, etc. had taken over all the rest of Africa and Italy felt left out. But left out of what? Mud huts? I know the Congo offered rubber trees and that’s what Belgium wanted. And later I believe the Belgian Congo was a source of uranium for the Manhattan Project, but other other than that … what in the way of natural resources does it offer? Diamonds? No one needs diamonds. Those are ornamental and just serve to promote vanity.

    1. Which is to say, what glory is to be had in an Empire built from people you consider your inferiors? Why would you sacrifice your people to seize some backward hellhole? Where in that is the glory? Mussolini would have been better off renovating the Roman ruins and polishing the marble busts from the Italian Renaissance than sending young Blackshirts to die in that shit hole.

       1. It’s called conquering, idiot.

          1. Conquer what? A sandbox? Starving babies covered in tsetse flies? You act as thought there was a treasure box filled with jewel encrusted scepters or something.

          2. Africa has plenty to offer any empire that conquered it. Of course, youd also have to eradicate the originals to have any long term success on this continent. The Chinese might show the world how it’s done. It is a special type of place with unique hazards etc just like Australia.

          3. No European power ever went to Africa with the intention or desire to exterminate people. They went there with the same misguided ideals that are driving mass immigration / invasion into Europe: the idea that with Western education and opportunities and representative government, that you can turn a Bedouin into an Englishman and a Zulu into a German. Refugee Crisis is White Man’s Burden 2.0

          4. Interesting. Now comes to my mind this French poster:
             http://histgeo.discipline.ac-lille.fr/lycee/mise-en-oeuvre/mise-en-oeuvre-terminale/dossierdenhez/3-affichedrapeau.jpg/image_view_fullscreen

          5. Right, and not condoning it, but this is why the place will always be a cluster

          6. You are making a lot of assertions that are a lot of nonsense. The Dutch landed in the Cape primarily to establish a “refreshment station” to supply ships with fresh provisions. Also the Dutch allowed settlers to colonize the Cape, to escape religious persecution. There was no intention of turning the natives into clones.

          7. You are judging events that took place 150 years ago through the criteria of what’s going on today. And that’s dumb. The English, French and co. went their to seize natural resources, show the rest of the powers their standing in the world and to promote trade with the creation of new commercial points and nodes in great network each of those empires wanted to dominate. There was no attempt (backed by the state at least) by anyone to evangelize or civilize anybody beyond the training necessary to perform their tasks, no one was considered “equal”.
             Their intention was not to exterminate but to have serfs and cheap labor for the empire. What a different world this would be had they tried to civilize those idiots.

          8. hahahahahahahah will you stop !!!!! you think the english wanted to turn the natives into english ??? ahahhahahahah take your head out of your fucking arse

          9. Like future rap Artists and recording contracts …
             Muh imperialism n chit

          10. They tried but you can put perfume on a pig yet it’s still a pig
              Negros gonna negro

          11. There I have to disagree. By the time the Scramble of Africa started the faith in Europe was exhausted. No one can offer what one lacks. Otherwise the approach would ‘ve been radically different…

          12. Only with blacks in charge

       2. Or he could’ve built up and trained his army so that they’d have the discipline and ability to not surrender as soon as the enemy showed up

12. Great story

13. Very interesting. Reminds me of an article about a British officer who fought in the Boer War, WWI, and WWII. Here’s the link:

    The Manliest of Men: Adrian Carton de Wiart

14. One thing that was missing from the article was the mention of any bitches…..oh there was war and killing going down…… they seem to disappear when there is killing and disruption. Just remember my Yankee chums when marking your ballot paper or hitting the button that according to Hillary “women and children are the primary victims of war.”

15. Great article. I knew a guy who was in the Portuguese Army in Angola during this period. He was there when the Cubans started massing with Soviet hardware. He said it was insane, and that he was lucky to get out alive He spoke broken English; “bodies, hanging in trees, everyday” He also spoke of a witch-doctor who told the locals to kill all whites. He was really grateful to be living in the US now.

16. I recently ran across a reference to Larry Thorne or Lauri Torni so I googled the name, he was also a rather extraordinary cat who evidently loved to fight and hated communists. Look him up,for some interesting reading.

17. I have a friend of mine who served with SADF fighting in Angola. Battle of Cuito Cuanavale comes to mind. The fall of Rhodesia (currently called Zimbabwe) along with other regions of Africa to soviet backed revolutionaires would be a decent thread to discuss.

18. My testicles got bigger just reading that story-what a set of coconuts he had.

19. What a load of bullshit. You gloss over the fact that he was an imperialist oppressor and used terror tactics yet condemn the natives as being terrorists !!! hahahaha
    You couldn’t make this bullshit up. Look if you are an imperialist fair enough just be frank and open about it and don’t pretend you are only fighting fire with fire when in fact its the other way round.
    Also ludicrous to pretend the natives didnt want independence. Why did it come about then ??? who fought for it then ??? I’m not saying every single one did. People don’t like change and plenty of uncle toms.
    Undoubtedly the man was a great warrior and leader whatever his politics but so much of that story is bullshit especially the end.
    Also this site claims to be for nationalists well guess who is was fighting ?? Our is nationalism only ok for europeans ???

    1. History has shown that in Africa, there were no nations, just tribes. Nations are still in formation to this day, with all the bloody day by day that is common when a nation is forged. Even to this day most of Africa pledge allegiance to their family first, their tribe first and maybe, just maybe to their so-called “country” which in many cases they are forced to share with peoples who speak another language and culture. I think the wars and massacres and wars in that continent and the way it’s fallen into ruin after the colonizers left prove that point.

       1. whats the difference between a tribe and nationalists ??? Its the same thing. Explain to me how its different. The vast majority of countries are made up of on dominant ethnicity ie a tribe. A tribe in africa might consist of 70 odd million people that is a nation. You can get into semantics all you want.
          Also you can’t see the forest for the trees. You say the place fell to war after the colonizers left (always happens any where in the world) and you even touch on the reason that they were forced into artificial nations by the colonial powers before they left. So you have the answers you just wont jin the dots.

          1. For starters in a tribe there is oftentimes a blood-bond, a direct one. In a nation is too big for that to be a reality, not even in the members of highly homogeneous nations like Japan and other, can a direct blood claim based system work. A nation cannot work like a tribe, otherwise disaster happens, just like Africa.
             You’d do well to read the experiences of someone who visited the continent and witnessed the transition and how intelligence (or lack thereof) can’t account for what happened there http://www.city-journal.org/html/after-empire-12420.html. If you can’t understand that, you are more obtuse than I thought.
             By the way you should check your history. Most Asian nations didn’t start a process of self-demolition after Europeans left. And yes that’s what Africa started as soon as the last colonizer left…a self-demolition process.

          2. Nope you arent muddying the waters. There a re several tribes the size of nations. Its that simple. Explain that away for me ???
             And cut the bullshit cheap tricks if I dont agree it must be that i can’t understand and that i am obtuse !!! hahaha
             Good points about Asia though and i would think one of the main reasons is like i said before that they didnt create artificial countries like in africa.
             Why don’t you address that point for me too ?? Its an excellent and valid reason for the trouble started after.
             Stop dodging the points and answer them.

          3. Had you read the link I included in the last response you’d understand my point. I didn’t dodge anything. The fact that colonial powers invented countries and boundaries without concern for the history is no excuse for the endemic squalor and corruption of the dark continent. Explain that away for me please.
             P.S. A nation can be made of different tribes and in my opinion (Germany, Russia), even of different races (hispanic nations still in formation) but in the latter case in time the different races (not without conflict) will mix and new bloodlines and races rise. However a nation cannot be made of different cultures and religions.

          4. Still no answers so ??? hahahaha
             History is not an “excuse” but it is a reason. Also the continued trouble is because the Big powers are still interfering and still running the countries by proxy which is the new form of imperialism. America rarely actually invades and runs a country for itself but yet it has a financial empire in the same mold as empires of old.
             Don’t take my word for it. See what companies run all the mines in africa. It isnt African ones !!
             Your example of Germany is erroneous because those tribes shared common cultural traits and language and often religion. Thats is not the case in most African countries. And it has happened in europe. Just look at yoguslavia which tore itself apart or even Czechoslavakia which was peaceful but still an example of a country synthetically created that wasn’t homogeneous and therefore came apart.

          5. If you are unwilling to read that’s not my problem. The only big powers that have any influence are U.S.A. and China and had your leaders some integrity they would take the good and reject the bad just like Lee Kwan Yoo and many other leaders did, thus mitigating the damage of foreign interference. When the Africans finally take some responsibility for their destiny, that day African nations will make some advances like some of their brethren have made. Until then, more of the same shit.

          6. apples and oranges. China is a behemoth and far more cohesive with far less attractive mineral wealth than africa. Also you said asia like it was all hunky dory when the imperial powers left I can not believe i left you get away with that. China had a massive civil war and then purge under Mao. Vietnam tore itself apart and so did Korea. India pakistan still goes on for the same reasons i mentioned in Africa.And im sure there are a few more.
             So to be honest i rest my case and whether you actually agree with me or not you have toned down the rhetoric so you can as least see where im coming from and thats good enough for me.

          7. I never said everything went fine. In fact many things went bad, being East Asians the exception to the rule in many cases (South Asia and the Indian Subcontinent still have many things to sort out) but all in all they are far better than most of Africa, despite having in many cases less resources, less favorable terrain and less infrastructure left, since Europeans left trillions worth in all sorts of transportation and industrial infrastructure, much more than what was left in Asia where European presence was shorter and didn’t have a chance to. I didn’t want to write an essay so I left them out and I assumed that it was clear that in spite of the difficulties, many Asian countries rebuilt themselves after the colonization, even countries like Vietnam.
             Moreover the conflicts that destroyed many countries in the region were either due to communist interference (and the concomitant failed US policy “trying” to thwart the communist subversion) and ethnic conflicts whose development was held off by colonization and once the colonizers were out they just started from where they left off (Sri Lanka, Muslims vs Hindus in India et al). I mentioned Lee Kwan Yoo since he was the greatest statesman of the XX century in my opinion, building a successful state from scratch

          8. There are five main tribes in Nigeria besides the dozens of smaller ones, and they have so much bad blood between them that even a genocide within living memory isn’t enough to keep the peace. Today’s politicians were the generals of the civil war, and even they can’t keep the country together.
             And on the African nations being ‘Artificial,’ do you think there would be any less fighting even if tribes were aligned on tribes? Or that countries like America, Germany, and China all consist of single ethnicities? Nations are formed when strict ethnic loyalties are abandoned for a national identity, and that is a move that africans aren’t ready to make.

          9. China has ninety-some recognized minorities, and the so-called ‘Han’ majority speaks dozens of ‘dialects’ that are not mutually-comprehensible, the result of thousands of years of cultural assimilation and the elimination of ethnic identity.

          10. EXACTLY they havent the resources !!!! hence being left alone. Africa is divided and full of resources.
              Essentially you think Africans are inherently incapable of ruining their own affairs. I think its ridiculous to even lump them all in together and more to the point they are victims of colonialism and not its not the cause of all their woes and it certainly wouldnt be the garden of eden without it but just look at who really owns Africa ie, their huge debt and who actually owns the resources. Its all their in black and white.
              Goodnight and goodbye.

       2. That’s the way it is in most of the world (to varying degrees, of course). The large scale sense of community is only found in western Europe, its derivatives, and Japan.

    2. Jesus what a wanker you are. Imperialism was the best thing to ever happen to Africa and fuck what the stupid natives want. Between the whole lot of them they don’t have enough brainpower to keep a fucking well clean without some asshole crapping in it.
       Now it’s a disease infested shithole with nothing to bring to anyone other than death, poverty and chaos.
       Fuck off to Africa then you retard.

       1. I can’t even be mad with you. Because ive often made stupid irrational outburst from rage. Makes me feel remorseful when i see how stupid it is.
          If you think Africa was at peace and had no disease under Imperialism then you my friend are a waste of a good under pants.

          1. “you my friend are a waste of a good under pants.”
             You have no idea how accurate this statement is. The guy you responded to is soo poorly endowed that he had to travel across the world to find a yellow vagina narrow/shallow enough that intercourse was no longer like throwing a hotdog down a subway tunnel. This would account for the rage

          2. Comparing Africa now vs under western rule plus what the people I know personally there say, I’d say it was much better under western rule. I’m not saying it was completely perfect or some kind of paradise but definitely better.
             The well example is actually a real one occurring not rarely, either by infesting the well or now with the sealed ones ripping out the pump to sell for scrap.

          3. hahahahahhah it all maeks sense now.

          4. Paved Roads, potable clean water, power, food and farming, The wheel, ships, plows, education et al were all gifts from the white Europeans To Black Africans

          5. Even the ANC admits as much today
             South Africa was far off better under white rule and apartheid. S Africa just had to import food for the first time in 300 years under black rule

          6. Africa in brutal photos.
             This is what happens when blacks are left to make their own nation without whites…
             https://cincinnatiisadump.wordpress.com/tag/south-africa/

          7. Not surprised. I know some South Africans and they, both black and white don’t like or agree with what’s going on. But that’s a soft example compared to Kenya…
             You get labeled and dismissed as a racist any time you bring this kind of things up.
             I don’t hate black Africans but to think they are like us is silly, their whole environment was different from Europeans for tens of thousands of years, it is just unrealistic to think they would have mentally developed the same as Europeans.

    3. Roxo was fighting at least with tacit permission of the Portuguese authorities, and did use extreme tactics, and these facts were stated clearly in the article. It’s a moral area of discussion as to whether one should “fight fire with fire” or take the high ground and not result to certain tactics which are seen as uncivilized. That is a complicated and subjective issue beyond the scope of a brief bio article. Of course, if the American rebels did not resort to terrorist tactics they would have never won their war of freeeedooommm from the Brits.
       Regardless of what peasants / voters / plebes want, the result is that independence for most Africans has been a horrible thing. This is true even today, as we see places like Libya “liberated” to a democratically elected government and immediately the quality of life declines.
       One can certainly admire the actions and drive of Roxo without believing that European Powers should dominate and subjugate Africa. I doubt Roxo cared much for the politics anyway.

       1. Absolutely. I agree with most of what you say. My points still stand you haven’t really refuted them other than to say they weren’t necessary to make which i feel they were.
          But an excellent reasonable,logical point of view. Refreshing to read.

    4. Pure hagiography, I didn’t know it was possible to ride a dead man’s nuts this hard

    5. Imperialist?
       What in the hell do you think the non indigenous to the region Zulu and Tootsi tribes were?
       They nearly wiped out the indigenous African bush people from the region and migrated South after the white Boers built a first world nation from a desolate, uninhabited wasteland.
       As if Israel, China, Japan, And all black nations aren’t nationalist… Rolls eyes

    6. Ok

20. You can’t maintain a society while running away from terrorism. You’ve got to muster some confidence, surround yourself with the right strong people and face it head on. No one likes a bully, and no one would hold it against you for kill one who’s wronged so many.

21. So many forgotten heros of the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s in Africa. Normal people trying to defend their way of life while the Soviet Union supports violent racist gorrilas and by in large the west turns it back on you.

22. Holy shit. Some people are just insanely defiant in the face of death. Amazing stuff

23. I’m left speechless. How many other incredible men are out there that we never even hear about? This story is also a good exercise in means vs ends. It would be difficult to justify any of Roxo’s sacrifices or efforts as “worth it”–it’s Africa, for ever and ever a shithole. And yet Roxo didn’t weigh and calculate the reason he was there or whether the mission was valid–he simply acted in his own interest when outsiders threatened his way of life. It’s a good counterargument to the “stay and defend your homeland vs retreat to a saner nation” argument where I typically side with the latter.
    To the author: I’m curious how you first heard of this man. Why aren’t we hearing more stories like this?

24. What an amazing guy. He deserves his place in history. Thanks for bringing it to light!

25. SJW’s, this is how you do black and white race relations: in battle, brotherly bond, camaraderie and no race bating.

    1. Don’t hate, separate and segregate

26. I Know of One French Soldier who died during World War I. I forgot the name but he had a strong Catholic Spirituality that prepared him for the ultimate Sacrifice.

Comments are closed.