There is a genocide going on in South Africa

[Ixtab]

"The Following Pages are extremely Graphical and Quite Disgusting. This is a pictorial representation of how Whites in Southern Africa are systematically being exterminated, and it is safe to assume that the black criminals are doing so with the blessing of the US government since the latter hasn't shown any interest at all in the plight of our kinsmen in Southern Africa!"

http://www.matriots.com/bh/murdered/

[Felix the Cat]

There's no need to cross the Atlantic Ix. Far more White Americans are killed annually by blacks than South Africans

[Ixtab]

There's no need to cross the Atlantic Ix.^ Can't decipher the meaning of the above quoted passage. I have never crossed the Atlantic in my life and do not have any plans on doing so at the present time.

Far more White Americans are killed annually by blacks than South AfricansWhat percentage? And your point? This is to efface my sympathies how?

[Ahknaton]

There's no need to cross the Atlantic Ix. Far more White Americans are killed annually by blacks than South Africans
As a per capita thing, the rate of murder in South Africa is far higher than in America, and is part of a deliberate plan to systematically murder and dispossess Whites from their land.

You could arguably say the same about America, but it's far more overt in the case of South Africa.

[raven]

I would leave South Africa ASAP if I were them.

[Ahknaton]

I would leave South Africa ASAP if I were them.
Me too. After burning down my farmhouse, destroying all my farm equipment and poisoning the fields.

[humanist]

You people just don't get it, do you?

These kinds of outrages are the classic response of the oppressed against the oppressor. Almost excactly the same kinds of things happened, for example, in the 14th century rising of the Jacquerie in France.

In addition, one might say, this is the relationship that Europeans established in Africa: one that operates primarily by violence and domination. This is no more than South Africa's legacy coming back to bite its perpetrators.

[Thomas777]

You people just don't get it, do you?

These kinds of outrages are the classic response of the oppressed against the oppressor. Almost excactly the same kinds of things happened, for example, in the 14th century rising of the Jacquerie in France.

In addition, one might say, this is the relationship that Europeans established in Africa: one that operates primarily by violence and domination. This is no more than South Africa's legacy coming back to bite its perpetrators.

This is a very dishonest account of the situation in South Africa.

The Boers in South Africa established and maintained a race-based caste system that which while arguably immoral and oppressive to Black Africans, was remarkably efficient and resulted in an ordered, highly advanced society.

South Africa under the ANC is not some mirror image of South Africa under the Boers...instead, it is a Stone-Age hellhole where savage marauders rob, rape and murder people with impunity, and the current "government" is incapable of providing basic necessities such as public works and security.

Fortunately for the formerly "oppressed" Blacks, institutions like the "Special Task Force" (virtually 100% staffed by ethnic Boers) are working tirelessly to stem the tide (albeit with limited success) to keep the savage instincts of the natives in check.

[Jonathan]

These kinds of outrages are the classic response of the oppressed against the oppressor. Almost excactly the same kinds of things happened, for example, in the 14th century rising of the Jacquerie in France.
I don't think that this happens across the board.

And even if it did, it would not be right.

In addition, one might say, this is the relationship that Europeans established in Africa: one that operates primarily by violence and domination. This is no more than South Africa's legacy coming back to bite its perpetrators.
You are actually one of the most intolerant people I've ever come across. Hypocracy is alive and well.

[Felix the Cat]

The "revenge of the oppressed" argument makes no sense, since the vast majority of people who have died violent deaths in South Africa over the past decade were blacks killed by other blacks

[Thomas777]

The "revenge of the oppressed" argument makes no sense, since the vast majority of people who have died violent deaths in South Africa over the past decade were blacks killed by other blacks

That is correct.

It is also not axiomatic that people who are subjugated by foreign populations indulge in perpetual rape and murder orgies as soon as they are freed from the yoke of foreign domination.

[humanist]

Wow, I guess I have yet more racism to easily refute:

This is a very dishonest account of the situation in South Africa.
No, it is not. But speaking of dishonesty, let us crack on to the rest of your post.

The Boers in South Africa established and maintained a race-based caste system which while arguably immoral and oppressive to Black Africans, was remarkably efficient and resulted in an ordered, highly advanced society.
False in several respects. First of all, Boer society was based on the ideal of independant farmers, and did not have much complexity beyond that. It was ordered as long as it only addressed that ideal. And there is no "arguably" about the repression suffered by indigenous Africans.

South Africa under the ANC is not some mirror image of South Africa under the Boers
I certainly did NOT suggest it was a mirror image of the Boer state. What I said was, a legacy of violent coercion is finally coming back to haunt is perpetrators.

it is a Stone-Age hellhole where savage marauders rob, rape and murder people with impunity, and the current "government" is incapable of providing basic necessities such as public works and security.
And the previous government did not concern itself with any of those things - unless you were white.

But I note you completely and totally failed to even respond to the point. How are these attacks different from those that characterised the Jacquerie?

"they went to a strong castle, tied the knight to a stake while his wife and daughter were raped by many, one after another before his eyes; then the killed the wife who was pregnant and afterward the daughter and all the children and lastly the knight and burned and destroyed the castle." - Froissart

The kind of violence is identical. It is the violence of long-suffering revenge. This kind of things ALWAYS appears wherever a population is systematically violated, oppressed, and intimidated by force. The Boers are reaping what they sowed.

Fortunately for the formerly "oppressed" Blacks, institutions like the "Special Task Force" (virtually 100% staffed by ethnic Boers)
Jobs For The Boys, huh? Keeping whites in waged work with everyone's taxes.... c'est plus ca change.....

are working tirelessly to stem the tide (albeit with limited success) to keep the savage instincts BLAH BLAH BLAH
The alleged "savage instincts" are to do to us what we did to them. If you want to deal with "savage instincts" perhaps you should address colonialism and the mindset that permitted all the violence toward Africans on the basis of ethnic supremacy.

[Thomas777]

Wow, I guess I have yet more racism to easily refute:
Lame.





False in several respects. First of all, Boer society was based on the ideal of independant farmers, and did not have much complexity beyond that. It was ordered as long as it only addressed that ideal. And there is no "arguably" about the repression suffered by indigenous Africans.
It was very complex. The Republic of South Africa was a nuclear armed, technologically advanced, First World country that maintained an elite military force, a renowned University system, and a diversified economy. It was not a backwater populated by free farmers.


I certainly did NOT suggest it was a mirror image of the Boer state. What I said was, a legacy of violent coercion is finally coming back to haunt is perpetrators.
Calling what the Blacks are doing in South Africa "violent coercion" implies some sort of organization or directive purpose. In reality, Blacks in South Africa are behaving like a bunch of wild animals while apologists like yourself dress up their simian-like conduct in the cloak of "political activism".


And the previous government did not concern itself with any of those things - unless you were white.
That does not explain why the minute that the Boer regime folded, Black Africans began to indulge in completely psychotic behavior. The historical record is rife with examples of people who wallowed for hundreds of years under foreign domination, yet when they were freed from the yoke of that domination, they did not revert to stone age savagery.

But I note you completely and totally failed to even respond to the point. How are these attacks different from those that characterised the Jacquerie?
Lawlessness and violent crime is categorically different than the accompanying brutality of organized warfare and/or political revolutions. I do not think that South African rape gangs, or half naked groups of young men hunting people with machetes are tantamount to political soldiers. I think that they are violent criminals who are functioning on the level of specimins housed in natural history museums.


The kind of violence is identical.
No it isn't.


It is the violence of long-suffering revenge. This kind of things ALWAYS appears wherever a population is systematically violated, oppressed, and intimidated by force. The Boers are reaping what they sowed.
No, it is not. And no, (thank God) "these types of things" do not "always appear". After the French were driven from Vietnam, the Vietnamese did not revert to the level of savages...after Ireland became independent from the United Kingdom, the Irish did not indulge in rape and murder sprees throughout the countryside.


Jobs For The Boys, huh? Keeping whites in waged work with everyone's taxes.... c'est plus ca change.....
The Boers are known for being extraordinarily effective soldiers. Hence, they have always been in demand as mercenaries...and even today, merc groups like Blackwater, Executive Outcomes, etc. maintain many of them on their staff.
The Black leadership class in South Africa seems to think that elite military units like the Special Task Force are absolutely essential if ANY sembelance of order is to be maintained...but they are fighting a losing battle.



The alleged "savage instincts" are to do to us what we did to them. If you want to deal with "savage instincts" perhaps you should address colonialism and the mindset that permitted all the violence toward Africans on the basis of ethnic supremacy.
No. Boers did not randomly attack Blacks with machetes and rape their women. Political oppression may be "bad" in your mind, but it is not the same thing as violent crime.

If you wish to address colonialism, I think that should be the subject of another thread...that said: Colonialism is not some unique phenomenon in time and history that presented peculiar and unalloyed evils. Stronger states dominate weaker states and the stronger (in-groups) disposess the weaker others (out-groups). This phenomenon has been perpetuated by all peoples on all continents...it is not adequate to explain away the failures of dysfunctional cultures by claiming that it is the "legacy of colonialism".

[Leif]

In addition, one might say, this is the relationship that Europeans established in Africa: one that operates primarily by violence and domination. This is no more than South Africa's legacy coming back to bite its perpetrators.

I can agree that South Africa's levels of violence today would not have been possible without the Europeans. The creation and loss of colonial powers shook the social stability of many parts of Africa.

[Ixtab]

I can agree that South Africa's levels of violence today would not have been possible without the Europeans. The creation and loss of colonial powers shook the social stability of many parts of Africa.Thomas777 has refuted this above.

[Jimbo Gomez]

During the era of Apartheid, the wages for negroes in the RSA were higher than anywhere else on the continent. In fact, many negroes tried to sneak in the country rather than sneak out of it. Unless if they rioted, negroes were dealt with in a civilized and peaceful manner. You can rest assured that the whites did not crash into their houses and raped their women, nor that they tried to commit genocide on them.

[Fade the Butcher]

These kinds of outrages are the classic response of the oppressed against the oppressor.

That's the smallest violin in the world playing for Negroes in Africa. You forgot to mention that violently subdued the native Pygmy and Hottentot populations during the Bantu expansion into Central and Southern Africa.

In addition, one might say, this is the relationship that Europeans established in Africa: one that operates primarily by violence and domination.

Is it fair to say that Negroids expanding out of West Africa violently subdued the native populations of Central and Southern Africa?

This is no more than South Africa's legacy coming back to bite its perpetrators.

The Dutch established themselves in the Cape BEFORE blacks moved into the area from the north. Hell. Even Jared Diamond acknowledges this.

[humanist]

The Dutch established themselves in the Cape BEFORE blacks moved into the area from the north. Hell. Even Jared Diamond acknowledges this.
Your memory is lacking. I can still cite this stuff from the official standard 4 history curriculum.

Yes, the Zulus were moving south - and they were also displacing the Xhosa ahead of them. Hence the early conflicts between early settlers and the Xhosa.

Second, the Khoi/San, the Bushmen, had themselves been displaced out of central SA and into the Kalahari by the Xhosa.

And third, on the very tip of SA, the "strandlopers" were still present when Van Riebeck arrived, living what is thought to have been a coastal neolithic hunter/gatherer lifestyle that may have been extremely ancient. But we will never know because they were all killed.

Anyway, looking at SA as it became, with the Trek and so forth, it is undeniuable that the white state sat directly on top of what had been tribal grazing grounds for several peoples.

[Fade the Butcher]

Your memory is lacking. I can still cite this stuff from the official standard 4 history curriculum.

You cited Jared Diamond in the other thread. Jared Diamond acknowledges in Guns, Germs, and Steel that whites had settled in the Cape before Negroes.

Yes, the Zulus were moving south - and they were also displacing the Xhosa ahead of them. Hence the early conflicts between early settlers and the Xhosa. Second, the Khoi/San, the Bushmen, had themselves been displaced out of central SA and into the Kalahari by the Xhosa.

The Hottentots were violently displaced in Central Africa by Negroes expanding out of Nigeria.

And third, on the very tip of SA, the "strandlopers" were still present when Van Riebeck arrived, living what is thought to have been a coastal neolithic hunter/gatherer lifestyle that may have been extremely ancient. But we will never know because they were all killed.

You mean the Hottentots, right?

Anyway, looking at SA as it became, with the Trek and so forth, it is undeniuable that the white state sat directly on top of what had been tribal grazing grounds for several peoples.

These peoples were generally not Negroes either and they were killed off by disease.

[Professor John Frink]

And there is no "arguably" about the repression suffered by indigenous Africans.



The vast majority of blacks in South Africa are not indigenous. They are Bantu-speaking tribes who conquered the southern half of sub-Saharan Africa by annihilating the indigenous Khoi-San (Bushmen and Hottentot) tribes. These two groups are genetically and physically (let alone culturally)distinct from Bantu blacks and are considered to be different races in traditional physical anthropology.

[Crowley]

You people just don't get it, do you?

These kinds of outrages are the classic response of the oppressed against the oppressor. Almost excactly the same kinds of things happened, for example, in the 14th century rising of the Jacquerie in France.

In addition, one might say, this is the relationship that Europeans established in Africa: one that operates primarily by violence and domination. This is no more than South Africa's legacy coming back to bite its perpetrators.

In other words, murder of whites in SA is okay with humanist. Very humanitarian of you, humanist. The double-standard is always the same with these progressive types. If it were anyone but whites being murdered, humanist would find his outrage. :rolleyes:

[Starr]

You are actually one of the most intolerant people I've ever come across. Hypocracy is alive and well.


People like "humanist" often are. The one thing they always seem to be quite "tolerant" of is any crimes those special brown people commit against evil whitey,who always has it coming.:rolleyes:

He/she would be blowing a fuse in a topic like this if the roles were reversed. but in this case we need to understand the oppression that lead to this. Oh the humanity!

[infoterror]

In addition, one might say, this is the relationship that Europeans established in Africa: one that operates primarily by violence and domination.

How is this different from African politics?

I would even argue further that all of history is violence and determination. Reason why is that you can argue with someone who doesn't see your point of view, but you cannot force them to see the logic in it. You can force them to die, and that renders it moot, however.

[Jonathan]

I'd also like to know why Humanist completely ignored Thomas777's reply.

[humanist]

In refutation of Thomas777:It was very complex. The Republic of South Africa was a nuclear armed, technologically advanced, First World country that maintained an elite military force, a renowned University system, and a diversified economy. It was not a backwater populated by free farmers.
You are opportunistically switching time-periods. Thanks, I am perfectly familiar with 20th century SA.

Calling what the Blacks are doing in South Africa "violent coercion" implies some sort of organization or directive purpose. In reality, Blacks in South Africa are behaving like a bunch of wild animals while apologists like yourself dress up their simian-like conduct in the cloak of "political activism".
My, you are an utterly dishonest debator.

I did not say it was "violent coercion"; I said it was the LEGACY of violent coercion. Please try to practice some basic reading comnprehension, or some basic intellectual honesty.

I am agreeing with you that they are behaving "like a bunch of wild animals," and but demonstrating that this is the predictable result of a policy of violent coercion. Violence begets violence.

That does not explain why the minute that the Boer regime folded, Black Africans began to indulge in completely psychotic behavior. The historical record is rife with examples of people who wallowed for hundreds of years under foreign domination, yet when they were freed from the yoke of that domination, they did not revert to stone age savagery.
That is ridiculous and you know it. The country handled it smoothly. There was no general breakdown of civic order. This is simple ahistoric nonsense and you know it.

The historical record is rife with examples of people who wallowed for hundreds of years under foreign domination, yet when they were freed from the yoke of that domination, they did not revert to stone-age savagery.
Non-sequitur - "foreign" occupation is not the same as "relentlessly violent". You are attempting to switch the grounds of discussion becuase you realise your position is untenable.

Lawlessness and violent crime is categorically different than the accompanying brutality of organized warfare and/or political revolutions. I do not think that South African rape gangs, or half naked groups of young men hunting people with machetes are tantamount to political soldiers. I think that they are violent criminals who are functioning on the level of specimins housed in natural history museums.
And you evade the point yet again. The Jacquerie did not have a political programme; they did not make any really coordinated efforts to change the status quo. All they did was take revenge against their violent oppressors; revenge that was brutal and disorganised and personal, precisely BECAUSE they did not have a broader programme of action.

Thus, the analogy is identicial - after all, the POLITICAL resistance in SA was much more organised, and much less vengeful. It is precisely becuase these events are NOT political that they are so brutal.

No, it isn't.
Yes, it absoilutely is - and there are many many examples, such as the Spartacist revolt, which I could call on to show the same.

No, it is not. And no, (thank God) "these types of things" do not "always appear".
Assertion is not argument.

After the French were driven from Vietnam, the Vietnamese did not revert to the level of savages;
Really? As I recall, there were a number of brutal revenge attacks carried out against plantation owners. Are we being just the tiniest bit selective, perhaps?

after Ireland became independent from the United Kingdom, the Irish did not indulge in rape and murder sprees throughout the countryside.
Ireland is not independant, is it? Only a part, the Republic, has been released from British colonialism. And of course, the situation is the not the same, because the property of the nation was not still predominantly owned by English landlords, unlike South Africa, in which whites still own almost everything.

You are desperately reaching. You cannot deny that brutal revenge attacks have taken place all over the world, and regardless fo ethnicity.

The Boers are known for being extraordinarily effective soldiers.
Known by who, other Boers?

Hence, they have always been in demand as mercenaries; and even today, merc groups like Blackwater, Executive Outcomes, and so on maintain many of them on their staff.
Indeed. It is one way to keep on killing, darkies, isn't it? Seeing as these groups primarily work in Africa. Remember, Executive Outcomes shamelessly employed ex-Nazi's and SS; they would quite happily welcome renegade ex-SADF killers from Koevoet or BOSS or similar.

No. Boers did not randomly attack Blacks with machetes and rape their women and little children. Political oppression may be "bad" in your mind, but it is not the same thing as violent crime.
But, yes they did, you see. That is the whole point. And they could get away with it becuase the white state did not have a duty of care towards blacks, and the cops were likely standing right next to you when you did it.

If you wish to address colonialism, I think that should be the subject of another thread. That being said: Colonialism is not some unique phenomenon in time and history that presented peculiar and unalloyed evils.
True enough. It contains the regular and routine evils of militarism and supremacism.

Stronger states dominate weaker states and the stronger (in-groups) disposess the weaker others (out-groups). This phenomenon has been perpetuated by all peoples on all continents.
Indeed. And in absolutely every single case there have been violent reprisals against the dominant groups for exactly those reasons. It is not I trying to take colonialism out of its historic context; it is you. It is precisely my argument that this is the normal consequence of colonial oppression and a racist state.

It is not adequate to explain away the failures of dysfunctional cultures by claiming that it is the "legacy of colonialism".
But we are not talking about a "dysfunctional culture"; we are talking about the normal kind of revenge attacks taken against brutal occupiers. It is only YOUR ambition to extend this specific allegation to a general criticism of Africa and/or Africans.

[Thomas777]

In refutation of Thomas777:
You are opportunistically switching time-periods. Thanks, I am perfectly familiar with 20th century SA.

No I'm not.


In refutation of Thomas777: I did not say it was "violent coercion"; I said it was the LEGACY of violent coercion.
That is not axiomatic. Political repression by the State is not the ultimate cause of mass criminal violence.



In refutation of Thomas777: Please try to practice some basic reading comnprehension, or some basic intellectual honesty.
OK sweetie.

In refutation of Thomas777: I am agreeing with you that they are behaving "like a bunch of wild animals," and but demonstrating that this is the predictable result of a policy of violent coercion. Violence begets violence.
"violence begets violence" is a moral/philisophical platitude, its not some axiomatic, causal explanation. It does not reasonably follow that if a population is oppressed by a hostile government, that population will inevitably resort to sexual assault, homicide, and property crime en masse. One thing has nothing to do with the other.


In refutation of Thomas777: That is ridiculous and you know it. The country handled it smoothly. There was no general breakdown of civic order. This is simple ahistoric nonsense and you know it.
No, it is not 'nonsense'. Citizens of The Republic of South Africa under the Boer regime enjoyed one of the highest qualities of life in the entire world. South Africa under the ANC is completely dysfunctional. People go without food and electricity, cronyism has bankrupted the public coffers, AIDS is decimating the population, Cape Town has surpasses Bogota, Columbia as the homicide capital of the world. People in South Africa live as veritable prisoners in their own homes, as roving bands of armed men arbitrarily terrorize people with rape, torture and murder.


In refutation of Thomas777:Non-sequitur - "foreign" occupation is not the same as "relentlessly violent". You are attempting to switch the grounds of discussion becuase you realise your position is untenable.
I am not "switching the grounds of discussion". You raised the issue of how subjugated populations respond when the are oppressed by a hostile, foreign elite. The RSA was a colonial administration...much as Vietnam was under French occupation and that latter was actually much more "relentlessly violent" than the former. That said, after the French were expelled from Vietnam, the Vietnamese did not begin indulging in criminal behavior en masse, not did the national infrastructure collapse. What I did was posit a categorical analogy...you opened the door to this analogy by making a catergorical generalization (i.e. colonial repression inevitably leads to a violent breakdown in law and order among the subject population).


In refutation of Thomas777:And you evade the point yet again. The Jacquerie did not have a political programme; they did not make any really coordinated efforts to change the status quo. All they did was take revenge against their violent oppressors; revenge that was brutal and disorganised and personal, precisely BECAUSE they did not have a broader programme of action.
I would say that directed violence against a hostile elite qualifies as a political programme. That is not the same as randomly raping women and hacking people to bits because they happen to be in immediate proximity and they happen to be White.


In refutation of Thomas777:Thus, the analogy is identicial - after all, the POLITICAL resistance in SA was much more organised, and much less vengeful. It is precisely becuase these events are NOT political that they are so brutal.
Well, now you are building my case for me. Thank you for calling a spade a spade...Blacks in South Africa (by and large) have a violently psychotic disposition that is completely apolitical and irrational.



In refutation of Thomas777:Really? As I recall, there were a number of brutal revenge attacks carried out against plantation owners. Are we being just the tiniest bit selective, perhaps?
No, I'm not being selective. Attacking colonial elites who owned large swaths of irrigable land was an indispensible element of the purposes and goals of the Vietminh/NLF. The Vietminh/NLF did not perpetuate random rape and murder against Frenchmen and women.


In refutation of Thomas777:Ireland is not independant, is it?
That would be news to the Irish...they seem to be operating under the assumption that they are not part of the United Kingdon.

In refutation of Thomas777:Only a part, the Republic, has been released from British colonialism.
A majority of people in Ulster wish to remain part of the United Kingdom, that is why the UK continues to administer it. Despite what the IRA would have people believe, the UK is not brutally occupying Ulster.

In refutation of Thomas777:You are desperately reaching. You cannot deny that brutal revenge attacks have taken place all over the world, and regardless fo ethnicity.
I do not approve of mass, random violence against innocent people. Most people find these sorts of things abhorrent...except people like you excuse and rationalize such violence when it is perpetuated by Blacks, because Blacks are the mascots/pet victims of secular humanists and Marxists.


In refutation of Thomas777:Known by who, other Boers?
You are somewhat ignorant of the storied history of Afrikanner military prowess/tradition. I do not think that Boer soldiers would be in demand globally as mercenary fighters if they were not effective. Some peoples have stronger military traditions than others...if you would research the issue a little bit, you would find that Boers are quite overrepresented in Merc operations worldwide, and that forces like the Special Task Force and the Seleus Scouts enjoy a legendary reputation among professional soldiers.


In refutation of Thomas777:Indeed. It is one way to keep on killing, darkies, isn't it? Seeing as these groups primarily work in Africa. Remember, Executive Outcomes shamelessly employed ex-Nazi's and SS; they would quite happily welcome renegade ex-SADF killers from Koevoet or BOSS or similar.
Merc outfits are in demand in Africa because Black Africans retain their services in order to fight their enemies. I also doubt that EO employed ex-nazis, because they were not incorporated until the 1990s. I doubt if a bunch of dottering, 76 year old men would have been very useful in the field.

You know, its also easy to rush to judgment about the moral character of men who have been under arms when you are doing so from a position of comfort, safety, and luxury. Maybe its not as simple as you are suggesting.


In refutation of Thomas777:But, yes they did, you see. That is the whole point. And they could get away with it becuase the white state did not have a duty of care towards blacks, and the cops were likely standing right next to you when you did it.

There is no evidence that Boers would randomly attack Blacks under the Boer regime. The police and security forces were heavyhanded in their treatment of them, yes...but its just silly to suggest that Boer men and women were making a sport out of raping and killing Blacks or hacking them up with machetes.


In refutation of Thomas777:Indeed. And in absolutely every single case there have been violent reprisals against the dominant groups for exactly those reasons. It is not I trying to take colonialism out of its historic context; it is you. It is precisely my argument that this is the normal consequence of colonial oppression and a racist state.
No. A total and violent breakdown of law and order is not the "normal" consequence of colonial oppression.


In refutation of Thomas777:But we are not talking about a "dysfunctional culture"; we are talking about the normal kind of revenge attacks taken against brutal occupiers. It is only YOUR ambition to extend this specific allegation to a general criticism of Africa and/or Africans.
No. Africans robbing, raping, and murdering random civillians is not a "revenge attack taken against brutal occupiers". Occupation by a hostile elite does not axiomatically breed savage, criminal conduct.

[humanist]

That is not axiomatic. Political repression by the State is not the ultimate cause of mass criminal violence.
Yes it is.

Another exchange of assertions. Are we making progress yet?

"Violence begets violence" is a moral & philisophical platitude; it is not some axiomatic, causal explanation.
Wrong; its an observable correlation.

It does not reasonably follow that if a population is oppressed by a hostile government, that that population will inevitably resort to sexual assault, homicide, and property crime en masse. One thing has nothing to do with the other
That is an absurd position to adopt, as if the mores of a people are invested in their persons and not in their context, cultture and surroundings. That is the primary problem with your extremely weak analysis - you fail to akncowledge that human beings live in a real world.

No, it is not 'nonsense'. Citizens of the Republic of South Africa under the Boer regime enjoyed one of the highest qualities of life in the entire world.

Sure they did, with state subsidised education because they were white, and access to jobs because they were white, and using systematic violence against blacks, whom they did not even acknoweldge as citizens, and specifically trained them to be domestic servants and labourers.

Sure they had it good. Just like a feudal aristocracy had it good. And becuase of its systematic theft, and systematic brutality, it had to go.

Thus we see that all their whining about a "breakdown" is alarmism based on the fact that they are no longer privileged citizens.

South Africa under the ANC is completely dysfunctional. People go without food and electricity, cronyism has bankrupted the public coffers,

People ALREADY went without food and electricity, you may recall those places called "townships". Cronyism ALREADY bankrupted the public coffers, seeing as employment by the state was its solution to the Poor White problem of earlier in the century. The National Party state was cronyism from top to bottom.

AIDS is decimating the population, Cape Town has surpassesd Bogota, Columbia as the homicide capital of the world.
And what did the National Party state do about AIDS? Nothing, because it hoped it would reduce the indigenous population. And certainly it is the homicide capital of the world, not least because the boil of revenge has not been lanced, and whites continue to live in the lap of luxury based on stolen property.

live as veritable prisoners in their own homes, as roving bands of armed men arbitrarily terrorize people with rape, torture and murder.
Then they should leave.

I am not "switching the grounds of discussion". You raised the issue of how subjugated populations respond when the are oppressed by a hostile, foreign elite. The RSA was a colonial administration...much as Vietnam was under French occupation and that latter was actually much more "relentlessly violent" than the former.

Evidence, please. What characterises South African racism is its universality - the fact that the entire state was premised on racist grounds. That is rather more than merely a colonial administration. It was very personally abusive, precisely because of the ideas that are propogated of the "lesser" and "inferior" and "barbaric" status of Africans.

That said, after the French were expelled from Vietnam, the Vietnamese did not begin indulging in criminal behavior en masse, nor did the national infrastructure collapse. What I did was posit a categorical analogy; you opened the door to this analogy by making a catergorical generalisation (i.e. colonial repression inevitably leads to a violent breakdown in law and order among the subject population).
No, the criterion I raised was VIOLENCE, not colonialism as such, although the two are certainly related. The French have never, to my knowledge, advanced the kind of Chosen People dogma of the Voortrekkers, in which they were endowed with divine right to appropriate land and abuse these lesser beings, allegedly marked on their skins by colour for their ancestral sins.

And as I have pointed out, history consistently shows extreme brutality is the response to such systematic and endemic violent oppression, quite regardless of the ethnicity of the people involved.

I should say that directed violence against a hostile elite qualifies as a political programme. That is not the same as randomly raping women and hacking people to bits because they happen to be in immediate proximity and they happen to be White.
But your are wrong to say that "violence against a hostile elite" is a political programme. As I said, the Jacquerrir had no demands, no desires, other than completely exterminating all nobles - and no real plan for how to do that. When questioned, after the fact, as to their motives they gave unintelligable answers.

Theirs was NOT a movement like the ultimate French Revolution, which also took bloody vengeance against the aristocracy, but in a more sophisticated manner, governed by a legal process, and aimed at specific political ends. The rising of the Jacqueries was purely motivated by revenge and hatred, and is an exact match for the situation in South Africa.

Well, now you are building my case for me. Thank you for calling a spade a spade...Blacks in South Africa (by and large) have a violently psychotic disposition that is completely apolitical and irrational.
But they have that disposition as a result of their experiences, and the violence that they have been subjected to. It is simply not a factor of their ethnicity. I have not in any sense built your case - you are merely choosing to assume your own spurious argument about what consitutes a political movement.

No, I am not being selective. Attacking colonial elites who owned large swaths of irrigable land was an indispensible element of the purposes and goals of the Vietminh/NLF.
Like in Zimbabwe, and soon to be in South Africa, where the bulk of land is still in white hands.

The Vietminh/NLF did not perpetuate random rape and murder against Frenchmen and women.
Well even if they did not - which I only allow because I have no examples to hand - this still does not mean your point is supportable; the fact that such revenge attacks have occurred anywhere, and especially becuase they have been conducted by Europeans, invalidates your claim that it is a special property of Africa or Africans.

That would be news to the Irish; they seem to be operating under the assumption that they are not part of the United Kingdon.
Wrong. The Irish republic is independant, Ireland as a whole is not.

A majority of people in Ulster wish to remain part of the United Kingdom. That is why the UK continues to administer it. Despite what the IRA would have people believe, the UK is not brutally occupying Ulster
The level of violence has tailed off, but there is no denying British brutality throughout the occupation. Let us not forget, this is a state that knowingly concealed the events of Bloody Sunday, in which it fired on civilian demonstrators.

The idea that the occupation of Ireland was conducted in a civlised manner is simply a myth.

I do not approve of mass, random violence against innocent people.
Whether you APPROVE of them is irrelevant. I do not "approve" of them either - I just do not demand the world conform to things I approve of. I take the world as it is.

Most people find these sorts of things abhorrent... except people like you who excuse and rationalize such violence when it is perpetuated by Blacks, because Blacks are the mascots and pet victims of secular humanists and Marxists.
Ah here we have the self-revaltory mix; the knee-jerk linkage of Marxism, secularism, and anti-racism, plus the spurious allegation of "rationalising" and "excusing".

No Thomas, I do none of these things. I just do not hold people to an unrealistic standard, I do not expect saintly behaviour from people who have been systematically brutalised, and I deal with human behaviour, including violence, as I find it, not on the basis of a fantasical religious "morality"

You are somewhat ignorant of the storied history of Afrikanner military prowess and tradition.
Oh no, I know it well.

I do not think that Boer soldiers would be in demand globally as mercenary fighters if they were not effective. Some peoples have stronger military traditions than others.
Did I say they were ineffective? No I didn't. And I'm well aware that SA has a very strong military tradition, not least becuase it spent some thirty years as a virtual armed camp with universal conscription of white males.

If you would research the issue a little bit, you would find that Boers are quite overrepresented in Merc operations worldwide, and that forces like the Special Task Force and the Seleus Scouts enjoy a legendary reputation among professional soldiers
I'm familiar with all of these. None of this alters the point that Mercenary forces will take anyone, and that many of their members are people who have motives other than merely making a living by arms.

Merc outfits are in demand in Africa because Black Africans retain their services in order to fight their enemies. I also doubt that EO employed ex-Nazis, because they were not incorporated until the 1990s. I doubt if a bunch of dottering, 76 year old men would have been very useful in the field.
Perhaps not EO, but ex-Nazi's were active in the Congo in the 60's and 70's. The point is that mercenary companies offering in Africa have been a haven for people with seriously fucked up ideas about race.

You know, it is also easy to rush to judgment about the moral character of men who have been under arms when you are doing so from a position of comfort, safety, and luxury. Maybe it is not as simple as you are suggesting.
I have a great deal of sympathy for soldiers, not least becuase of course almost every adult male I grew up near was an ex-soldier, given conscription. I myself refused to serve in the SA military and that is why I had to leave - being an atheist I was not permitted to claim consiencious objector status. But my friends all did, and they certainly have some interesting stories to tell, such as my mate who was a participant in the massacre at Boipatong.

You might try listening to what I actually say, instead of starting from assumptions about who I must be and concluding what my argument must be based on from that assumption.

And I'll tell you something else - the old SA fucked whites up psychologically just as much as anyone.

There is no evidence that Boers would randomly attack Blacks under the Boer regime. The police and security forces were heavy-handed in their treatment of them, yes; but it is just silly to suggest that Boer men and women were making a sport out of raping and killing Blacks or hacking them up with machetes.
I'm sorry, it is not. Exactly that sort of thing happened. But given that in the old SA, the state owned and controlled the SABC, keepijng a lid on it was hardly difficult. It is precisely this sort of vicous assualt, often carried out on the farms away from prying eyes, and with which the police colluded, that has created such a wellspring of deep, visceral hatred and a desire for personal vengeance.

You don't want to aknwoldge these things becuase they undercut your fictious ideas about inherent morality based on ethnicity.

No. A total and violent breakdown of law and order is not the "normal" consequence of colonial oppression.
And there has not been a total breakdown of law and order. What there are are revenge attacks within the context of a largely functional state, able to proserve its borders and largely to protect institutional property. SA certainly has a problem with violence and the law, but it has hardly an anarchic wilderness.

No. Africans robbing, raping, and murdering random civillians is not a "revenge attack taken against brutal occupiers". Occupation by a hostile elite does not axiomatically breed savage, criminal conduct.
It does I'm afraid, and those are indeed revenge attacks.

[Thomas777]

Yes it is.

Another exchange of assertions. Are we making progress yet?

No its not. The phenomenon of mass criminal violence cannot be reduced to "people misbehaving because of bad governments". That is a reductionist charicature of the cause of the phenomenon.


Wrong; its an observable correlation.
No it isn't. Most populations that are subjugated by foreign occupiers do not indulge in mass criminal violence.


That is an absurd position to adopt, as if the mores of a people are invested in their persons and not in their context, cultture and surroundings. That is the primary problem with your extremely weak analysis - you fail to akncowledge that human beings live in a real world.
You are just jerking yourself off here...let me know when you're finished.



Sure they did, with state subsidised education because they were white, and access to jobs because they were white, and using systematic violence against blacks, whom they did not even acknoweldge as citizens, and specifically trained them to be domestic servants and labourers.
The Boers felt that if they did not insulate their own communities from the native Blacks that their communitites would denigrate into violent disorder. I think that the current situation in South Africa vindicates their position on the matter.

Sure they had it good. Just like a feudal aristocracy had it good. And becuase of its systematic theft, and systematic brutality, it had to go.
Perhaps the Black Africans should have labored to build their own successful societies on the Dark Continent.


Thus we see that all their whining about a "breakdown" is alarmism based on the fact that they are no longer privileged citizens.
I do not think that the Boers are "whining". South Africa is in the grip of anarchy and the Government is increasingly unable to enforce law and order. I do not think it is alarmist to take exception to such a situation.



People ALREADY went without food and electricity, you may recall those places called "townships". Cronyism ALREADY bankrupted the public coffers, seeing as employment by the state was its solution to the Poor White problem of earlier in the century. The National Party state was cronyism from top to bottom.
So Boers are better off now that the violence, chaos, dysfunction and disease that charictarizes the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa has now infested their once secure communities? That is a curious analysis.


And what did the National Party state do about AIDS? Nothing, because it hoped it would reduce the indigenous population.
What the National Party did was exclude AIDS infected Blacks from settling in Boer communities and spreading AIDS. That is a proper function of a government...to protect its people from harm, especially harm from hostile and/or dangerous outsiders.
And certainly it is the homicide capital of the world, not least because the boil of revenge has not been lanced, and whites continue to live in the lap of luxury based on stolen property.
Stop calling rape and murder "revenge"...it romanticizes it and frames it as somehow just. Boer women do not "deserve" to be raped, and old people, fathers, mothers, and children do not "deserve" to be butchered by Black savages. You're a typical chickenshit Leftist...praising violence and bloodshed against the "oppressor" from a position of comfort, safety and luxury.

Also:
The Boers did not "steal" anything because the Blacks had not irrigated the land or created anything that could be "stolen".


Then they should leave.
Its their home. They have guts for standing up to violence and terror instead of giving in to these beasts.



Evidence, please.
Evidence of what? You don't believe that the French occupied Indochina?
What characterises South African racism is its universality - the fact that the entire state was premised on racist grounds. That is rather more than merely a colonial administration. It was very personally abusive, precisely because of the ideas that are propogated of the "lesser" and "inferior" and "barbaric" status of Africans.
Africans are inferior and barbaric, hence the creation of the Apartheid state. Jews, Indians, and Asians were well treated in the RSA because they are not barbarians who function on the level of wild animals. Black Africans, on the other hand, are total and complete savages...this is evinced by their penhant for murder, rape, cannibalism, and bestiality as well as their inability to create and sustain even the most basic governing structure. The Boers were just being sensible.


No, the criterion I raised was VIOLENCE, not colonialism as such, although the two are certainly related. The French have never, to my knowledge, advanced the kind of Chosen People dogma of the Voortrekkers, in which they were endowed with divine right to appropriate land and abuse these lesser beings, allegedly marked on their skins by colour for their ancestral sins.
Pure hyperbole (i.e. "Chosen people dogma)

And as I have pointed out, history consistently shows extreme brutality is the response to such systematic and endemic violent oppression, quite regardless of the ethnicity of the people involved.
History does not show that. The simian-like behavior of Sub-saharan Africans is categorically unique. India, Vietnam, Ireland, Mexico, did not descend into Stone Age savagery and complete social collapse after they were freed from the yoke of colonial domination.


But your are wrong to say that "violence against a hostile elite" is a political programme. As I said, the Jacquerrir had no demands, no desires, other than completely exterminating all nobles
"Exterminating all nobles" is a political directive.


Theirs was NOT a movement like the ultimate French Revolution, which also took bloody vengeance against the aristocracy, but in a more sophisticated manner, governed by a legal process, and aimed at specific political ends. The rising of the Jacqueries was purely motivated by revenge and hatred, and is an exact match for the situation in South Africa.
Once again, you are framing mass violence/social collapse as some sort of cry for social justice and just government. Its not...its just the expression of savage African instincts, freed from the constraints of a Government able to control them and punish them for such infractions.


But they have that disposition as a result of their experiences, and the violence that they have been subjected to. It is simply not a factor of their ethnicity.
Other people who have been subjected to identical conditions do not act in such ways. On every single continent in the world, Black Africans have proved themselves incapable of adapting to law and order, properly administering to matters of Government, and refraining from violent activity en masse. Slavery, colonial oppression, etc. are not circumstances that were unique to the Black experience. People on all continents have been subjugated and enslaved by their enemies and hostile out-groups, but they did not experience some sort of complete and total social collapse after being freed from such domination...in fact, the opposite occured in many cases. That is why places like Vietnam, Korea, and India became relatively well functioning nation-states after they were freed from foreign domination.



Like in Zimbabwe, and soon to be in South Africa, where the bulk of land is still in white hands.
Yeah, Mugabe is doing a great job with his land transfer program isn't he? That is really helping out the Blacks isn't it?


Well even if they did not - which I only allow because I have no examples to hand - this still does not mean your point is supportable; the fact that such revenge attacks have occurred anywhere, and especially becuase they have been conducted by Europeans, invalidates your claim that it is a special property of Africa or Africans.
Europeans do not engage in tribal warring with dull machetes and garden hoes, not do Europeans indulge in the sort of mass violence that has come to characterize life on the Dark Continent.


Wrong. The Irish republic is independant, Ireland as a whole is not.
Ireland is the Irish Republic. Ulster is part of the United Kingdom. It is part of the United Kingdom because a majority of people there want to remain part of the United Kingdom.


The level of violence has tailed off, but there is no denying British brutality throughout the occupation. Let us not forget, this is a state that knowingly concealed the events of Bloody Sunday, in which it fired on civilian demonstrators.
I think that the grand total of fatalities on Bloody Sunday by British rifle fire was something like 12 people. Not to minimize such an unfortunate event, but its been transformed into pure agitprop.
If the Catholic Irish want Ulster to become part of Ireland, they should try to convince the majority of Ulster that this is a good idea. As it stands, the majority of people in Ulster do not feel that they are under a "brutal occupation", and they wish to remain part of the United Kingdom.

The idea that the occupation of Ireland was conducted in a civlised manner is simply a myth.
I never suggested that the occupation of Ireland was civilised. In fact, I pointed out that the Brits forced the Irish to wallow under the heel of imperial domination for centuries, yet when Ireland became free of their imperial oppressors, somehow the Irish people managed to refrain from mass rape, murder, cannibalism, and savagery...activities which (according to you) are axiomatic consequences of imperial domination.


Whether you APPROVE of them is irrelevant. I do not "approve" of them either - I just do not demand the world conform to things I approve of. I take the world as it is.
You impliedly approve of conduct when you passionately attempt to attribute some sort of reasonable justification for that conduct. You people consistently portray Black savagery as political activism, the legacy of oppression, etc., etc.


Ah here we have the self-revaltory mix; the knee-jerk linkage of Marxism, secularism, and anti-racism, plus the spurious allegation of "rationalising" and "excusing".
Its not "knee jerk"...I just know my enemy, people like you are leigon. However, I DO take some comfort in the fact that if the Camp of the Saints is ultimately overrun by the teeming, filthy masses, they'll put you against the wall and kill you first...cowards and traitors are far more despicable than sworn enemies.

No Thomas, I do none of these things. I just do not hold people to an unrealistic standard, I do not expect saintly behaviour from people who have been systematically brutalised, and I deal with human behaviour, including violence, as I find it, not on the basis of a fantasical religious "morality"
You are an apologist who does not hold people accountable for their actions. You have also never experienced violence outside of TV and movies, so you feel safe in smugly musing over the causes of it, and feel no obligation to condemn it.


Did I say they were ineffective?
Yes.

No I didn't. And I'm well aware that SA has a very strong military tradition, not least becuase it spent some thirty years as a virtual armed camp with universal conscription of white males.
Backpedaling.


[QUOTE=humanist] I'm familiar with all of these. None of this alters the point that Mercenary forces will take anyone, and that many of their members are people who have motives other than merely making a living by arms.
Soldiery is a noble profession...I don't look down on mercs...their job is difficult and dangerous and it takes a special sort of man to be good at it.


Perhaps not EO, but ex-Nazi's were active in the Congo in the 60's and 70's. The point is that mercenary companies offering in Africa have been a haven for people with seriously fucked up ideas about race.
That is sort of an oversimplication of things, don't you think? A lot of skilled officers and enlisted men who fought for the Axis found themselves hounded after WWII by Allied authorities and they had no skills other than great knowledge of handling weapons in combat. I don't think that most of these men became mercs because of some ideological commitment, they did it because there was really no other place for them and/or they enjoyed being in combat.


I have a great deal of sympathy for soldiers, not least becuase of course almost every adult male I grew up near was an ex-soldier, given conscription. I myself refused to serve in the SA military and that is why I had to leave - being an atheist I was not permitted to claim consiencious objector status. But my friends all did, and they certainly have some interesting stories to tell, such as my mate who was a participant in the massacre at Boipatong.
Now you're telling me you're Boer? I don't believe you for a second...if you actually were Boer, that would have been the FIRST thing you said to lend cred to your argument. You're full of shit. Unbelievable.

[Jonathan]

live as veritable prisoners in their own homes, as roving bands of armed men arbitrarily terrorize people with rape, torture and murder.

Then they should leave.

That is some exhibition.

[humanist]

Before I deal with the rest of Thomas777's drivel,Now you're telling me you're Boer? I don't believe you for a second...if you actually were Boer, that would have been the FIRST thing you said to lend cred to your argument. You're full of shit. Unbelievable.
Wat bedoel jy, ek se ek was 'n Boer? Weet jy wat "boer" bedoel? Ek is nie a Boer, ek is a rooinek, ek het gese ek het in Kaapstad gewoon.

Dis klaar, jy weet niks van SA, jy het nooit daar gebly, jy is 'n grappennar.

[humanist]

No its not. The phenomenon of mass criminal violence cannot be reduced to "people misbehaving because of bad governments". That is a reductionist charicature of the cause of the phenomenon.
a) there is no "mass" criminal violence, as I have already poited out
b) you're resorting to simplistic Idealism. This is becuase you are religious, and a moralist. Fortunately, these ancient superstitions have been discredited and we can now deal with the real relationship between people and society.

It is not reductionist, it is causal.

No it isn't. Most populations that are subjugated by foreign occupiers do not indulge in mass criminal violence.
Once again your intellectual dishoinesty is publicly displayed - I have already pointed out the key element is VIOLENCE, not being foreign in and of itself.

You know I don't think I've debated with anyone less honest than you.

You are just jerking yourself off here. Let me know when you're finished.
Thomas777 can't even construct any form of rebuttal at all and runs up the white flag.

The Boers felt that if they did not insulate their own communities from the native Blacks that their communitites would denigrate into violent disorder. I think that the current situation in South Africa vindicates their position on the matter.
That is nonsense - that is absolutely contradictory with the historical record. The Trekkers did not implement Apartheid, that only occurred in 1950, under totally different circumstances. And their argument has NOT been vindicated, the argument that Apartheid was doomed to failure has been vindicated.

Perhaps the Black Africans should have labored to build their own successful societies on the Dark Continent.
Great, now you are resorting to racist anglicisms

Perhaps they would have been ABLE to had they not been dispossed of their lands and rendered into unfree labourers.

I do not think that the Boers are "whining".
Then you've never met a Boer.

South Africa is in the grip of anarchy and the Government is increasingly unable to enforce law and order. I do not think it is alarmist to take exception to such a situation.
Except this is still egregious fucking nonsense, Thomas. If SA is so anarchic, how come NONE of the poeple I know there say so? The "anarchy" to which you refer is simply not in evidence; it is simply alarmism.

So Boers are better off now that the violence, chaos, dysfunction and disease that characterises the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa has now infested their once secure communities? That is a curious analysis.
That is a complete non-sequitur in relation to the paragraph to which you replied. The BOERS may not be, because they were the primary beneficiaries of the state, but many whites are for the same reason: it is no longer a boer-only state.

And how on earth can you claim their "communities" were secure when SA fought a border war for 30 years? What was the conscription for, then?

What the National Party did was exclude AIDS infected Blacks from settling in Boer communities and spreading AIDS. That is a proper function of a government...to protect its people from harm, especially harm from hostile and/or dangerous outsiders.
Umm, blacks COULDN'T settle in white (not only Boer) communities becuase of the Group Areas Act of 1950.

You know I'm beginning to develop the suspicion you know nothing about SA at all.

Stop calling rape and murder "revenge"...it romanticizes it and frames it as somehow just.
Does it? Well, that may be in YOUR eyes, but not mine. I merely observe the cause and effect relationship and describe it accordingly.

Boer women do not "deserve" to be raped,
But English women do, huh?

What is this fetish of the Boers, alone? Do you actually have any knowledge of the demographic makeup of SA at all?

and old people, fathers, mothers, and children do not "deserve" to be butchered by savages.
And they didn't deserve to be butchered by the National Party state either!

You are a typical Leftist: praising violence and bloodshed against the "oppressor" from a position of comfort, safety and luxury.
And you're a typical right wing supremacist, ignoring atrocities by your favoured group and demonising anyone else.

The Boers did not "steal" anything because the Blacks had not irrigated the land or created anything that could be "stolen".
That is totally unsuportable. Why SHOULD grazing land be irrigated if it does not need it? Pastoralism was working fine - this is a completely nonsensical argument.

Its their home. They have guts for standing up to violence and terror instead of giving in to these beasts.
Clkearly wrong - noo apologist for the apartheid state can claim to stand up to violence and terror, you are an apologist for those very acts.

Evidence of what? You deny that the French occupied Indochina?
You claimed that the French occoupation was more relentlessly violant than South African apartheid. Prove it.

Africans are inferior and barbaric, hence the creation of the Apartheid state.
Explain District Six, then.

Jews, Indians and Asians were treated as HALF WHITE. Thats all there was to it.

Black Africans, on the other hand, are total and complete savages...this is evinced by their penhant for murder, rape, cannibalism, and bestiality as well as their inability to create and sustain even the most basic governing structure.
The Boers believed this about Africans BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE DUTCH REFORM CHURCH TOLD THEM WAS THE CASE.

This was evinced by their penchant for murder, rape, cannibalism, and bestiality as well as their inability to create and sustain even the most basic governing structure.
Cannibalism and bestiality? Is there ANY evidence for those?

And how is their violence and rape difference from Boer violence and rape? You still cannot explain why it is bad for one group to do and okay for another group to do.

And seeing as the Zulu's had a very effectice governing structure, that too is so much rubbish. You're literally sucking this all out of your thumb, aren't you?

Pure hyperbole (i.e. "Chosen people dogma").
What do you mean? Are you being dumb enough to deny the central doctrine of the NGK? Do you know ANYTHING about South Africa?

History does not show that. The simian-like behavior of Sub-saharan Africans is categorically unique. India, Vietnam, Ireland, Mexico, did not descend into Stone Age savagery and complete social collapse after they were freed from the yoke of colonial domination.
We have batted this point around enough I am not going to respond to it directly, but will point out that you use thus term"stone age savagery" despite knowing that they were bronze age. This demonstrates your dishonesty, becuase you are KNOWINGLY misrepresenting the facts.

"Exterminating all nobles" is a political directive.
Well then so is "kill the whites", and your argument that this is "anarchy" collapses, because now it is politics. sigh.... you're just playing word games, aren't you?

Once again, you are framing mass violence and social collapse as some sort of cry for social justice and just government. It is not... it is just the expression of savage instincts, freed from the constraints of a Government able to punish them for such infractions.
sheer historically ignorant racist slander.

Other people who have been subjected to identical conditions do not act in such ways.
You mean, except Europeans, whom I have demonstrated do just that.

And I am loathe to goive examples of other groups for fear of fuelling your racism.

On every single continent in the world, Africans have proved themselves incapable of adapting to law and order, properly administering to matters of Government, and refraining from violent activity en masse.
And Europreans, who have raped and slaved their way around the world?

Man your sense of perspective is severly fucked up.


Slavery, colonial oppression, and so forth, are not circumstances that were unique to the Black experience. People on all continents have been subjugated and enslaved by their enemies and hostile out-groups, but they did not experience some sort of complete and total social collapse after being freed from such domination.
But there IS no complete and total social collapse except in your imagination.

Europeans do not engage in tribal warring with dull machetes and garden hoes, nor do Europeans indulge in the sort of mass violence that has come to characterise life in South Africa.
See "Celts". Case closed.

Ireland is the Irish Republic.
Oh is it? Would you like to tell the Irish that? I'm sure they be keen to learn this fact.

I think that the grand total of fatalities on Bloody Sunday by British rifle fire was something like 12 people. Not to minimise such an unfortunate event, but it has been transformed into pure agitprop.
It was transformed into a movement becuase they a) lied about what happened and b) let the murderers off the hook. If they had not acted with such Imperial arrogance, it would have just beena nother tragedy. As it was, what it demonstrated was that the British state was able and willing to cover-up murders committed by its forces.

If the Catholic Irish want Ulster to become part of Ireland, they should try to convince the majority of Ulster that this is a good idea. As it stands, the majority of people in Ulster do not feel that they are under a "brutal occupation", and they wish to remain part of the United Kingdom.
Indeed, just the Catholics of Ulster.

You impliedly approve of conduct when you passionately attempt to attribute some sort of reasonable justification for that conduct. You people consistently portray African criminality as political activism, the legacy of oppression, etc., etc.
Becuase it is the legacy of oppression. That is the thing about facts - they are not dependent on what we like or approve of.

You are an apologist who does not hold people accountable for their actions.
Ha! You say that as an open apologist for the Apartheid regime! It is astounding hypocrisy.

You have also never experienced violence outside of television and the cinema; you feel safe in smugly musing over the causes of it, and feel no obligation to condemn it.
Well, there was that time a limpet mine was planted at the petrol station across the road from my highschool....

And then there was my friend Nigel who was killed in the Waterfront bombings...

Again, you exhibit a total lack of comprehension of the circumstances in South Africa.

Yes.
So now you are a proven liar, what I said was:

"Did I say they were ineffective? No I didn't. And I'm well aware that SA has a very strong military tradition, not least becuase it spent some thirty years as a virtual armed camp with universal conscription of white males."

Backpedaling.
Where?

Tell me, what distinguishes the R5 from the Galil?

Let us see exactly how much you know about the South African military.

Soldiery is a noble profession. I do not look down upon mercs. Their job is difficult and dangerous and it takes a special sort of man to be good at it.
Pfft. And here, you claim to deplore violence but laud professional killers. I see you have not a bone of honesty in your body.

[Thomas777]

Only clowns make up stories on internet forums ....

I'm done listening to storytime.

[humanist]

Wat bedoel jy, ek se ek was 'n Boer? Weet jy wat "boer" bedoel? Ek is nie a Boer, ek is a rooinek, ek het gese ek het in Kaapstad gewoon.

Dis klaar, jy weet niks van SA, jy het nooit daar gebly, jy is 'n grappennar.

[Anchorage Activist]

Far more White Americans are killed annually by blacks than South Africans

True, but the position of South African whites is far more dire.


From the 2006 World Almanac, page 833

South Africa Racial Percentages:

Black 75%
White 14%
Mixed 8%
Indian 3%

This means blacks alone outnumber whites slightly over 5 to 1, and non-whites combined outnumber whites 6 to 1.

[Thomas777]

Wat bedoel jy, ek se ek was 'n Boer? Weet jy wat "boer" bedoel? Ek is nie a Boer, ek is a rooinek, ek het gese ek het in Kaapstad gewoon.

Dis klaar, jy weet niks van SA, jy het nooit daar gebly, jy is 'n grappennar.

Вы будете дурачком.

The ability to post sentences in foreign tongues is not proof positive of your nationality.

You are not Boer anymore than I am Russian.

Please stop with storytime...its funny and pathetic, but its also embaressing to read in all honesty.

[Lionheart]

If you're going to conquer a nation you either conquer it or you don't. What you really don't want to do is conquer, feel bad about what you did, and start letting the conquered whoop your ass.