Quote: (12-05-2013 08:15 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

South Africa is a glimpse into the future of many Western nations. It's irrelevant whether the people at the top doing the stealing are white or black. They could be purple and it wouldn't make a difference to the underlying problems. The point is that the middle class has been completely destroyed and/or fled, which only exacerbates the social, political and economic problems in a country. If you lose the middle class, you lose the country.

There are tons and tons of South Africans working as illegal kindergarten teachers in Taiwan for bad wages, under bad conditions. Many (but not all) live in what are essentially self-imposed ethnic ghettos and only interact with the locals under duress. They are some of the most miserable, bitter and confused people I have ever met and clearly neither belong here nor want to be here. Yet even being a disaffected, exploited diaspora with little to no chance or desire to integrate into the host culture is preferable to them than remaining in their home country.

What does that tell you about where they are from and how Mandela's legacy is working out?

This.
An unspoken legacy of Mandela's work is that there is a lost-people scattered around the globe.

Unlike most refugee populations, they are educated, affluent, intelligent and civilized- assets to their home nation, effectively forced out. The nearest precedent for this is the fleeing of European Jews in the 1930s.

The remainder of White South Africa has a choice; ghetto or max-security gated community.
That doesn't sound a lot like the 'freedom' that Mandela supposedly ushered in.

Quote: (12-05-2013 08:14 PM)Starke Wrote:  

Quote: (12-05-2013 07:48 PM)j r Wrote:  

I am curious. Why blame the people fighting for their freedom and not the people keeping them down to preserve their own wealth and power?

The most prominent members of the group 'fighting for their freedom' have merely used the figurative decapitation of white South Africa as a means of lining their own pockets.

The families of Zuma and his cohorts are now worth hundreds of billions of dollars.
For Africa, this kind of tribal nepotism isn't a surprise but until the 1990s, South Africa had somehow escaped it. That's not the case anymore.

Zuma is a scumbag. So what? This is like if someone said that Martin Luther King did remarkable things and then someone else replies with, "yeah, but Jessie Jackson is a scumbag."

It's possible to think two thoughts at once. It's possible to celebrate the life of a remarkable man who fought against an obviously unjust system without blaming him for not turning South Africa into some paradise.

Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but you seem to be implying that black South Africans should have just stayed quiet and accepted their third-class citizenship for the good of everyone else.

South Africa is like a real life rape dungeon. Check the stats.

Quote: (12-05-2013 08:52 PM)j r Wrote:  

Zuma is a scumbag. So what? This is like if someone said that Martin Luther King did remarkable things and then someone else replies with, "yeah, but Jessie Jackson is a scumbag."

It's possible to think two thoughts at once. It's possible to celebrate the life of a remarkable man who fought against an obviously unjust system without blaming him for not turning South Africa into some paradise.

Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but you seem to be implying that black South Africans should have just stayed quiet and accepted their third-class citizenship for the good of everyone else.

What I'm saying is that the corrupt tribal families who rule SA today are those who were behind the ANC curtain, while Mandela was the darling of the international media.

Mandela's life story may be Hollywood gold, but I judge leaders based on whether or not they have improved their country during their tenure.

By every conceivable metric, other than a subjective notion of 'freedom', South Africa is a far worse place to live today than it was 25 years ago.

Quote: (12-05-2013 08:52 PM)j r Wrote:  

Quote: (12-05-2013 08:14 PM)Starke Wrote:  

Quote: (12-05-2013 07:48 PM)j r Wrote:  

I am curious. Why blame the people fighting for their freedom and not the people keeping them down to preserve their own wealth and power?

The most prominent members of the group 'fighting for their freedom' have merely used the figurative decapitation of white South Africa as a means of lining their own pockets.

The families of Zuma and his cohorts are now worth hundreds of billions of dollars.
For Africa, this kind of tribal nepotism isn't a surprise but until the 1990s, South Africa had somehow escaped it. That's not the case anymore.

Zuma is a scumbag. So what? This is like if someone said that Martin Luther King did remarkable things and then someone else replies with, "yeah, but Jessie Jackson is a scumbag."

It's possible to think two thoughts at once. It's possible to celebrate the life of a remarkable man who fought against an obviously unjust system without blaming him for not turning South Africa into some paradise.

Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but you seem to be implying that black South Africans should have just stayed quiet and accepted their third-class citizenship for the good of everyone else.

My reading of it is that revolutions are generally doomed to failure. There may be a good, idealistic leader heading them, but true reform is almost always usurped by the power brokers waiting in the wings who are ready to take over after the rallying figure dies or steps down from power. Then the real fun, and the real "revolution" begins.

If we are talking about great men, then we do need to take their legacies into account. That is part of why we consider them great. We can't have it both ways and selectively consider their legacies.

I think these problems with many revolutionaries are partly to do with the people who idolise them (and why -- FFS, my cousin, who doesn't have a brain in her skull and probably couldn't find South Africa on a map, has posted an RIP to Mandela on her Facebook account), but I also think their flawed legacies are precisely because of themselves. One of the few successful (at least for a while) revolutions was the American Revolution. Why? Because ultimately, the Founding Fathers understood that it wasn't about them or their egos. The strength of their legacy was in creating a system that did not depend upon the cult of personality surrounding them, that would outlive them, because it went beyond them to address fundamental truths about how humans interact in groups, for better or worse.

I do blame Mandela for the likes of Mbeki and Zuma because if he'd been less concerned about his own ego, he would have ensured that such people would not have been his successors by creating a system that prevented such people from gaining power. That race relations have not improved, that poverty is still endemic, that crime is out of control surely act as counterpoints to Mandela's legacy. By his own terms he failed. As a founding father, you will be judged on the system you found. The rest is platitudes.

Again, maybe I'm wrong, but it sounds like you guys are saying, "eh apartheid, it wasn't that bad."

If you think that freedom is just some subjective meaningless thing, thats fine. I can't relate though. I place a pretty high value on freedom.

Quote: (12-05-2013 08:19 PM)Starke Wrote:  

Quote: (12-05-2013 07:34 PM)kosko Wrote:  

Debeers has been off-shore for 100 years+ and steals 98% of South Africa's diamond wealth.

Those wealthy SA folks you met (and I know also) weren't fuking with De-Beers type money. I am talking Billions and Trillions being stolen at wholesale levels.

How many nations on Earth have anything close to resembling equitable distribution of national resource income?
Maybe Norway, but not many more.

DeBeers isn't 'stealing' anything, it merely operates as a monopoly within a legal framework. This was so under Apartheid SA, it remains so today.

A diamond monopoly didn't cause the drastic spike in violent crime, the destruction of the business climate or the flight of 1 million of the most highly-educated citizens.

And I just want to ad if you put together a list of the 10 "fairest" countries you will probably have Roosh's top ten list of places not to go for women/travel.

Quote: (12-05-2013 09:34 PM)j r Wrote:  

Again, maybe I'm wrong, but it sounds like you guys are saying, "eh apartheid, it wasn't that bad."

If you think that freedom is just some subjective meaningless thing, thats fine. I can't relate though. I place a pretty high value on freedom.

You're creating a false dichotomy. Why not "bad" (Apartheid South Africa) and "bad" (modern South Africa)? Now people are free to deal with corruption, rampant crime and AIDS. They're free though.

I'm talking about Thomas Jefferson vs Simon Bolivar kind of stuff. Yeah, they both freed their people. How'd that work out on the ground (at least until the past few decades) in both places? How about in Singapore, which some might describe as a quasi-fascist state in some respects? I wouldn't be free to chew gum, but I guess I also wouldn't be free to get macheted either. I guess the proof of the pudding is in the eating. How many people who aren't from even bigger basket cases (e.g. Zimbabwe) do we see lining up to enter South Africa? How many do we see trying to leave?

Quote: (12-05-2013 09:34 PM)j r Wrote:  

Again, maybe I'm wrong, but it sounds like you guys are saying, "eh apartheid, it wasn't that bad."

If you think that freedom is just some subjective meaningless thing, thats fine. I can't relate though. I place a pretty high value on freedom.

Freedom in this case is subjective.
Blacks in South Africa have freedom in a nominal sense, but economically and politically speaking, 99% of them (basically anyone not related to the ruling families) have no true freedom at all.

Mandela brought 'freedom' to SA in the same way that Obama has delivered 'Hope & Change' to the US.
Both nice, personable, photogenic dudes, but essentially spokesmodels for interests far less palatable.

So you're blaming Mandela for what South Africa is today? Again, I can't relate.

Why not blame the aprtheid regime? If they had shared power from the beginning, then maybe both populations could have lived peacefully and prosperously.

This dude spent almost 30 years in prison. Then he became President and did everything he could to put in place a government that wasn't retaliatory against whites. I guess you could have done better, though.

Known communist. 1/10 WN-RIP.

Quote: (12-05-2013 09:19 PM)Starke Wrote:  

Quote: (12-05-2013 08:52 PM)j r Wrote:  

Zuma is a scumbag. So what? This is like if someone said that Martin Luther King did remarkable things and then someone else replies with, "yeah, but Jessie Jackson is a scumbag."

It's possible to think two thoughts at once. It's possible to celebrate the life of a remarkable man who fought against an obviously unjust system without blaming him for not turning South Africa into some paradise.

Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but you seem to be implying that black South Africans should have just stayed quiet and accepted their third-class citizenship for the good of everyone else.

What I'm saying is that the corrupt tribal families who rule SA today are those who were behind the ANC curtain, while Mandela was the darling of the international media.

Mandela's life story may be Hollywood gold, but I judge leaders based on whether or not they have improved their country during their tenure.

By every conceivable metric, other than a subjective notion of 'freedom', South Africa is a far worse place to live today than it was 25 years ago.

How so?

Your on some shit.



The shitty homelands they were forced to live in during Apartheid look no better then the Aboriginal reserves here in Canada.

This is another instance of armchair nation builder people are playing here.

$500 Billion+ a year in wealth and the Government and its people can't get a crack at it.

How do you run a country only 20 years old with no access or means to build and grow it?

Think about that for a second... How the hell do you build hospitals, roads, and schools for a nation of 50 million when it has the wealth of a nation of 150 million, but only access to the wealth of a nation of 7 million.

Tell me how this is all Mandela's fault? How would you of done things differently? People like to talk shit on Men running things, tell me how you would of done it all?

If I was in Mandela's shoes your dealt a devils hand but you negotiate a deal on something or gamble to get nothing?

If people don't think SA issues aren't about money and access to it they are delusional. SA whites never cracked more than 7 million in a nation of 45-50 million, you are slightly overstating their impact. They might as well lived in two different worlds, both sides did not cross much and the economies were completely separate. White Afrikaners lived on ranches or in gated communities totally in a bubble from the rest of SA. Back in the Apartheid days they only ran a closed circle for themselves, Old SA never ran a real nation, it was all hodge podge with both sides being pretty much self-reliant.

Mandela learned quickly that his job of reform and reconciliatory actions was different then marco-ecnomic polices and nation building. Dude was always the smartest in the room and jumped ship when that task was at hand. He would of destroyed his legacy staying on longer.

Zuma and the other ANC thugs took siege and never have tried to do anything to move ahead the nation. Its been a while since I read about the internal power plays of the ANC but its obvious Mandela was given the wrong intentions by the senior members.

You talk as if Mandela failed when his sole job was to reform the nation and create a legal inclusive South Africa, when he accomplished all that he was done, what more was he supposed to do?

SA whites god bless them, but when they are abroad living you can't take anything they say at face value. They are indoctrinated in class conciousness which has been mixed like oil and water with race. To them its all class, and class has two shades.

If you want a more candid picture of SA go sit down with a middle class or wealthy Black SA. They will give you a more honest and candid answer to the situation back home and will share the same issues that white SA talk about just minus the burning sting and tinges of racism in the mix.

Let people try and talk big and say what they would of done... A lot of bullshit in this thread.

@Starke & Fiesbook Control
How would you built South Africa if you were Mandela in 1993-1994?

This should be interesting....

Quote: (12-05-2013 10:05 PM)kosko Wrote:  

This is another instance of armchair nation builder people are playing here.

Quote: (12-05-2013 10:05 PM)kosko Wrote:  

How so?

Your on some shit.



$500 Billion+ a year in wealth and the Government and its people can't get a crack at it.

How do you run a country only 20 years old with no access or means to build and grow it?

Your argument boils down to 'bad rich white men took all the diamonds and won't let the poor blacks have any'.
Would you have preferred a socialistic nationalization of the diamond industry?

Few nations have equitable distribution of resource wealth, for the rest it's a case of it being run by oligarchy. Most countries accept this and seek to develop their wider economy beyond natural resource extraction in order to benefit the greater population.

SA hasn't done this, it has chosen to point the finger at the ghosts of Apartheid while the successors to the Mandela legacy pocket billions of dollars through tribal nepotism and endemic corruption.
Mandela has made South Africa resemble the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa, that's nothing to be proud of.

All I know about Nelson Mandela is that he went to jail for a while. That's literally all I know.

Mandela prevented a damn near civil war in SA after apartheid ended. Only those who were there at the time can really appreciate how close the country came to the brink of complete anarchy. There were assassinations on many prominent leaders and many of the black people in SA, after years of brutal and incomprehensible oppression, were ready for their revenge. Just the fact that massive amounts of whites left the country at that moment tells you how unjust apartheid was to begin with.

Keep in mind the black population in SA alone was 85% of the country during apartheid, and they were at the bottom of the totem pole socially and economically, completely marginalized. Who cares if whites had it good during that time when the indigenous people who make up the overwhelming majority of the population lacked an iota of freedom? That's an utterly foolish argument.

The fact that Mandela stressed reconciliation and peace, in spite of what his tormentors did to him, is the reason he's an international icon of humanity. He also had to engineer major structural changes to the legal system as it went through a precarious transition to a post-apartheid society (and he succeeded, no doubt in part to his skills as a lawyer and politician) . In fact, laws needed to be changed just for him to be allowed to run for President.

Forget about inequality, the majority of South Africans lacked basic human rights during apartheid while having the natural resources of their land looted by an unelected white minority regime. It was only under those unacceptable conditions that the country was ever able to "prosper" in the first place.

From another thread:

Quote: (12-05-2013 05:41 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

I think this is proof that every thread, no matter how seemingly unrelated or innocuous, will eventually devolve into a race thread.

Quote: (12-05-2013 10:45 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

From another thread:

Quote: (12-05-2013 05:41 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

I think this is proof that every thread, no matter how seemingly unrelated or innocuous, will eventually devolve into a race thread.

To be fair, a thread on Mandela without mentioning the subject of race would be akin to starting a Game thread with the line "Aside from girls,..."

What's being ignored here is the legacy of colonialism itself. Wherever Europeans conquered you have this same schism to varying degrees. The most successful of those colonies are the ones that had very few indigenous peoples to begin with (Australia) and those where the native peoples were extinguished (United States). In either case the the dominant culture was able to maintain harmony within the structure of racial civil integration.

Now look at colonies where the native peoples and imported slaves are the maintained their majority: South America, Central America, Sub Saharan Africa. You have a few solid states (Chile), some troubled but mostly functional states, (Mexico, India) and utter chaos (South Africa, Venezuela, etc).

The problem is the Europeans did not see non-Europeans as human beings. They did not see it as wise to educate the native peoples of these countries and chose instead to subjugate them. Had they actually wanted to "civilize" them through education and social integration you would find a much different result today.

Quote: (12-05-2013 10:45 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

From another thread:

Quote: (12-05-2013 05:41 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

I think this is proof that every thread, no matter how seemingly unrelated or innocuous, will eventually devolve into a race thread.

I think any discussion of Mandela would be necessarily about race, he was a civil rights leader after all. MLK, Lincoln, etc same.

My apologies for making this my first post.

Your painting colonialism with one big brush, welcome to the forum though.

How Britain, France, the Dutch, Italians, etc all operated was different and history romatises it al lfrom the Euro perceptive.

France some what attempted to build a harmonized "Greater France" in which its colonies would be pretty much the same as France in regards to costumes, language, and everything else. Politics and morals aside it was a better idea then the nickel and dime approach the Brits used. It was too costly to run and the French abandoned this policy though aside from its now absorbed Metropolitan islands scattered around the world.

The UK on the other hand systemically chose the most volatile places as close to water and transport and purposely but together groups that did not work together. India and Nigeria are probably the best examples of this. This made it cheap for them to run colonies as all they needed was admin people to pay off the locals they had on staff to get what they needed done.

Quote: (12-05-2013 11:12 PM)kosko Wrote:  

Your painting colonialism with one big brush, welcome to the forum though.

How Britain, France, the Dutch, Italians, etc all operated was different and history romatises it al lfrom the Euro perceptive.

France some what attempted to build a harmonized "Greater France" in which its colonies would be pretty much the same as France in regards to costumes, language, and everything else. Politics and morals aside it was a better idea then the nickel and dime approach the Brits used. It was too costly to run and the French abandoned this policy though aside from its now absorbed Metropolitan islands scattered around the world.

The UK on the other hand systemically chose the most volatile places as close to water and transport and purposely but together groups that did not work together. India and Nigeria are probably the best examples of this. This made it cheap for them to run colonies as all they needed was admin people to pay off the locals they had on staff to get what they needed done.

True. And it should be said that France had a much more humanizing approach to Africans in general than did most of the rest of Europe. Thomas-Alexandre Dumas is a great example of this. He simply could not have existed in the British empire of his era.

So I agree, there are exceptions, but as a general rule I believe my point still stands.

I'm very impressed by the intelligent dialogue here and glad to see not everyone is a sheep who has bought into the fairy tale that Mandela is some combination of hero/holy man and one of the greatest leaders who's ever lived. A bit of research and outside the box thinking will reveal plenty of details about him, that you will not hear on the MSM, as their unconditional worship continues.

Mandela is the perfect WorldGov multicult Rainbow icon, and his record will only be polished and perfected over time. Worldgov loves multiculturalism because multiculturalism and sovereignty are antithetical. Among a squabbling mass of ethnicities no grand purpose can be agreed upon let alone advanced to threaten Worldgov. It's just a constant race to the bottom to placate the latest deprived minority as Worldgov churns you into dust. It's no way for men to live.

I would imagine there are many blacks in South Africa who don't like what they see now or coming down the pike. But those aren't the blacks you're going to see lionized in the media. You're not supposed to think that way, after all.

We must Mandelize the world.

This thread is just getting fucking bizarre.

every day people die ...great folks, we just do not know
turn off your TV
PS: N.M. nice guy