You have not addressed anything Athlone. All you have done is continue to discuss, in great detail, completely and utterly irrelevant points that make no sense and completely ignore the context of the time. You are clutching at straws and basing your entire argument all off the hypothetical.
Thats the whole point. Some of what you have said, along with the context in which you have said it, has me questioning your basic levels of intelligence now. You are basically saying that South Africa would not have had a problem with communism if it had a civil rights movement in, oh, I dunno, 1850? And because they did not take a modern day liberal stance in the mid 1850's, before it was common anywhere in the world let alone a frontier country, you have used that ridiculous position to continue to skirt around the dilemma I posed to you. No matter how utterly illogical your position is, you cling to it while you resort to shaming tactics to try and attack the validity of my views.
To say your position is weak would be an understatement.
Just like South Africans, you are in a corner. Unlike them, you dont have the balls to make a call. Even if basic human liberties were common place in the mid 1800's (they were not), it still does not change the fact that they only had two only two choices because of those mistakes. It was still either apartheid or communism, there is no hypothetical and there was no alternative. Those were their choices. You just refuse to make the choice because you know as well as I do that the alternative to apartheid was far worse. Yet the thought of having to admit that maybe the system was imposed not out of racism and bigotry alone is something you cannot stomach. You dont want to give up the white monster under your bed. Apartheid is to you what the burka is to a feminist.
You have now resorted to labelling me racist because I do not agree with you. You have resorted to shaming tactics in an attempt to attack my credibility and prop up your own weak, ignorant argument based on a completely faulty premise. You dont get to take the moral high ground by default here bro. Not this time. If anything, you owe me a fucking apology.
I dont apologise for Apartheid, I understand and accept the reasons for it. Just like I understand and accept the reasons for the USA dropping bombs on Japan. Again, this is a very simple concept that you have outright ignored Athlone. You dont need to like or agree with the outcome or process to understand why it happened.
Crime statistics and hate crimes in particular are well documented in South Africa. Over 270,000 people have died violently since 1990, a quarter of whites have fled, white farmers have been added to Genocide Watch as they are executed in their homes and the political party has passed racist laws that demand ownership and management of private companies determined by race.
You have sought to justify these racist atrocities, and this to me makes you a hypocrite and a racist. Your views are racist Athlone.
The violence of the last 20 years has made apartheid look like a honeymoon. I gave you official statistics from the South African government with regards to political deaths. The country is starting to collapse as violent crime, disease, infrastructure collapse, corruption and racist legislation has taken hold and every single statistical index will support that claim.
7000 political deaths in 50 years. In Mandelas first 6 years alone, he presided over the violent murders of 175,000 people.
The former offends you deeply, the latter is a by product and gets a shrug of your shoulders. You are clearly only a humanitarian under certain conditions.
Ironically, this supports my earlier claim. White on black racism receives heavy publicity. Black on white racism is often ignored, and when its not, its justified as being the result of previous white on black racism. Either which way, blacks will be painted as the victim even when they are the perpetrator. South Africa and our discussion proves that point quite well dont you think?
This thread has been derailed completely now. The only reason I participated in the first place is because I have a great deal of experience in Russia and wanted to share my views with regards to Russia. I try to be impartial when it comes to history and current affairs because the one thing travel has taught me is that issues are far more complex than most are willing to understand. At the same time, 99.9% of people are good people with good intentions, they are just often misguided. Nothing pisses me off more than hearing people slander and criticise entire groups of people or periods of history when they know little of it or wish to impose their values and belief systems on those people
The last thing I was looking for was a detailed discussion on race as a whole, no good ever comes from it. I made my views on Russia clear and maybe its of use, maybe its not. This is a great forum, but the obsession with race really does detract from the place a bit. Its not something Roosh can really control and nor should he have to, but it does get tired after a while.
Thats the whole point. Some of what you have said, along with the context in which you have said it, has me questioning your basic levels of intelligence now. You are basically saying that South Africa would not have had a problem with communism if it had a civil rights movement in, oh, I dunno, 1850? And because they did not take a modern day liberal stance in the mid 1850's, before it was common anywhere in the world let alone a frontier country, you have used that ridiculous position to continue to skirt around the dilemma I posed to you. No matter how utterly illogical your position is, you cling to it while you resort to shaming tactics to try and attack the validity of my views.
To say your position is weak would be an understatement.
Just like South Africans, you are in a corner. Unlike them, you dont have the balls to make a call. Even if basic human liberties were common place in the mid 1800's (they were not), it still does not change the fact that they only had two only two choices because of those mistakes. It was still either apartheid or communism, there is no hypothetical and there was no alternative. Those were their choices. You just refuse to make the choice because you know as well as I do that the alternative to apartheid was far worse. Yet the thought of having to admit that maybe the system was imposed not out of racism and bigotry alone is something you cannot stomach. You dont want to give up the white monster under your bed. Apartheid is to you what the burka is to a feminist.
You have now resorted to labelling me racist because I do not agree with you. You have resorted to shaming tactics in an attempt to attack my credibility and prop up your own weak, ignorant argument based on a completely faulty premise. You dont get to take the moral high ground by default here bro. Not this time. If anything, you owe me a fucking apology.
I dont apologise for Apartheid, I understand and accept the reasons for it. Just like I understand and accept the reasons for the USA dropping bombs on Japan. Again, this is a very simple concept that you have outright ignored Athlone. You dont need to like or agree with the outcome or process to understand why it happened.
Crime statistics and hate crimes in particular are well documented in South Africa. Over 270,000 people have died violently since 1990, a quarter of whites have fled, white farmers have been added to Genocide Watch as they are executed in their homes and the political party has passed racist laws that demand ownership and management of private companies determined by race.
You have sought to justify these racist atrocities, and this to me makes you a hypocrite and a racist. Your views are racist Athlone.
The violence of the last 20 years has made apartheid look like a honeymoon. I gave you official statistics from the South African government with regards to political deaths. The country is starting to collapse as violent crime, disease, infrastructure collapse, corruption and racist legislation has taken hold and every single statistical index will support that claim.
7000 political deaths in 50 years. In Mandelas first 6 years alone, he presided over the violent murders of 175,000 people.
The former offends you deeply, the latter is a by product and gets a shrug of your shoulders. You are clearly only a humanitarian under certain conditions.
Ironically, this supports my earlier claim. White on black racism receives heavy publicity. Black on white racism is often ignored, and when its not, its justified as being the result of previous white on black racism. Either which way, blacks will be painted as the victim even when they are the perpetrator. South Africa and our discussion proves that point quite well dont you think?
This thread has been derailed completely now. The only reason I participated in the first place is because I have a great deal of experience in Russia and wanted to share my views with regards to Russia. I try to be impartial when it comes to history and current affairs because the one thing travel has taught me is that issues are far more complex than most are willing to understand. At the same time, 99.9% of people are good people with good intentions, they are just often misguided. Nothing pisses me off more than hearing people slander and criticise entire groups of people or periods of history when they know little of it or wish to impose their values and belief systems on those people
The last thing I was looking for was a detailed discussion on race as a whole, no good ever comes from it. I made my views on Russia clear and maybe its of use, maybe its not. This is a great forum, but the obsession with race really does detract from the place a bit. Its not something Roosh can really control and nor should he have to, but it does get tired after a while.