[Lika]

(10-31-2011 05:32 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

It's funny that you have people thinking that the Western media(which is entirely owned by whites) is biased against white people.

LOL

as white as the Jewish guy on the left of Mandela, I guess:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcOXqFQw2hc

[Lika]

(11-03-2011 06:32 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

That is hilarious, because we all know that they're exaggerating that whole racism thing down there. Apartheid wasn't that bad, really!

[/sarcasm]

Black man says: bring back apartheid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4f0INWfw...re=related

[Hooligan Harry]

Quote:

Prove it. I'd like some substantiation (academic or otherwise) for this one. Apartheid was an act of cultural genocide which, as I've already shown earlier, is not looked upon favorably in any academic or legal circles.

This right here sums up your entire position. This really is pointless now. You are completely ignoring basic facts and trying to pass them off as matters of conjecture only. It has gone beyond ridiculous with your constant hypothetical solutions presented completely out of context. I could ask you to look at a democratic South Africa currently and tell me how its faring for an indication of the way things would have gone, but I dont feel its the best example. Simply because in 1950 it never had the skills, infrastructure, economic power and world at its feet like it did in 1990. That head start was not handed over on a platter in 1950, but Im sure you are convinced it would have all been much better non the less.

You demand I prove and substantiate claims that communism in South Africa would have failed, yet you cannot prove either that it would have worked can you? You prefer to operate in the realms of "what if" and base your views not on what we know to be patently true, but what you believe was a possibility. How you can ask for a logical, rational discussion when you resort to this constantly is beyond me. How can you demand I substantiate something like that when you cant even substantiate the alternatives you are convinced where viable? If anyone should be making ridiculous demands like that, it should be me.

I personally do not give a continental fuck about what is accepted in academic circles. The vast majority in academic circles prepose the endless benefits of feminism too, but I dont see you batting for woman under their blessing.

In summary:

1. You believe that South Africa would have been better off as a communist state than have to suffer Apartheid. After all, it was their country in your view and they should have the right to dictate the direction the country took, particularly as they were the majority. This despite the fact that SA was the worlds largest gold producer AND communism would have led to a humanitarian crisis that made Apartheid look like a Sunday picnic. Better to be free and starving to death. If this is something you believe, we have no need to go any further whatsoever. I take marxists as seriously as I do 6 year old children discussing the merits of ice-cream.

2. The fact that whites were decimated through genocide and war removing any possibility of an equitable, contested political landscape does not feature in your mind. The fact that if not for that genocide and war whites would have been closer to 50% of the population at the time is irrelevant to you.

3. White genocide and conscription into war means fuck all to you. Who cares right? A quarter of the population being wiped out in a genocidal war pales into insignificance when 7000 people black people died as a result of political violence over a 40 year period. This is your balanced, impartial point of view, shared by so many academics. The only people who suffered persecution in your mind were black South Africans. They are the only victims here.

4. The only reason why white farmers are on genocide watch, why legislated economic and social racism is considered justified, why almost 100 000 whites leave every year and violent hate crimes are happening is because of previous racism under Apartheid and the British. So the only reason for the black racism is the white racism that came before it, therefore its to be expected and no one should be surprised or alarmed by the disgusting levels of barbarity currently under way.

5. The fact that over 270 000 people have died violently and over 500 000 women have reported being raped since Apartheid came to an end is legitimate proof that South Africa would have been better had it gone democratic in the 50's.

6. When Africans suffer discrimination, reparations and over the top violence are in order to alleviate all previous suffering. When whites suffer persecution and genocide, they need to accept it and not act against any further threats to their safety or well being. After all, if they can be exterminated like rats in a camp, they cant have much value. And they need to mindful of what may be possible too, they should not be too hasty. After all they need to make sure that the people in academic circles approve of their actions in 70 years time.

7. As for your disgusting comment about black South Africans having more right to South Africa because they were there a little longer? Whites were second in the USA like sub saharan Africans were second in Southern Africa. I guess by your standards, those right wing nutters who believe you should all be shipped back to Africa have a point then too? Or does this double standard not suit you? Is it racist for them to say that, but ok for you to say what you said? Of course it is, you declared yourself anti racist.

Athlone, your contributions elsewhere I have no problem with. I think you are generally an intelligent guy and one of the better posters here. This is something we are probably going to have to agree to disagree on. At the same time, I would appreciate going forward you be a little more circumspect before you resort to shaming tactics like you did. I cannot accept accusations of racism when my views really are impartial and someone decides to label me simply for disagreeing with them . I only made this personal because you decided to get personal first.

If you want to respond to this Ill read what you have to say out of courtesy, but Im going to do my best to avoid this thread and this subject going forward. It really is not the forum for it.

[Excelsior]

(11-06-2011 06:16 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

You demand I prove and substantiate claims that communism in South Africa would have failed, yet you cannot prove either that it would have worked can you?

I am going to deal with this particular argument later.

Quote:

You prefer to operate in the realms of "what if" and base your views not on what we know to be patently true, but what you believe was a possibility. How you can ask for a logical, rational discussion when you resort to this constantly is beyond me. How can you demand I substantiate something like that when you cant even substantiate the alternatives you are convinced where viable?

I'm sorry, but what exactly is it here that we know to be patently true that I am supposed to be basing my views on? That there were no viable alternatives to apartheid and that said system of institutional racism had no primarily racist aims?
You have not established this as a fact at all, which is why I am not basing any of my argument on it.

Quote:

In summary:

1. You believe that South Africa would have been better off as a communist state than have to suffer Apartheid.

Quoting myself:

(11-06-2011 04:32 AM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

There is no evidence that Smuts supported the provision of equal political rights to blacks at that point in time, so your scenario was not in play. Blacks would have received many other fundamental rights that would have bettered their condition significantly, but the full vote is not one of them. Your genocidal communist nightmare would still not have come about.

A gradual transition could have been accomplished without instant communism (a scenario that only would have come about if Smuts had advocated for the immediate provision of equal political rights, which he did not). To do it, however, you would have had to have shown blacks the full benefits of capitalism (as Smuts proposed, allowing them to live in nicer areas and become a proper consumer base over time with more in the way of human rights). Apartheid leaders were unwilling to do this, because the vast majority of them (not the least of which was Verwoerd) shared a fundamental belief in black animalism and inferiority. Living next to them and sharing wealth was not an option.

^That would have been a far better alternative to apartheid, and I have seen no evidence of its lack of viability even by your own standards as it did not require the complete and immediate provision of political rights to non-whites (which you have constantly insisted in this thread would have been the gateway to communism). At the same time, the provision of other fundamental rights would have put the black-white relationship in a much better position (whites would not have been the only ones to see the benefits of capitalism), making a full political transition more practical in a shorter time down the line.

As for the merits of self-determination, quoting myself again:

(11-06-2011 04:32 AM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

Prove it. I'd like some substantiation (academic or otherwise) for this one. Apartheid was an act of cultural genocide which, as I've already shown earlier, is not looked upon favorably in any academic or legal circles.
Show me conclusively that self-determination would have been substantively worse.

I did ask you to present substantiation for your claim regarding the demerits of self-determination (which, as I established above, was not the only alternative to apartheid in either case).

Nowhere in that statement above did I claim that self determination would have necessarily been superior, or attempt to present any evidence to that end. I assigned no morality or amorality to that outcome. It could have been equally bad, for all I know. I simply requested that you substantiate your claim to the contrary, and prove that apartheid was better in spite of its status as an act of cultural genocide (which, again, is not considered a lesser kin to any other type of genocide).

This should be easy for you to do if the answer is as obvious as you say.

Quote:

I personally do not give a continental fuck about what is accepted in academic circles. The vast majority in academic circles prepose the endless benefits of feminism too, but I dont see you batting for woman under their blessing.

That's a convenient cop-out.

"I will not substantiate my claims, this is what feminists do!"
As if academia is some monolithic block.

So what, I should just trust you?

When I bring about broad, macro claims about the merits/demerits of a given concept (ex: cultural genocide earlier in this thread and its relation to institutional racism/physical genocide), I attempt to substantiate it. Don't try to slander me for holding you to the same standard.

Quote:

After all, it was their country in your view and they should have the right to dictate the direction the country took, particularly as they were the majority. This despite the fact that SA was the worlds largest gold producer AND communism would have led to a humanitarian crisis that made Apartheid look like a Sunday picnic. Better to be free and starving to death. If this is something you believe, we have no need to go any further whatsoever. I take marxists as seriously as I do 6 year old children discussing the merits of ice-cream.

Lovely.

What I actually said:

(11-06-2011 04:32 AM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

Now, it appears as though we've gotten to the meat of the matter.

I think the interesting question here is this: how come blacks, being a majority, don't get a chance to determine their own future in their own land (which, as we've discussed, belonged as much if not more so to them than any European)?

Why the implicit assumption that only whites had the right to decide what was really right for South Africa politically (even if it meant Apartheid for blacks or the rise of other legislation at black expense)? You say "blacks were the majority" as if it were a mere mitigating factor/frustration, and as if that fact entitled them to no agency of their own in determining South Africa's direction.

Don't you think that perhaps, as residents of the South African nation (in fact, as 80% of the South African nation), they should have gotten a say in their own future? Even if it was a say whites(or yourself) did not agree with, their opinion wouldn't matter less, would it? Why not count it?

^What you will notice in the above statement is the conspicuous absence of any ringing endrsement of communism/marxism. HH has decided to claim the presence of one anyway, creating a red herring/strawman in the process.

His conjecture not withstanding, I did not say that communism was a good or bad thing. That is not why I wrote what I wrote above. The morality of the concept is irrelevant to me.

What I simply want to know is this: why is it that only whites got to receive a say in the direction South Africa would take in the future? Why is it that a few white opinions counted more than the far more numerous black ones?
I have assigned no positive or negative endorsement for the potential outcome of the black opinion (which you insist is Marxism)-that is irrelevant to the question at hand, no matter how much you pontificate to the contrary.

What is relevant is an answer from you telling us why black opinions regarding the direction of the country counted less than white ones.

This is all I want to know, Harry. Why don't blacks get a say as to whether or not they should endure 50-60 years of systematic racialist oppression(apartheid)? Why is it that only whites get to make that choice for them?

Just answer the question and we can wrap this up.

Quote:

7. As for your disgusting comment about black South Africans having more right to South Africa because they were there a little longer?

I pointed out the length of black existence in SA as evidence of why they perhaps should have been heard a little, not as some underhanded attempt to justify shipping Afrikaners back to Europe. The point was to show that their claims to the land were no less legitimate than those of their white peers, who were heard.

Why weren't blacks heard too, Harry? This is all I want to know.

[All or Nothing]

(11-06-2011 04:32 AM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

Why weren't blacks heard too, Harry? This is all I want to know.

I think this is a question relative to human nature over facts.

Admittedly I'm not well educated on Apartheid, but it does seem to be that they did have an obvious choice. They had to choose between either: fast progress or continued poverty. Rapid progress usually includes mass suffering among the poor uneducated masses. It seems that the educated class chose progress over poverty. This means that the masses get denied rights and face suffering. This is pure conjecture, but I think that's why the black masses were denied their rights. They were denied their rights in the name of MONEY, POWER, and a place among the wealthiest and most advanced nations in the world.

This is what happened in Russia when 22 million Russians died for the same sake.
The same for China, when 29 million died under Mao Zedong.

When rapid progress is being made, the uneducated masses usually face suffering and death.

This is my guess. I'm no history major.

Edit: Also, you can see this is supported by what Harry said regarding the history. Blacks were given rights, after progress was made.

[Excelsior]

(11-06-2011 06:09 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

I think this is a question relative to human nature over facts.

Admittedly I'm not well educated on Apartheid, but it does seem to be that they did have an obvious choice. They had to choose between either: fast progress or continued poverty. Rapid progress usually includes mass suffering among the poor uneducated masses. It seems that the educated class chose progress over poverty. This means that the masses get denied rights and face suffering. This is pure conjecture, but I think that's why the black masses were denied their rights. They were denied their rights in the name of MONEY, POWER, and a place among the wealthiest and most advanced nations in the world.

But what gave their opinion more weight than the non-white majority? What made their say more valuable?
Non-whites were a vast majority in the land with as much claim to SA as whites had(arguably more if you're going to use the who-got-there-first argument), yet only whites got to decide what direction the nation would take.

Why is that?

We can keep going on and on about the supposed incentives of making the decision they did (which, as I said in the last post, probably was not the best or necessarily most practical one when it came to preventing the spread of communism), but what exactly gave them the right over everyone else to make it?

Quote:

Edit: Also, you can see this is supported by what Harry said regarding the history. Blacks were given rights, after progress was made.

Sure, but why do only whites get to decide when everyone else gets to be treated like a proper human being/citizen?

[All or Nothing]

(11-06-2011 08:29 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

But what gave their opinion more weight than the non-white majority? What made their say more valuable?

They had power, the blacks did not. The strong shall rule over the weak. It is the way of human nature. Look throughout history and even modern society, it is this way and will always be this way. A result of evolution and evolution does not care about what is "right", it only cares about the winners.

Interestingly enough, my political science class has recently gone over something that parallels this, Federalist Paper #10 (here's a link to the paper: http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm, it's an interesting read).

Here's a couple quotes from it that describes quite well what happened in South Africa:
"By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."

"As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests."

"A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good."

The whites formed a faction whose common interest was money and power. With this, they went after their goals at the expense of the black majority.

Again, I don't know the history of South Africa beyond what I read here. I will admit that you are smarter than me (at least in terms of debate and history), but I do think that you hold a lot of ideals that coincide with reality.

I'll be straight up and say this, since I have been thinking about this recently. Whites and blacks will always be separated because on some deep subconscious level our minds realize that we are different, separate from each other. Christians, Muslims, atheists, Jews and other groups of people that subscribe to various religions will always be separated on some deep inner level. The wealthy and the poor will always be separated.

The ties that bind us, are also the ones that separate us.

This is why I believe the whites did what they did to the blacks for the sake of progress. They were so different from the blacks that the well being of the blacks held less importance than their own self-interests.

[Excelsior]

(11-06-2011 09:28 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

The whites formed a faction whose common interest was money and power. With this, they went after their goals at the expense of the black majority.

This is why I believe the whites did what they did to the blacks for the sake of progress. They were so different from the blacks that the well being of the blacks held less importance than their own self-interests.

I could see the plausibility of this explanation.

There were ways to avoid communism without apartheid, which was an extreme form of segregation. Smuts proposed one, and in 1948 even a majority of the white populace supported it (despite the defeat of Smuts' party). To claim that there was absolutely no alternative in between the full provision of political rights/transfer of power and total apartheid is flat out inaccurate and small-minded, which is why I've been in here arguing about it. Only an apartheid sympathizer would go to such lengths.

Apartheid was chosen due to a combination of it's ability to provide whites with tremendous wealth (enough to enrich the previously marginalized Afrikaners and guarantee them some measure of socio-economic success previously only reserved for the British, thanks to locking 80% of the populace out), power, and to satisfy some blatantly racist ideologies (often articulated by apartheid's architect, Hendrik Verwoerd).

From the point of view regarding white preservation, you're right-it was expedient for that aim.
But this all goes back to what I began this debate with earlier in this thread, post #32.

When you create, maintain and defend exploitative systems of that magnitude, you invite tremendously negative consequences for everyone involved down the line. The shit will always hit the fan with them, regardless of how expedient it may have been early on for a given group.

At the end of the day, perhaps cultural differences were enough to convince many whites not to care about the consequences blacks would face or their well-being. The problem with that is that blacks are human, and they do care about those consequences. By creating and maintaining a system like that for whatever reason, you guarantee a very significant backlash later on.

You simply cannot reasonably expect a group to endure an act of intentional cultural genocide/systematic oppression quietly and with no malice. No human group will tolerate it for very long, no matter how many rationalizations are offered. If you are going to attempt to justify that act, then you'll need to justify its consequences as well-they are not separable and will inevitably follow.

Quote:

Whites and blacks will always be separated because on some deep subconscious level our minds realize that we are different, separate from each other.

Even if that is the case (there's no guarantee of that), I do not think that it would need to result in the situations we saw in South Africa or the USA. It is possible for blacks and whites to get along. I firmly believe that.

For that to happen, though, each side needs to respect the other's humanity. When it came to blacks, this respect was completely lacking among many whites (particularly Afrikaners) in South Africa during the middle of the 20th century.
All bets are off when that is the case.

Every human group is entitled to the enjoyment fundamental human rights, regardless of their race. Deny them at your own peril.

I am sorry for what Afrikaners dealt with during the late 19th/early 20th centuries, but to be frank that experience (having their own humanity denied so violently) only makes their later vehement denial of non-white South African humanity all the more egregious and, frankly, less understandable and forgivable.

[Lika]

(11-06-2011 11:10 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

When it came to blacks, this respect was completely lacking among many whites (particularly Afrikaners) in South Africa during the middle of the 20th century.

In an ideal world, everything you say is true...

In reality its' Bullshit.

Whites arrived before blacks (Bantu) in South Africa (inhabitated originally by Khoisan or Bushmen)

In Apartheid South Africa, to give political power to the Blacks meant the start of the exode and genocide of the white people. And that's what has been happening since then.

Political separation was the only way to ensure the existence of white people in South Africa. Period.

The white people who stopped apartheid were traitors and did not respect their race.

South Africa is now quickly regressing to the average development level of the rest of Africa (Human Development Index progressive regression):

   

http://dessins.de.konk.free.fr/enafrique...frique.jpg

Mandela sings to kill whites:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKiePbTcAfY

White genocide and flight:
http://www.economist.com/node/12295535

[Excelsior]

(11-08-2011 10:22 AM)Lika Wrote:  

In an ideal world, everything you say is true...

In reality its' Bullshit.

Sure, bro.

Quote:

Whites arrived before blacks (Bantu) in South Africa (inhabitated originally by Khoisan or Bushmen)

This is not true. Archaeological evidence already puts Bantu arrival in South Africa as early as 100 AD. Don't know if you're good with dates, but that came before 1652.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not even going to bother. Its been done to death in here anyhow.

Quote:

The white people who stopped apartheid were traitors and did not respect their race.

^Seriously, not even worth it.

It is sad that an otherwise meritorious movement (the manosphere) has to be infected with so many outright anti-semites and other racists.
Dunno how Roosh feels about this, but hopefully the trend gets no worse.

[Lika]

(11-08-2011 12:59 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

This is not true. Archaeological evidence already puts Bantu arrival in South Africa as early as 100 AD

Where the whites settled in South Africa, blacks were not there (they were further North).

There was no living Bantu culture there.

Just like there was no living white culture in America when the whites arrived. The native (Indian) Americans were there and therefore they have rights over American land. Not the whites nor the blacks.

Even though archeological evidence that whites were in North America before Indian Americans was found:
http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedrich...nnewic.htm

(11-06-2011 11:10 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

intentional cultural genocide

You are so much worried about the apartheid "black culture" genocide (in SA wtf?) but not at all about the real one taking place right now...

You call me a racist (help uncle Roosh...), I call you a bigger one.

[Excelsior]

(11-08-2011 03:19 PM)Lika Wrote:  

Where the whites settled in South Africa, blacks were not there (they were further North).

There was no living Bantu culture there.

There were Bantus in the Cape during the early 17th century. In fact, early Portuguese sailors are said to have spotted them on their rounding of the Cape during the 15th century, though the KhoiSan were certainly predominant.

Not that this would matter much, anyway. Even if you were to make the claim that the presence of trace Bantu populations in the modern day Western Cape is not enough to claim nativity/early residence, there is not much doubting their precedence in every other province in South Africa (everything North and East-Xhosa were well established in the Eastern Cape prior to Trekboer arrival, Hlubi were all over Natal and parts of the Northwest Cape, Tswanas all over the Free State and other Nguni had long established themselves everywhere else) relative to Whites.

You still will not be able to justify the imposition of apartheid and the right to greater white authority over the land (save for the Western Cape, and even that is tenuous) by trying to claim residential precedence. Whites only come close to having that in one modern day province.

Quote:

You are so much worried about the apartheid "black culture" genocide (in SA wtf?) but not at all about the real one taking place right now...

As long as people like you continue to justify (for whatever reason), defend, promote, and/or simply fail to properly acknowledge the historical inequities at the root of the current conflict and, in doing so, deny the humanity of those who dealt with said inequities, its continuance will be ensured, no matter how much you or myself try to talk about it.

You must respect the humanity of others before they respect yours. The only chance current victims will have to end this current cycle of violence is to make clear to the perpetrators their understanding of this historical inequity and their respect for their humanity, which was lacking for most of the 20th century. Then, and only then will there be a chance for peaceful coexistence and an eventual end to things like Black Economic Empowerment (BEE), resulting in a complete breaking of the "cycle".

One more time: until the above actions are accomplished, there will be no hope of ending current tensions, no matter how much we talk about them.

Your failure to do this is creating your own burden. Such behavior from a people so familiar with the consequences of the disrespect of their own humanity (hearkening back to the Boer War/Genocide) hardly elicits much sympathy.

Quote:

You call me a racist (help uncle Roosh...), I call you a bigger one.

If that makes you feel better, then go for it. I do not have anything to prove to you.

[Gariell]

Speakeasy the media is biased against non-jews, as most of the media is owned by the Jews (who look white).

[Deluge]

Quote:

Whites arrived before blacks (Bantu) in South Africa (inhabitated originally by Khoisan or Bushmen)

In Apartheid South Africa, to give political power to the Blacks meant the start of the exode and genocide of the white people. And that's what has been happening since then.

Political separation was the only way to ensure the existence of white people in South Africa. Period.

The white people who stopped apartheid were traitors and did not respect their race.

Quote:

Where the whites settled in South Africa, blacks were not there (they were further North).

There was no living Bantu culture there.

Just like there was no living white culture in America when the whites arrived. The native (Indian) Americans were there and therefore they have rights over American land. Not the whites nor the blacks.

Even though archeological evidence that whites were in North America before Indian Americans was found:
http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedrich...nnewic.htm

Quote:

Speakeasy the media is biased against non-jews, as most of the media is owned by the Jews (who look white).

The amount of highly uneducated and utterly dumb assertions on this forum and the blog's comments are getting out of hand.

Athlone, I admire your persistence in fighting against this, but these people do not listen to reason and will keep clinging onto their own prejudices no matter what. There's no point in arguing with them.

Edit: To dispel some myths about white flight from South Africa from Lika's own link about white genocide:

"last year, 42% of Coloured (mixed-race) South Africans, 38% of blacks and 30% of those of Indian descent were thinking of leaving, compared with 41% of whites."
Everyone badly wants to get out of South Africa, not just the whites.

"Violent crime is undoubtedly the biggest single driver of emigration, the one factor cited by all races and across all professions when people are asked why they want to go."
Every group in South Africa is affected by violent crime such as assault, murder & rape.

One of my current teachers here in Australia is a White South African. In his opinion, the whites who are screaming genocide (mainly Boers in the East of the country) are the same ones who 20 years ago did not want Apartheid to end. Full disclosure: He's of British origin, not Afrikaner.

[Hooligan Harry]

Did you read the thread?

Quote:

The independent watchdog organization Genocide Watch recently upgraded the genocide warning for the white population in South Africa from a level five to a level six.

Date: Aug 2011

Its not the Boers in the east who never wanted Apartheid to end that are complaining of genocide, a UN watchdog is getting stuck in and its a real problem. ITS REAL. 15% murdered already. Dont you think its ironic that a guy who fled the violence then condemns those who are stuck there? Votes for an end to apartheid, shit hits the fan, runs away and then says the ones stuck there should not be complaining about the violence.

Please continue to take this fucking idiot seriously

[Lika]

(11-08-2011 08:13 PM)Gariell Wrote:  

Speakeasy the media is biased against non-jews, as most of the media is owned by the Jews (who look white).

Come on Gariell, don't say Western media and Hollywood are owned by jews, they will call you an anti-semite, no matter how true it is...

[Lika]

(11-08-2011 10:44 PM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

Dont you think its ironic that a guy who fled the violence then condemns those who are stuck there? Votes for an end to apartheid, shit hits the fan, runs away and then says the ones stuck there should not be complaining about the violence.

Please continue to take this fucking idiot seriously

I knew a white moron like that. He went to South Africa to fight Apartheid, lived there, married a black woman and had children. Nowadays he still gives big lessons on equality and democracy and respect but he lives in Europe with his whole family.

I wonder why...

[Lika]

(11-08-2011 04:52 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

You must respect the humanity of others before they respect yours. The only chance current victims will have to end this current cycle of violence is to make clear to the perpetrators their understanding of this historical inequity and their respect for their humanity

This is the classical "blaming" and victimization argument:

Blacks are justified to kill the whites because there was apartheid (although apartheid was ended by the whites)

Blacks are justified to kill and rape whites because their ancestors were slaves hundred years ago and the withe ancestors were slave masters.

African immigrants have the right to disrespect, rape and kill white Europeans because some of their ancestors colonized Africa...

What a load of MORALLY DISGUSTING BULLSHIT!

You will probably tell me that you don't condone the current situation in South Africa but that you just think this is the "natural" consequence of apartheid. Well I think that

1. people like you actually excuse these murders and do condone them implicitly with their disgusting rationalizations

2. you don't understand the real causes of this political violence against whites in South Africa.

Even if Apartheid never existed, the situation would be pretty much the same.

Whites created South African wealth with their modern technology, science, and advanced organizational capacities that Africans have never possessed and will not possess for a long long time (let's be optimistic). That's why South Africa is regressing to a third world level fast now that blacks have the power and that whites are leaving.

You can put in any country of the world a minority of rich white people surrounded by 90% poor black people and if the blacks get political power, the whites will not be able to maintain their presence and industries. Everything will be looted sooner or later by the blacks no matter how well the whites treated the blacks.

Look at what happened in Haïti (once very prosperous: la perle des Antilles, now a shithole without the whites), Zimbabwe (used to be Africa's barn, now a shithole without the whites), Algeria, Angola, etc.

The only thing that Africa has for itself is its raw material that African leaders make a fortune with by allowing Western businesses to exploit them (and now Chinese too).

This is just the way it is. It has nothing to do with your big ideas about respect and the way whites people treated the blacks in South Africa (many white South Africans treated blacks very well by the way).

The only way a white presence was viable in South Africa was through political separation, all or nothing. Apartheid was the only solution for white Africans there. Now whites have NO FUTURE in South Africa.

(Personally I don't care that much. I've never been there and I will never go there)

[DjembaDjemba]

What the hell happened to this thread? How did this morph from a topic on Russian anti immigrant hate to bashing blacks.

Wow!

The manosphere really has been infected by lice.

So much misinformation by people like Lika and Hooligan Harry, it's a joke.

I actually have Angola experience. It's a sweet country, the capital city Luanda is really nice, very modern, clean, and growing rapidly. Quite a bit of Chinese/Portuguese pussy there.

Lots of Chinese and Portuguese/Brazilian expats living there. The Asian girls are gold diggers, but it's very possible to fuck them if you're a foreigner. Problem is, too many of them are really high end professionals working in compounds.

The Chinese male expats usually dip their peasant oats in the black Angolan chocolate jar. So expect to see Asian males hitting on Angolan girls. Especially the poorer ones. They will be your competition if chocolate is what you're there to get.

The city is brutally expensive, expect to pay 3-4 times for the basic goods you pay for in the west (food, booze, taxis, rent). Do not go there if you're on a budget.

Maiombe is the place to club if you want local chocolate puss. Aquario is really good too. Lots of rich Angolan girls go there. They're youngish, 17-23, give or take.

I feel safer in Luanda than in most Brazilian cities I've been to. Luanda is fucking great, but damn, left me broke. $10 for a beer.

Oh, one more thing, since Portugal's economy tanked a few years ago, some 60,000 Portuguese have moved to Angola in 2008 alone. Didn't see or mingle with when I went there, but I'm sure for other African travelers, it's something to look for. How sweet would it be to score tender white Portuguese pussy in the deepest hottest plains of Africa. Score one for the dream team.

Recommended cash to bring: $5,000, at LEAST! That's not including flight/hotel preferably.

Anyhow, this light datasheet is a response to Lika's foolish assertions.

It's why Athlone...in all honesty, I can't be arsed to argue with racial supremacists online anymore. I just post data sheets.

As black people, we've been banging white girls since Othello, in Russia or otherwise. Now that the Chinese are rising and spreading, it's even better. We get to now access the "Asian" market, if you know what I mean. By the end of the this decade (2020), there will be possibly more blacks living in China than there are Tibetans worldwide (to put it in perspective). There is already a million Chinese living in Africa today.

The world is a global village.

In Toronto black men (with good jobs and decent presentation) run through Asian girls with more vigour than the 2008 Beijing Olympics (the most reclusive and ethnocentric community to boot).

Don't let the moronic racial prawns get in the way of pussy getting. This is a board that deals with game, not ethnic bullshit pride.

[Lika]

(11-09-2011 10:04 AM)DjembaDjemba Wrote:  

I actually have Angola experience. It's a sweet country, the capital city Luanda is really nice, very modern, clean, and growing rapidly.

Lol, I've worked 2 years in Angola. Luanda is extremely dangerous and extremely expensive because there are very little things that work correctly there. Brazil is ten times easier to travel to.

In Luanda, if you want a house that has Western standards, you will have to pay 2 times more than in Europe just because there is very limited offer and the vast majority of houses and flats are dumps. It's not rare to see houses for 50 USD per month for the locals and the same size house with Western standards for 2'000 USD per month (water, electricity, etc.) for expats.

The only thing that makes Angola a "relatively rich" country is gas and diamonds extracted by foreign companies.

Other than that, I really like the people there and the women are great too. Most girls there adore young white men (just like in Brazil)

[DjembaDjemba]

(11-09-2011 10:18 AM)Lika Wrote:  

(11-09-2011 10:04 AM)DjembaDjemba Wrote:  

I actually have Angola experience. It's a sweet country, the capital city Luanda is really nice, very modern, clean, and growing rapidly.

Lol, I've worked 2 years in Angola. Luanda is extremely dangerous and extremely expensive because there are very little things that work correctly there. Brazil is ten times easier to travel to.

In Luanda, if you want a house that has Western standards, you will have to pay 2 times more than in Europe just because there is very limited offer and the vast majority of houses and flats are dumps. It's not rare to see houses for 50 USD per month for the locals and the same size house with Western standards for 2'000 USD per month (water, electricity, etc.) for expats.

The only thing that makes Angola a "relatively rich" country is gas and diamonds extracted by foreign companies.

Other than that, I really like the people there and the women are great too. Most girls there adore young white men (just like in Brazil)

Nah, Angola is pretty safe compared to parts of Brazil. In South Brazil it's ok, but North Brazil is fucked. Rio is really dangerous.

Angola girls do dig white young guys for sure, very exotic to them. Kind of how small town white girls dig black and mulatto guys (but shhhh...don't tell daddy or her brothers rofl). People crave exotic.

My white friend loves Angola, he sealed quite a few deals without doing p4p there. I have tall man/mulatto game, stay quiet, look pretty, seal deals early. I usually bang white or Asian chicks (thank god they don't lynch anymore because I'd be the first lol). But Angola has sweet black dames. I run "rich expat game". I'm not rich. But it works. Angola is a bit colouristic, so if you're mixed, you will get into clubs easier than a local Angolan (sadly).

And I already mentioned its damn expensive, $5000 at least. Most of the stuff is imported. Sadly Africa's infrastructure is still in its infancy, so instead of being able to bring stuff from RSA, they literally bring it from China because its cheaper since the rail links to Africa don't exist. Highways are fucked for now.

Anyhow, let's put this dumb race bullshit aside because this is about game. As a mulatto, I fuck white girls I'll say it. If Russian/German/Polish/American/Greek men don't like it....tisk fucking tisk. Too bad bitches.

I'm a gamer, not a race hustler.

PS: I sealed 2 Cape Verde girls there. I find the mulatto female look very hot so that's what I went for in Angola. The cape verde and portuguese angolans are quite plentiful. Open minded enough.

[Excelsior]

(11-09-2011 03:48 AM)Lika Wrote:  

Even if Apartheid never existed, the situation would be pretty much the same.

This is incorrect, unsubstantiated, and asinine.

I'm done with you. If I wanted to deal with more White Nationalists, I'd go log in at Stormfront.

(11-08-2011 08:38 PM)P Dog Wrote:  

Athlone, I admire your persistence in fighting against this, but these people do not listen to reason and will keep clinging onto their own prejudices no matter what. There's no point in arguing with them.

(11-09-2011 10:04 AM)DjembaDjemba Wrote:  

It's why Athlone...in all honesty, I can't be arsed to argue with racial supremacists online anymore. I just post data sheets.

You're both correct. Their own ignorance will destroy them anyway. There is no point in reasoning, though my intellectual inclination often keeps me in these debates for much longer than needed. Been that way since I was a kid trying to reason away racism on Stormfront, of all places.
At least I got some mental exercise.

(11-09-2011 10:04 AM)DjembaDjemba Wrote:  

We get to now access the "Asian" market, if you know what I mean. By the end of the this decade (2020), there will be possibly more blacks living in China than there are Tibetans worldwide (to put it in perspective). There is already a million Chinese living in Africa today.

The world is a global village.

In Toronto black men (with good jobs and decent presentation) run through Asian girls with more vigour than the 2008 Beijing Olympics (the most reclusive and ethnocentric community to boot).

As one of those relatively rare (in the USA, at least) black men with a pretty serious touch of the Yellow Fever, this is quite relevant to my interests. Any elaboration on the black-asian scene in Canada or anywhere else you're familiar with (either here or in another thread) would be appreciated.

[speakeasy]

(11-08-2011 10:22 AM)Lika Wrote:  

(11-06-2011 11:10 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

When it came to blacks, this respect was completely lacking among many whites (particularly Afrikaners) in South Africa during the middle of the 20th century.

In an ideal world, everything you say is true...

In reality its' Bullshit.

Whites arrived before blacks (Bantu) in South Africa (inhabitated originally by Khoisan or Bushmen)

In Apartheid South Africa, to give political power to the Blacks meant the start of the exode and genocide of the white people. And that's what has been happening since then.

Political separation was the only way to ensure the existence of white people in South Africa. Period.

The white people who stopped apartheid were traitors and did not respect their race.

Wonder if you'd be saying this if the situation were reversed. Let's say a hypothetical situation were millions of black Africans had descended upon England, killed and subjugated the white inhabitants, turned them into a low caste while exploiting the country for its resources, enacted an apartheid system to ensure that whites will be shut out of power and the economy in their own homeland. I wonder if your sentiment would change under such a scenario. I wonder how you would view the whites who fought against their subjugation. I wonder how you would feel about the whites who lashed out and killed their black oppressors. I wonder if you'd refer to blacks as "traitors" who worked to dismantle such a system.

Of course these are all rhetorical questions.

[All or Nothing]

(11-08-2011 04:52 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

As long as people like you continue to justify (for whatever reason), defend, promote, and/or simply fail to properly acknowledge the historical inequities at the root of the current conflict and, in doing so, deny the humanity of those who dealt with said inequities, its continuance will be ensured, no matter how much you or myself try to talk about it.

You must respect the humanity of others before they respect yours. The only chance current victims will have to end this current cycle of violence is to make clear to the perpetrators their understanding of this historical inequity and their respect for their humanity, which was lacking for most of the 20th century. Then, and only then will there be a chance for peaceful coexistence and an eventual end to things like Black Economic Empowerment (BEE), resulting in a complete breaking of the "cycle".

One more time: until the above actions are accomplished, there will be no hope of ending current tensions, no matter how much we talk about them.

Your failure to do this is creating your own burden. Such behavior from a people so familiar with the consequences of the disrespect of their own humanity (hearkening back to the Boer War/Genocide) hardly elicits much sympathy.

Here you go again, justifying the present rape and murder of thousands of white people in South Africa.

P Dog does the same thing and so does speakeasy.

So you are all saying that the murders of 3,000 white people (according to Harry's article) in modern times is okay because apartheid happened? You are all indirectly or straight up directly making justifications for that.

Why don't you all come straight out and fucking say it?

I'll go first. There was this story my grandfather would tell me when I was in my early teenage years. A story that would be brought up every once in awhile when we were discussing history. At the time I used to be a sympathizer for the Native Americans who "lost their land". It seems every time I would talk about anything that related to indigenous Americans, it would touch a bitter place in his heart. From this bitterness, he would tell me the story of how the Argentinians exterminated the Indians in the southern part of the land not too long ago. He was an immigrant from Argentina. He told me of how, the indigenous people from the southern Argentina would come up northwards every so often to kill farmers, children, rape and abduct the women. Eventually the Argentinians became so agitated by this that they "declared war" with the Indians. It wasn't a real declaration of war, as they didn't tell the Indians about it. It was just a decision to one day, pull out the chain guns and kill all of those murderous, raping bastards.

Now you know what I would like to see happen in South Africa. I'd like to see every fucking murderer and rapist get a bullet to the fucking head.

Now I'd like to hear what you guys would like to see happen in South Africa because for some reason you all seem to think that the mass murder and rape of white people in South Africa is just fucking dandy or completely justifiable.

[speakeasy]

(11-09-2011 10:57 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

Here you go again, justifying the present rape and murder of thousands of white people in South Africa.

P Dog does the same thing and so does speakeasy.

So you are all saying that the murders of 3,000 white people (according to Harry's article) in modern times is okay because apartheid happened? You are all indirectly or straight up directly making justifications for that.

Why don't you all come straight out and fucking say it?

I'm not calling for murder of anyone. Why don't you read what I actually said. If black Africans invaded a European country and created an apartheid system against the whites in that country, would you be reacting the same way?

Quote:

Now you know what I would like to see happen in South Africa. I'd like to see every fucking murderer and rapist get a bullet to the fucking head.

Now I'd like to hear what you guys would like to see happen in South Africa because for some reason you all seem to think that the mass murder and rape of white people in South Africa is just fucking dandy or completely justifiable.

Would you have said the same about the whites when the Zulus were trying to fight them off?