South Africa is going (further) down thew toilet [Archive]

Voltaire

22nd August 2018, 10:58

Oh Look, Communists seizing something that isn't theirs...

The question now is how much Bloodshed will there be before they realize their errors?

And how long before fuckwit middleclass students in love with Marx go "But that wasn't real communism"?

That's right, the forefathers must have negotiated well for the 70%+ farms to be owned by the 10% of the population that is white.:innocent:

Did the British go anywhere in the world and not leave a mess for future generations to sort out?

TheDemonLord

22nd August 2018, 11:52

That's right, the forefathers must have negotiated well for the 70%+ farms to be owned by the 10% of the population that is white.:innocent:

Did the British go anywhere in the world and not leave a mess for future generations to sort out?

Well, no one is perfect - but answer this: Would you rather live in a country that follows and maintains those very british and colonial values - or would you rather live in somewhere like North Korea?

Viking01

22nd August 2018, 12:42

Well, no one is perfect - but answer this: Would you rather live in a country that follows and maintains those very british and colonial values - or would you rather live in somewhere like North Korea?

Are you posing the question to me as a black man from a slum in Soweto,
or a white man from a privileged area of Cape Town ?

And are those really the only two options that I have ?

Blackbird

22nd August 2018, 12:57

Well, no one is perfect - but answer this: Would you rather live in a country that follows and maintains those very british and colonial values - or would you rather live in somewhere like North Korea?

If you look at somewhere like Zimbabwe under Mugabe which provided the model for South Africa to follow, there's probably little difference compared with North Korea in terms of poverty levels and disenfrangement apart from the elite minority. Give it a few years and S.A might be in the same position.

Swoop

22nd August 2018, 12:57

It worked so well in Zimbabwe, why not do the same in SA to totally fuck the productivity.

Voltaire

22nd August 2018, 13:02

Well, no one is perfect - but answer this: Would you rather live in a country that follows and maintains those very british and colonial values - or would you rather live in somewhere like North Korea?

British and Colonial Values.....:facepalm:

https://www.irishcentral.com/news/irish-famine-genocide-british

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/india-35-million-deaths-britain-shashi-tharoor-british-empire-a7627041.html

TheDemonLord

22nd August 2018, 14:04

Are you posing the question to me as a black man from a slum in Soweto,
or a white man from a privileged area of Cape Town ?

And are those really the only two options that I have ?

I'm posing it to you as a human:

My statement is that the poorest of the poor in (for example) New Zealand lead a better existence than if they lived in North Korea or any other Communist country.

Katman

22nd August 2018, 14:07

I'm posing it to you as a human:

My statement is that the poorest of the poor in (for example) New Zealand lead a better existence than if they lived in North Korea or any other Communist country.

Define 'better'.

TheDemonLord

22nd August 2018, 14:10

British and Colonial Values.....:facepalm:

https://www.irishcentral.com/news/irish-famine-genocide-british

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/india-35-million-deaths-britain-shashi-tharoor-british-empire-a7627041.html

Let's assume that I accept all of those deaths as solely the fault of British Imperialism (for the record, I don't - but lets entertain that hypothetical)

Now pile those corpse next to Mao, Stalin, Pol pot etc.

35 Million vs 200+ Million.

So - tell me - which is worse?

TheDemonLord

22nd August 2018, 14:14

Define 'better'.

Well, for starters - you can't be rounded up and executed for insulting Jacinda Ardern or the Queen.

We don't have a secret police that tortures people for wrongthink.

Let's start there.

Voltaire

22nd August 2018, 14:27

Let's assume that I accept all of those deaths as solely the fault of British Imperialism (for the record, I don't - but lets entertain that hypothetical)

Now pile those corpse next to Mao, Stalin, Pol pot etc.

35 Million vs 200+ Million.

So - tell me - which is worse?

British as they were a Democracy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZVjKlBCvhg

TheDemonLord

22nd August 2018, 14:54

British as they were a Democracy.

Eddie Izzards aside (Do you have a flag?) - How do you equate the political structure as being relevant to the overall death toll? Are you saying that a Dictatorship lessens to the social and moral cost somehow?

Not to mention, but those 35 Million were part of a Famine that just so happened to be in the middle of the biggest armed conflict the world has ever seen, so there is an argument to be made along the lines of "sacrifices had to be made" - and considering the alternative (Imperial Japan circa 1940 or Germany) - Again, Britain (for all her faults) was by far the lesser of 2 evils.

Katman

22nd August 2018, 15:34

Well, for starters - you can't be rounded up and executed for insulting Jacinda Ardern or the Queen.

We don't have a secret police that tortures people for wrongthink.

Let's start there.

2/10.

Try harder.

Viking01

22nd August 2018, 15:37

Not to mention, but those 35 Million were part of a Famine that just so happened to be in the middle of the biggest armed conflict the world has ever seen, so there is an argument to be made along the lines of "sacrifices had to be made" - and considering the alternative (Imperial Japan circa 1940 or Germany) - Again, Britain (for all her faults) was by far the lesser of 2 evils.

https://www.checkpointasia.net/winston-churchill-starved-3-million-indians-to-death-in-the-man-made-bengal-famine-of-1942-43/

Katman

22nd August 2018, 16:02

.....so there is an argument to be made along the lines of "sacrifices had to be made".....

Ah yes, your infamous 'collateral damage' argument.

:facepalm:

Laava

22nd August 2018, 16:20

Ah... good old rant and rave... or as it should be called, "troll vs troll"

https://youtu.be/XNkjDuSVXiE

pritch

22nd August 2018, 16:45

My statement is that the poorest of the poor in (for example) New Zealand lead a better existence than if they lived in North Korea or any other Communist country.

Obviously you haven't asked the poorest of the poor, they may like to take their chances. Vietnam is trying to attract retirees there, nice climate, pleasant lifestyle, and your dollar probably goes a long way. There are New Zealanders and Australians have made the move.

There are people in the USA (white people) who are little better off than they would be in Soweto. As LBJ put it, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

When I see yet another photo essay showing grinding poverty in West Virginia or wherever, naturally I feel sorry for the people involved. Then I remember that they keep voting for politicians who couldn't care less about them.

oldrider

22nd August 2018, 18:53

Obviously you haven't asked the poorest of the poor, they may like to take their chances. Vietnam is trying to attract retirees there, nice climate, pleasant lifestyle, and your dollar probably goes a long way. There are New Zealanders and Australians have made the move.

There are people in the USA (white people) who are little better off than they would be in Soweto. As LBJ put it, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

When I see yet another photo essay showing grinding poverty in West Virginia or wherever, naturally I feel sorry for the people involved. Then I remember that they keep voting for politicians who couldn't care less about them.

And they keep on giving all that tax money to Israel. :rolleyes:

oldrider

22nd August 2018, 19:21

Eddie Izzards aside (Do you have a flag?) - How do you equate the political structure as being relevant to the overall death toll? Are you saying that a Dictatorship lessens to the social and moral cost somehow?

Not to mention, but those 35 Million were part of a Famine that just so happened to be in the middle of the biggest armed conflict the world has ever seen, so there is an argument to be made along the lines of "sacrifices had to be made" - and considering the alternative (Imperial Japan circa 1940 or Germany) - Again, Britain (for all her faults) was by far the lesser of 2 evils.

Really? - :wait:

TheDemonLord

22nd August 2018, 23:30

Obviously you haven't asked the poorest of the poor, they may like to take their chances.

I've read their accounts, I've also read the accounts of people who have escaped North Korea.

Multiple sources describe dire situations in NK that simply don't exist in NZ, even from the poorest of the Poors accounts.

This is not to say that our Poor don't deserve help or compassion - but it is to say that in just about every other country in the world - they'd be far worse off.

2/10.

Try harder.

Well - how would you define it?

Ah yes, your infamous 'collateral damage' argument.

:facepalm:

https://www.checkpointasia.net/winston-churchill-starved-3-million-indians-to-death-in-the-man-made-bengal-famine-of-1942-43/

I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying it's just, I'm saying it was a decision made in the middle of a War - and the alternative (Germany winning or Japan attaining victory in the pacific) would have objectively far worse.

jasonu

23rd August 2018, 02:20

Obviously you haven't asked the poorest of the poor, they may like to take their chances. Vietnam is trying to attract retirees there, nice climate, pleasant lifestyle, and your dollar probably goes a long way. There are New Zealanders and Australians have made the move.

There are people in the USA (white people) who are little better off than they would be in Soweto. As LBJ put it, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

When I see yet another photo essay showing grinding poverty in West Virginia or wherever, naturally I feel sorry for the people involved. Then I remember that they keep voting for politicians who couldn't care less about them.

Have you even been to America? (and a week at Disneyland doesn't count)

Katman

23rd August 2018, 07:18

Well - how would you define it?

I wouldn't have been so stupid as to make such a ridiculously sweeping statement in the first place.

TheDemonLord

23rd August 2018, 09:59

I wouldn't have been so stupid as to make such a ridiculously sweeping statement in the first place.

And yet, both those starting statements are objectively true.

So on a level that you cannot refute, that 'ridiculously sweeping statement' - is in fact, true.

But I doubt you'll ever concede that.

Katman

23rd August 2018, 10:08

So on a level that you cannot refute, that 'ridiculously sweeping statement' - is in fact, true.

No, it's just a ridiculously sweeping statement.

TheDemonLord

23rd August 2018, 10:16

No, it's just a ridiculously sweeping statement.

That you cannot refute at a given level.

pritch

23rd August 2018, 10:43

Have you even been to America? (and a week at Disneyland doesn't count)

On that basis no. Are you saying that the varous articles I've read portayed circumstances that don't exist? Trump voters who just get their "news" from Fox have so little idea of what's going on they might as well live on another planet. Actually Disneyland would be more realistic.

And yes, I have been to Disneyland and Universal Studios - and some gunshops.

Katman

23rd August 2018, 10:48

That you cannot refute at a given level.

A ridiculously sweeping statement doesn't require refuting.

It is a refutation in itself.

Viking01

23rd August 2018, 12:07

I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying it's just, I'm saying it was a decision made in the middle of a War - and the alternative (Germany winning or Japan attaining victory in the pacific) would have objectively far worse.

I'd just like to challenge the last part of your statement.

While victory by Germany / Japan would have been far worse, this
statement somehow implies to me that all food supplies extracted
from India during WW2 necessarily went towards supporting the war
effort.

And that had the Bengalis not starved, then some troops fighting in the
Pacific war would have gone unfed and the war effort have been severely
compromised.

And that is the point (among several) that Mukerjee was contesting
in her book.

With evidence in her book showing that some shipments of food ex India
at the time of the famine were being directed to the UK (and even then,
not for military purposes or for direct consumption).

Churchill was called out for his dislike of both India and Indians on many
occasions. His personal history abounds with quotes like:

"They are a beastly people with a beastly religion"

(though he was happy enough to exploit the Hindu - Muslim divide for
political control purpose within India prior to its independence)

And when challenged on the subject of the Bengal Famine:

"the famines were India's fault for breeding like rabbits"

(as if their hunger at that time was the fault of their fecundity, as
opposed to the level of Indian material support being provided for
the war effort).

By the early 1940's, the Indian Independence movement was gathering
strength, and "the writing was on the wall" as far as India remaining
a British colony post war.

Churchill was hardly inclined to feel favourably towards the directing
of food shipments to the Indians, or better, letting them retain enough
of their own crops in order to combat the famine in 1943.

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29701767 <-- Sections 3 and 4

While feeding troops fighting the Japanese might have been an excuse
up to mid 1943, after that point, Churchill then appeared more focused
on diverting some resources into storage in UK for the feeding of local
civilian population (and Europe post war). As discussed in the following
article.

https://harpers.org/blog/2010/11/churchills-dark-side-six-questions-for-madhusree-mukerjee/

TheDemonLord

23rd August 2018, 14:50

A ridiculously sweeping statement doesn't require refuting.

It is a refutation in itself.

So that's a "No, I can't refute it" then...

Glad you agree.

oldrider

24th August 2018, 20:35

Apparently the media and South Africa government are calling Trump's tweets about white persecution lies and conspiracy.

Here is what is actually happening:- https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1032836346908430336 Someone is stirring that shit up. :wait: Time will tell.

pritch

25th August 2018, 09:49

Jeez John! It's hard to tell the truth of it but you definitely won't find the truth by reading that prick or Lauren Southern. They're both known white supremacists.

Katman

25th August 2018, 10:21

They're both known white supremacists.

Is 'white supremacist' the new 'anti-semite'?

pritch

25th August 2018, 10:37

Is 'white supremacist' the new 'anti-semite'?

No. It's the new Nazi. The anti-semites are currently busy in the British Labour Party.

pete376403

25th August 2018, 10:47

Why is it called anti-semitic? Call it anti jewish and be done with it. Semitic is a made up phrase that tries to give legitimacy to one particular religions fables (Sem = shem = one of the sons of noah?) https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/who-are-the-semites/

oldrider

25th August 2018, 12:35

Why is it called anti-semitic?

Follow that question to it's conclusion but be prepared for a very long investigative journey - try not to become emotionally involved - you will be absolutely amazed. :shutup:

jasonu

25th August 2018, 15:45

Is 'white supremacist' the new 'anti-semite'?

It is if you get all your dirt from the Herald.

Navy Boy

25th August 2018, 17:07

If you look at somewhere like Zimbabwe under Mugabe which provided the model for South Africa to follow, there's probably little difference compared with North Korea in terms of poverty levels and disenfrangement apart from the elite minority. Give it a few years and S.A might be in the same position.

Sadly Blackbird there's no 'Might' about it. SA is following the Zimbabwean model of the ruling party simply being inept/corrupt and unable to see beyond their own benefit.

Say what you like about blaming the sins of the past, and there were many, what the SA Government is doing now is simply wrong. On any level you may wish to view it.

Saying that someone isn't allowed to own more than X hectares of land is wrong however you look at it. The sad thing is that history tells us that the new 'Owners' of said land will almost certainly not have the expertise/will to utilise it to anything like its potential. All this in the name of 'Rightful re-distribution' you understand.

Imagine if someone turned up and gave you notice that your nice house/small holding in NZ was now their property. All based on something that may or may not have taken place well before any of the people involved were even alive... How would most react to that happening to them I wonder?

SA will go the way of Zimbabwe in that it will become a total basket case, totally reliant on foreign aid simply to survive as a going concern/functioning democracy (There's a whole other argument) in the international order.

Oh and how do I know? Well I grew up in SA through those nasty Apartheid years. I no longer live there - There are very good reasons for this as can be seen by the latest state of affairs...

:whistle:

Blackbird

25th August 2018, 17:19

Sadly Blackbird there's no 'Might' about it. SA is following the Zimbabwean model of the ruling party simply being inept/corrupt and unable to see beyond their own benefit.

Yep, "might" was slightly tongue in cheek! It's interesting that when white rule collapsed, a significant number of white South Africans came to NZ. We employed quite a few in engineering-related trades. Most didn't settle well and moved on to Australia. I'll leave it to you to theorize why. There was a second wave a few years later with entirely different attitudes and values. Most settled well and were still there when I retired. It was almost like two separate cultures.

jafagsx250

25th August 2018, 18:28

Yep, "might" was slightly tongue in cheek! It's interesting that when white rule collapsed, a significant number of white South Africans came to NZ. We employed quite a few in engineering-related trades. Most didn't settle well and moved on to Australia. I'll leave it to you to theorize why. There was a second wave a few years later with entirely different attitudes and values. Most settled well and were still there when I retired. It was almost like two separate cultures.Because you get paid more.

Sent from my TA-1024 using Tapatalk

Grumph

25th August 2018, 20:57

Yep, "might" was slightly tongue in cheek! It's interesting that when white rule collapsed, a significant number of white South Africans came to NZ. We employed quite a few in engineering-related trades. Most didn't settle well and moved on to Australia. I'll leave it to you to theorize why. There was a second wave a few years later with entirely different attitudes and values. Most settled well and were still there when I retired. It was almost like two separate cultures.

He's right. The first wave went to aussie when they couldn't assimilate here. The "white Australia" policy was very attractive to that lot.
The later ones have assimilated very well in the main - probably more open minded.

eldog

25th August 2018, 21:29

It was my experience the first preferred destination was Australia.
they came to NZ because they could easily become NZ citizens after 3? Years then go to Australia as a NZder.
IMHO definitely 2 waves.
1st who thought it was there right to live in Aussie as they visualised NZ as a back water. They generally don’t work in blue collar jobs. Often had extra high opinion/loud
2nd who wanted to escape SA and work in any job they can. 50% very good at what they do and reliable, the rest tend to move about the place.

i work with 1 who I personally give extra work too if I can. He’s a workaholic, would die of boredom when he retires.

Myself I would like to see the minimum term increased past 5 years maybe to 10 working full time.

Blackbird

25th August 2018, 22:01

He's right. The first wave went to aussie when they couldn't assimilate here. The "white Australia" policy was very attractive to that lot.
The later ones have assimilated very well in the main - probably more open minded.

Yep, that's exactly the reason!

jafagsx250

25th August 2018, 23:19

Is that really a bad reason to emigrate somewhere if you've witnessed a whole state be destroyed by a bunch of corrupt idiot's. All they did was flipped the oppressed and the People doing the oppression.

Sent from my TA-1024 using Tapatalk

jasonu

26th August 2018, 04:21

e people involved were even alive... How would most react to that happening to them I wonder?

SA will go the way of Zimbabwe in that it will become a total basket case, totally reliant on foreign aid

I doubt any aid will come from here.

Oh and how do I know? Well I grew up in SA through those nasty Apartheid years. I no longer live there - There are very good reasons for this as can be seen by the latest state of affairs...

:whistle:

I know a couple of SA expats from my Sky City casino days (mid 1990's). They all had similar reasons for getting the hell out.

jasonu

26th August 2018, 04:29

It was my experience the first preferred destination was Australia.
they came to NZ because they could easily become NZ citizens after 3? Years then go to Australia as a NZder.

Lots of asians running from Hong Kong (reverting to chinese rule in 1997) did the same. The ones that wanted to go to Aussie but were rejected came to NZ (more lax entry rules for cultural diversity and such shit), became residents (3 years I think) then fucked off to Australia. It pissed off the Aussies no end.

TheDemonLord

27th August 2018, 11:21

I'd just like to challenge the last part of your statement.

There are several viewpoints - One appears to be that of 20/20 hindsight vision, the other IMO places the interpretation of the events within the time period that it occurred.

Was Churchill racist? Probably by todays standards (although everyone who is right of Mao is apparently some form of Racist these days...)

You could say that Churchill's beliefs in English democracy, sovereignty of the individual and associated Philosophy and Thought meant that he simply places a higher value on the English than the Indians.

However you could counter this with pointing out that it wasn't India who declared War on Germany, nor was it won by primarily Indian Generals and Admirals. Furthermore, the prevailing philosophy of the Indian independence movement was one of Pacifism.

It's interesting to note that Churchill spent time in India in his Youth - and although the Author disputes this, I'm certain that his experiences as a Young Man shaped the views he held later in life.

For me - the Allies took a Gamble:

On the one hand - you risk the possibility of Famine, but deny the enemy critical resources.
On the other - you don't have to worry about Famine, but you guarantee the enemy a tactical advantage.

Given that the majority of Britains forces were tied up in the European theatre at this point and the disastrous result of the Battle of Borneo/The Malayian campaign - the prevailing thought was that Britain couldn't split her forces and fight on another front against the Japanese.

Thus it seems to me at least, they took the lesser of the 2 evils.

And to any Indian author who wishes to shit all over Churchill - I'd suggest the read about the Rape of Nanking and Unit 731 - so they have a baseline as to what would have awaited them if the Japanese had invaded.

oldrider

27th August 2018, 11:34

There are several viewpoints - One appears to be that of 20/20 hindsight vision, the other IMO places the interpretation of the events within the time period that it occurred.

Was Churchill racist? Probably by todays standards (although everyone who is right of Mao is apparently some form of Racist these days...)

You could say that Churchill's beliefs in English democracy, sovereignty of the individual and associated Philosophy and Thought meant that he simply places a higher value on the English than the Indians.

However you could counter this with pointing out that it wasn't India who declared War on Germany, nor was it won by primarily Indian Generals and Admirals. Furthermore, the prevailing philosophy of the Indian independence movement was one of Pacifism.

It's interesting to note that Churchill spent time in India in his Youth - and although the Author disputes this, I'm certain that his experiences as a Young Man shaped the views he held later in life.

For me - the Allies took a Gamble:

On the one hand - you risk the possibility of Famine, but deny the enemy critical resources.
On the other - you don't have to worry about Famine, but you guarantee the enemy a tactical advantage.

Given that the majority of Britains forces were tied up in the European theatre at this point and the disastrous result of the Battle of Borneo/The Malayian campaign - the prevailing thought was that Britain couldn't split her forces and fight on another front against the Japanese.

Thus it seems to me at least, they took the lesser of the 2 evils.

And to any Indian author who wishes to shit all over Churchill - I'd suggest the read about the Rape of Nanking and Unit 731 - so they have a baseline as to what would have awaited them if the Japanese had invaded.

:confused: You can take the boy out of England but you cant take the English out of the boy! :facepalm: