Post: #51

(12-05-2013 11:50 PM)j r Wrote:  This thread is just getting fucking bizarre.

Some people, it seems, see a conspiracy in everything. Sometimes a pile of rocks is just a pile of rocks. People don't want to accept that some lone jackass with mental problems could kill JFK. That someone so insignificant could kill someone so important. That life, even for those seen as great, can be so fragile. So the imagination, desperate for understanding, wanders...

Post: #52

Not a surprise

I think the problem lies within your ability to relate to the black condition, and the south african one.
Most of the guys who think like Starke cannot relate. They cannot understand that even tough the richess of your country is high, there is no point in it if you don't have even the most basic rights. If you are not even free to have an opinion.

You are typically adopting the mentality of the previous people who preferred apartheid.
You really think the south african ( who in majority were, and stll are black) would prefer to return to the ol' times, even if South Africa's wealth went back to the same state as it was before Mandela? Hell no.
I am from a country who is really pacified now (Senegal) so I can't totally relate either. But I can guarantee you that my grandparents would have preferred this current way of life instead of the old times. I have gotten some solid info from that period (mind you, at the time, Senegal was the central point in West Africa, even maybe in whole Africa, and there were a lot of money here) and I can certainly testify that freedom is the most important asset you can ever have.

Get over that mentality of only seeing the money and its ramifications, and look farther than that.

Post: #53

(12-06-2013 12:07 AM)Shotgun Styles Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 11:50 PM)j r Wrote:  This thread is just getting fucking bizarre.

Some people, it seems, see a conspiracy in everything. Sometimes a pile of rocks is just a pile of rocks. People don't want to accept that some lone jackass with mental problems could kill JFK. That someone so insignificant could kill someone so important. That life, even for those seen as great, can be so fragile. So the imagination, desperate for understanding, wanders...

You're saying there wasn't a conspiracy to talk South Africa out of its culture?

Post: #54

(12-05-2013 06:33 PM)Starke Wrote:  Gonna go against the grain here.

While certainly a courageous and brave man, Nelson Mandela was ultimately a useful idiot for the political forces behind Mbeki and Zuma.

Prior to his ascendancy to power, South Africa was the shining light of the African economy- a bastion of stability in a continent of chaos. Far safer than its neighbours, an agricultural powerhouse which was gradually gaining respect as a strong place for international business. The downside of course, being poverty for the native black population.

Today, South Africa is regarded as a basket case. It's no longer a place which attracts talent, conversely, it suffers from a massive brain-drain. Crime is rampant, South Africa now has world-leading rates for murder, assault, rape (adult, child and infant). International business no longer thrives in Jo'burg and CT - elite talent simply does not want to go there.
Native blacks are free, great, but they are still shockingly poor and now even more vulnerable to crime.

Mandela was undoubtedly an admirable bloke, but you can only judge a politician by the benefits they bring their nation
On that metric, he and his ANC have been an abject failure.

   

Post: #55

(12-06-2013 12:30 AM)Sawyer Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 12:07 AM)Shotgun Styles Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 11:50 PM)j r Wrote:  This thread is just getting fucking bizarre.

Some people, it seems, see a conspiracy in everything. Sometimes a pile of rocks is just a pile of rocks. People don't want to accept that some lone jackass with mental problems could kill JFK. That someone so insignificant could kill someone so important. That life, even for those seen as great, can be so fragile. So the imagination, desperate for understanding, wanders...

You're saying there wasn't a conspiracy to talk South Africa out of its culture?

Honestly, what does this mean? Lose the black helicopter talk and make an argument in plain English.

Post: #56

I don't know how an argument could be made any more simple.

Was there or was there not a conspiracy to talk South Africa out its culture? Yes or no? Of course there was. Worldwide. Fully backed and funded.

If white South Africans were to fight back, and retake their country, how do you think it would be portrayed to the world? With the same kind of blind bias the current state of South Africa is reported? Of course not. It would be unabashedly demonized. Why? Conspiracy. People agreeing on a course of action and carrying through with it.

The world is run by conspiracy. That's the argument.

Post: #57

(12-06-2013 12:53 AM)Sawyer Wrote:  I don't know how an argument could be made any more simple.

Was there or was there not a conspiracy to talk South Africa out its culture? Yes or no? Of course there was. Worldwide. Fully backed and funded.

If white South Africans were to fight back, and retake their country, how do you think it would be portrayed to the world? With the same kind of blind bias the current state of South Africa is reported? Of course not. It would be unabashedly demonized. Why? Conspiracy. People agreeing on a course of action and carrying through with it.

The world is run by conspiracy. That's the argument.

You seem to have the words "conspiracy" and "politics" thoroughly confused.

Post: #58

"You seem to have the words "conspiracy" and "politics" thoroughly confused."

I think you give politicians too much credit.

I'm curious, do you believe a lone gunman killed MLK?

Post: #59

(12-06-2013 12:53 AM)Sawyer Wrote:  I don't know how an argument could be made any more simple.

Was there or was there not a conspiracy to talk South Africa out its culture? Yes or no? Of course there was. Worldwide. Fully backed and funded.

If white South Africans were to fight back, and retake their country, how do you think it would be portrayed to the world? With the same kind of blind bias the current state of South Africa is reported? Of course not. It would be unabashedly demonized. Why? Conspiracy. People agreeing on a course of action and carrying through with it.

The world is run by conspiracy. That's the argument.

How and why does South Africa belong only to white South Africans as opposed to all the other people who live in that country as well?

Yes, there was a worldwide movement to get Sourh Africa to abandon apartheid. For some reason you want to call that a conspiracy. Fine. Personaly, I think that it was a good thing as apartheid was an unjust system. But hey, maye I'm missing something. I would kind of like to hear your defense of apartheid.

Post: #60

What do you guys make of this video? Is this really true, and what context was it used in?

Post: #61

(12-06-2013 01:16 AM)numanist Wrote:  



What do you guys make of this video? Is this really true, and what context was it used in?

The old ANC chants were packed with that rank language, the issue of the chants has been brought up in the past in the media - It had militant roots in its early days.

.

Post: #62

The ban hammer is heavy so this will be my last comment on this thread. Thanks for the convo. I'm sure we'll be taking it up in some later thread.

From my understanding the Boers fought for the land and won it. Perhaps apartheid kept them safe. Now they are being slaughtered on their farms and live in razor wire compounds. So maybe they were just doing what they could to get by and have their own space to live their lives. I think people need places that reflect their values and that true, functional diversity allows this.

The difference between politics and conspiracy is very much in the eye of the beholder. I believe that the "rainbow nation" comes from the same pit of hell as feminism, and that diversity as practiced today and of which Mandela is the patron saint is as destructive a lie as "men and women are equal." Was feminism a conspiracy? Sure. Get women to work and pay taxes, take power from men, destroy the family, etc. Would most women say so? Hell no. So what is the element of conspiracy behind the astounding and longstanding first world investment in Mandela? As a model of multicultural nation theft it will be an invaluable illustrative tool for worldgov forever. "You shall not have your own nation."

With gender and with peoples, we've been convinced to replace the highest morality of simply being good to each other with the nonsense that we all should want the same thing.

Post: #63

(12-05-2013 06:33 PM)Starke Wrote:  Gonna go against the grain here.

While certainly a courageous and brave man, Nelson Mandela was ultimately a useful idiot for the political forces behind Mbeki and Zuma.

Prior to his ascendancy to power, South Africa was the shining light of the African economy- a bastion of stability in a continent of chaos. Far safer than its neighbours, an agricultural powerhouse which was gradually gaining respect as a strong place for international business. The downside of course, being poverty for the native black population.

Today, South Africa is regarded as a basket case. It's no longer a place which attracts talent, conversely, it suffers from a massive brain-drain. Crime is rampant, South Africa now has world-leading rates for murder, assault, rape (adult, child and infant). International business no longer thrives in Jo'burg and CT - elite talent simply does not want to go there.
Native blacks are free, great, but they are still shockingly poor and now even more vulnerable to crime.

Mandela was undoubtedly an admirable bloke, but you can only judge a politician by the benefits they bring their nation
On that metric, he and his ANC have been an abject failure.

You can disagree with him or what he did, but like Obama, he was still an inspirational figure. There are very few men who get to that level in history.

I'd nominate Nelson for the great man ROK 2013 over Snowden and Putin.

Post: #64

(12-05-2013 11:58 PM)Gato Wrote:  every day people die ...great folks, we just do not know
turn off your TV
PS: N.M. nice guy

There's a big difference between Nelson Mandela and the actor who recently died in a car crash.

Post: #65

Quote:multiculturalism and sovereignty are antithetical.

What is your evidence for this?

Post: #66

(12-05-2013 11:58 PM)Gato Wrote:  every day people die ...great folks, we just do not know
turn off your TV
PS: N.M. nice guy

I keep forgetting the 1st just passed us by. Thanks for the reminder.

Beyond All Seas

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe.
To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes
frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Kipling

Post: #67

(12-06-2013 03:19 AM)soup Wrote:  You can disagree with him or what he did, but like Obama, he was still an inspirational figure. There are very few men who get to that level in history.

I'd nominate Nelson for the great man ROK 2013 over Snowden and Putin.

Was it his support for bombing innocent men, women, and children in public markets that gave him the edge?

I think that apartheid is a horrible thing that violates the most sacred intrinsic right of humans which is liberty. However, what he and his followers have done is much worse than apartheid. It is baffling how anyone could look at that man with admiration who isn't a sociopath or completely ignorant of what atrocities he and his cronies have committed.

Post: #68

Not going to get into a debate about the qualities of the man but I am going to say what I said on my FB:

"Nelson Mandela is dead. Stop using social media to publicly display your 'grief', when you're still wondering which smartphone to buy."

Surprisingly, nobody has lashed out at me yet.

Post: #69

If he had been a threath to status quo, he would have been dead for a long time already. May the man rest in peace anyways.

Post: #70

(12-05-2013 10:55 PM)Shotgun Styles Wrote:  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).

You obviously aren't too read up on South America. In very few countries are Amerindians even a significant sector of society. Those countries are among the poorest in S.A, for the reasons you said in your post that I haven't quoted. Argentina: 1.6% of pop, Brazil: 0.4%, Chile: 4.6%..... Bolivia: 62%. I think Bolivia is the poorest country in S.A.

Even in Venezuela indigenous people only make up less than 2%.

Post: #71

(12-05-2013 10:05 PM)kosko Wrote:  @Starke & Fiesbook Control
How would you built South Africa if you were Mandela in 1993-1994?

This should be interesting....

Four words: Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan.

Sixty years ago, South Korea was a net receiver of foreign aid. Now it's a net donor of foreign aid. All suffered under colonialism. All had GDP levels around the same level as sub-Saharan Africa after WW2. Singapore is a multi-racial society that had serious ethnic tension and could easily have fallen apart. The difference between these three countries and much of the rest of the world is that whilst they have not forgotten by any means, they have truly manned up and get on with the task at hand, despite not having boat loads of natural resources beneath their feet to squander. No one came and handed them anything on a silver platter.

East Asians, on their rise to the top, laugh at the white guilt and pity party that comes out of seemingly every other continent about colonialism.

So what would I have done if I had been Mandela? I'd have taken a leaf out of Lee Kuan Yew's book for starters. Now there is a founding father.

Post: #72

http://order-order.com/

"I'd hate myself if I had that kind of attitude, if I were that weak." - Arnold

Post: #73

The issues surrouding Mandela and South ASfrica are really interesting. I keep meaning to read up on it - but haven't gotten round to it yet.

But here are some things that come to mind. I am no expert yet - but these are the issues that interest me.

Firstly - I heard it said that when the Boers (who were Dutch immigrants) won South Africa from the British - that there were not any indigeneous Africans living there at the time.

That seems a bizarre thing to say. But I definitely read it somewhere - and would be interested in hearing more about it.

Secondly - what is forgotten about today is that Apartheid and The Cold War went hand in hand. Mandela was a Communist and the ANC were banned (and many countires in the West supported tha ban) due to the fears of Russia extending its influence into South Africa. I would imagine as well that the West didn't want to see the majority of the world's diamonds end up in Russian hands either.

Thirdly - South Africa was given support and a nuclear bomb by Israel. This is interesting in its own right - and one imagines Israel supported South Africa since it drew attention away from the 'apartheid' they had going with the Palestinians.

Fourthly - was Mandela a Terrorist? Well - Mandela instigated the use of arms and terrorism in the ANC. But - is this terrorism? Firstly - they tried to bomb government buildings with the minimum loss of life. So - really - this is closer to warfare than terrorism. Still - Margaret Thatcher considered the ANC to be terrorists. And Dick Cheney - voted back in the 80's - against the release of Nelson Mandela.

But more importantly - the key difference between a freedom fighter (Mandela) and a terrorist (Gerry Adams) is this. The ANC were a banned political organisation. So - they literally had no other option other than extra-political means (such as bombing). Whereas Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland had a political means to achieve change. And in there case - by resorting to bombings as well - that made them terrorists.

But even that is a tricky one to consider. Republicans in Northern Ireland probably consider their land to be invaded by British protestants. Which meant they could not fight back with the use of political democracy since their country was already in the control of the 'enemy'.

To give an analogy. Imagine if Al Qaeda sent 70 million people to come live in Britain tomorrow. Well - presumably - Al Qaeda would win every election by a landslide. And - according to the rhetoric of the British in Northern Ireland - we would presumably have to respect the wishes of the people??? How fucked up would that be?

Also - what is happening in South Africa today? The country seems fucked up. And it seems to be a one-party state run by the ANC. Is that real democracy?

As well as that. My favourite writer - Peter Hitchens is not a huge fan of democracy. He feels that the fight for freedom and democracy is often used as a cover to achieve other goals. And indeed - no country has a proper deomocracy in any case. Most people would vote for a donkey - if it was wearing the colours of the political party they unthinkingly support. And on top of that - try becoming president of the unitend states without 500 million dollars of corporate donations propping you up.

So - with the above in mind - I am a little cynical when I consider the wonders that Madela achieved. Since 'democracry' is often thrown to the people as a way of distracting them from the real power plays that are happening.

Lastly - Mandela's ex-wife seems to be an evil piece of work. And I don't think Mandela can wash his hands of that completely.

Like I say - I haven't read up on this area. But I will do. But since Mandela has just died I just wanted to share some of the issues surrounding him that I think are interesting. Even though I am sure my questions are littered with mistakes since I haven't done a proper study in this area yet.

With all that said. He seemed like a cool guy - but I am interested in separating the man from the legend. Since - 99% of the people tweeting about his death don't have a clue what they are talking about.

Cardguy

Post: #74

I should add - from some reading I did last night - the personality cult surrounding Mandela is a recent thing.

He was never mentioned by name in the British parliament until 1983 (he had being in prison for 19 years at this point). And he only became started to become an icon in the West when 'The Specials' had a pop song called 'Free Nelson Mandela' which got to No.9 in the UK charts.

Even bigger still was the music concert held at Wembley stadium in 1988 to celebrate his 70th birthday party. 600 million people around the world watched the concert. At that time - Mandela was still thought of as a terrorist. But the broadcasting of the concert started the trend of all the media companies in the West referring to him as a political prisoner.

Eighteen months later he was free. At the time of the concert - even the most optimistic supporters of Mandela thought that would be impossible.

And the unthinking personality cult in the West (and which is playing out on twitter) goes back to the pop single and the concert.

I support Nelson Mandela. But it is interesting to look into how the legend surrounding him became publicised in the West.

Post: #75

I understand that when S. Africa was stable it was a great place to swoop in and pull ass. Now its a shithole not worth flying to. All the top shelf talent fled. So based on that I have to give Mandela a -1 rep point.

Thanks Nelson, for fucking up a pussy paradise. NRIP.