If racism means one disagrees with the racial Marxism going on in South Africa, than I think any fair minded person would be a racist.
You know, it would be great if you responded to my posts with some attempt to engage with what I have said and not go off on some irrelevant tangent.
If you had it your way, you'd be doing to me what they're doing to white people in South Africa. The left in the US is nearly identical to the leadership in South Africa. Thankfully they just aren't as numerous nor had a lock on power since 1994. This should serve as a lesson to those who give up their guns and means of self defense. You don't get to have civil rights and private property when you do things like that. "Kill the boar." Nothing racist or genocidal about that? Name one other racial group you could replace with boar and not classify this as genocidal language. Institutional racism in democratic law seems fine for you so long as the minority is white, as if it's impossible to discriminate against white people.
Not all people assimilate equally. I'm happy to have people immigrating to the United States that speak my language, share in a similar faith, have similar views on communism and private property. I'd certainly rather bring in a white Christian who believes in private property and free markets than an 8th century Muslim barbarian who has been taught since birth that America is the great Satan. And we don't owe immigration to anyone. Part of whether we let someone into our country is whether or not they can contribute or not. Contrary to the beliefs of Pope Francis, the existence of the United States is not the reason most Latin American and African countries are 3rd world.
But most South Africans understand that fleeing the country is not the solution, and neither is political change which is impossible there anyway. They need to take up arms and declare their independence and completely liberate themselves from the black majority. Anyone not willing or able to do that will always suffer the way they are suffering right now.
And when the Confederates saw Jackson standing fearless like a stonewall, the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
If you had it your way, you'd be doing to me what they're doing to white people in South Africa.
Before you get too carried away, can you tell me what it is that "they" are doing to the white people in South Africa? You make it sound like every white person in South Africa is in some kind of immediate danger.
"I have learned with what evils tyranny infects a state. For it frustrates all the virtues, robs freedom of its lofty mood, and opens a school of fawning and terror, inasmuch as it leaves matters not to the wisdom of the laws, but to the angry whim of those who are in authority.”
Exactly, you couldn't find it. Do mulattos count as Black or Afrikaaner's when they make these statistics about who owns land? One strand is guilty of belonging to the evil oppressor race and like the boar, must be killed. While the other strand is forever entitled to reparations for wrongs against those who were alive back in 1913. I don't even think Biden would qualify for that.
So do you believe that there is a white genocide happening in South Africa as Trump believes? If so, what evidence can you produce to back this claim up?
Genocide is a tricky word. I pointed out to you that, "Kill the boar," is genocidal language, and there is no limitation on this kind of hate speech in South Africa. And there has certainly been a lot of violence as a result of the ruling party's rhetroic and reparations based on who your ancestors were ideology. But I don't think genocide is happening. I'm not sure the party in power is logistically capable of pulling this off. But the racial discrimination of an ethnic minority in their law is bad enough from my perspective that violent revolution and a declaration of independence from the majority of people who wrote this law is justified. South Africa needs to take their own land back or be swept off the face of it.
And when the Confederates saw Jackson standing fearless like a stonewall, the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
No, not in this situation. Genocide does not equate to allegations that someone somewhere supposedly threatened to kill something.
This is basic English, yes?
ajax wrote:South Africa needs to take their own land back or be swept off the face of it.
Case in point: the statement, “South Africa needs to take their own land back or be swept off the face of it”, is not in and of itself genocide. I’m betting that you’ll agree.
If you had it your way, you'd be doing to me what they're doing to white people in South Africa.
Before you get too carried away, can you tell me what it is that "they" are doing to the white people in South Africa? You make it sound like every white person in South Africa is in some kind of immediate danger.
The fact that you're trying to redistribute land based on race is bad enough. Until I learned of this racial Marxism I thought nothing was more insidious than communism. But I think I've found it in South Africa. Redistribution based on income rather than production is immoral but redistribution on race, especially when you can't even define what race is, is indeed even worse than that.
And when the Confederates saw Jackson standing fearless like a stonewall, the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
The fact that you're trying to redistribute land based on race is bad enough. Until I learned of this racial Marxism I thought nothing was more insidious than communism. But I think I've found it in South Africa. Redistribution based on income rather than production is immoral but redistribution on race, especially when you can't even define what race is, is indeed even worse than that.
Are you referring to what the minority white-controlled government of South Africa did in 1950?
“Group Areas Act was the title of three acts of the Parliament of South Africa enacted under the apartheid government of South Africa. The acts assigned racial groups to different residential and business sections in urban areas in a system of urban apartheid. An effect of the law was to exclude people of colour from living in the most developed areas, which were restricted to Whites (e.g. Sea Point, Claremont). It required many people of colour to commute large distances from their homes to be able to work.
The law led to people of colour being forcibly removed for living in the "wrong" areas. People of colour, who were the majority at the time, were given much smaller areas (e.g., Tongaat, Grassy Park) to live in than the white minority. Pass Laws required people of colour to carry pass books and later "reference books", similar to passports, to enter the "white" parts of the country.
…
The Act became an effective tool in the separate development of races in South Africa. It also granted the Minister of the Interior a mandate to forcibly remove non-whites from valuable pieces of land so that they could become white settlements.
One of the most famous uses of the Group Areas Act was the destruction of Sophiatown, a suburb of Johannesburg. On 9 February 1955, 2,000 policemen began removing residents to Meadowlands, Soweto and erected a new white-only area called Triomf (Victory).”
There’s a quick brush-up on some history to consider, in the midst of your indignation.
What’s happening in SA today is in part an attempt to correct this action of decades ago. As you have above identified redistribution of land based on race as worse than immoral, then I’ll assume you’re happy to see it finally being corrected.
Genocide is a tricky word. I pointed out to you that, "Kill the boar," is genocidal language, and there is no limitation on this kind of hate speech in South Africa.
Interesting that you believe in something called hate speech.
And there has certainly been a lot of violence as a result of the ruling party's rhetroic and reparations based on who your ancestors were ideology. But I don't think genocide is happening. I'm not sure the party in power is logistically capable of pulling this off. But the racial discrimination of an ethnic minority in their law is bad enough from my perspective that violent revolution and a declaration of independence from the majority of people who wrote this law is justified. South Africa needs to take their own land back or be swept off the face of it.
Donald Trump thinks there is, or, at least, he pretends he does. That is yet another way in which you are better than the man whose cause you espose here. That said, who is South Africa? The people descended from those who were there before the Europeans colonized it? The Europeans who colonized it? Or some mixture of the two? It is not clear to me who you think is entitled to “take back” the land. Once stolen by Europeans then forever theirs? Is that your view?
"I have learned with what evils tyranny infects a state. For it frustrates all the virtues, robs freedom of its lofty mood, and opens a school of fawning and terror, inasmuch as it leaves matters not to the wisdom of the laws, but to the angry whim of those who are in authority.”
The fact that you're trying to redistribute land based on race is bad enough.
Remember, we are talking about South Africa. I am not South African. I am not trying to redistribute anything.
Until I learned of this racial Marxism I thought nothing was more insidious than communism. But I think I've found it in South Africa. Redistribution based on income rather than production is immoral but redistribution on race, especially when you can't even define what race is, is indeed even worse than that.
Just wait until you experience tyranny. Talk about a bastard.
"I have learned with what evils tyranny infects a state. For it frustrates all the virtues, robs freedom of its lofty mood, and opens a school of fawning and terror, inasmuch as it leaves matters not to the wisdom of the laws, but to the angry whim of those who are in authority.”
Whatever else the white South African descendants of Dutch colonists may or may not deserve, they deserve their collective name. They are not boars, but boers. That is their traditional name for themselves; it just means “farmers” in Afrikaans. The name is not their enemies calling them swine.
