The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewIlana Mercer Archive
South Africa Land Theft: Crappy Constitution All But Allows It
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_619358957

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Up until, or on the day, a predictable calamity unfolds in South Africa, you still find Western Media insisting that,

  • No, there’s no racial component to the butchering of thousands of white rural folks in ways that would make Shaka Zulu proud.
  • No, the mutilated, tortured, white bodies of Boer and British men, women and children aren’t evidence of racial hatred, but a mere artifact of good old indigenous crime. No hate crimes. No crimes against humanity. Move along. Let the carnage play on.

And the latest:

To listen to leftist, counterfactual, ahistoric pabulum served up by most in media, a decision in South Africa’s Parliament to smooth the way for an expropriation without compensation of private property came out of … nowhere.

It just so happened—pure fluke!—that the permanently entrenched, racialist parties in parliament used their thumping majorities to vote for legalizing state theft from a politically powerless minority. Didn’t see that coming!

And they beat on breast: How did the mythical land of Saint Nelson Mandela turn into Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness”?

How did that country’s “vaunted” constitution yield to “the horror, the horror” of land theft?

Easily, even seamlessly—as I’ve been warning since the 2011 publication of “Into the cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa,” which provided the analytical edifice for what’s unfolding; and the only viable solutions before a metaphorical Masada. Or, a last stand. You can pile more murders, more corruption, more horror atop the same analytical foundation; but, distilled to bare bones, the truth about South Africa remains unchanged.

To wit, there’s a reason the South African Constitution is loved by US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg! “If I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,” she told Al-Hayat TV, “I might look at the constitution of South Africa ….” The woman who’s spent her years on the Bench trying to make the US Constitution more like South Africa’s should know a thing or two.

An abiding truth studiously finessed by the news cartel is that Cyril Ramaphosa—the latest Sexy Beast to regale the West from the Sacred Grounds of South Africa—promised to be gentle about land theft. Oh, yes: One of Ramaphosa’s presidential campaign promises was to finally get down to the business of the people: stealing private property, an inherently aggressive, coercive act.

Since replacing Jacob Zuma as president, Ramaphosa has endeavored to “speed up the transfer of land from white to black owners after his inauguration two weeks ago.” (It used to be that “conservatives” viewed stealing a man’s property as a crime and a disqualifier of sorts. But Breitbart’s Joel Pollak, a fellow South African, gets behind the notion that Ramaphosa has been “a moderate throughout his career, whose negotiation skills helped bring about a peaceful end to apartheid.”)

Before Ramaphosa, Zuma too had “called on parliament to change South Africa’s Constitution to allow the expropriation of white-owned land without compensation.”

Unlike the celebrity journos involved, both men know that said constitution is no bulwark against state expropriation. Or, against any “public” or private violence, for that matter. As a protector of individual rights to life, liberty and property, the thing is worse than useless—a wordy and worthless document.

Take Section 12 of this progressive constitution. It enshrines the “Freedom and Security of the Person.” Isn’t it comforting to know that in a country where almost everyone knows someone who has been raped, robbed, hijacked, murdered, or all of the above—the individual has a right to live free of all those forms of violence?

Here’s the rub: Nowhere does the South African Constitution state whether its beneficiaries may defend their most precious of rights. Recounted in “Into The Cannibal’s Pot” is example after example, and attendant analysis, of innocent victims of crime punished and prosecuted by those who swore to uphold the constitution. These victims are punished for merely and minimally defending their so-called constitutionally enshrined rights.

The African National Congress (Mandela’s party) has always, not suddenly, disregarded the importance of private property, public order and the remedial value of punitive justice. Innocent victims of crime under its regime are regularly forced to defend themselves in their own homes on pain of imprisonment.

A right that can’t be defended is a right in name only. Implicit in the right to life is the right to self-defense.

It’s why I contended that South Africa’s Constitution is descriptive, not prescriptive—full of pitch-perfect verbal obesities that provide little by way of recourse for those whose natural, individual rights are violated.

Certainly, self-defense verges on an offense in the new constitutional democracy. For example, the Amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act stipulates that, “Before you can act in self-defense, the attack against you should have commenced, or at least be imminent” (Cannibal, pp. 29-30). How is that feat calibrated? Wait until you feel the blade or the bullet before defending your life? Alas, to avoid incarceration, you must find a way to calibrate a defensive response within your own castle.

With the advent of the constitutional Firearm Control Act of 2000 (FCA)—the Safety and Security Minister unveiled “an arsenal” of stricter gun-control laws, decreeing that “non-threatening” home invaders would no longer face on-the-spot justice. Should a South African awaken to find a malefactor standing by the bed, he shall have to hold his fire and attempt to ascertain the intruder’s manifestly acquisitive—and almost certainly murderous—motives.

For dispatching an assailant in your home, with a licensed firearm, you will generally be arrested and charged with murder or with attempted murder, if unsuccessful. It’s pro-forma. To add to their woes under South Africa’s Constitution, acting in self-defense while white will often see a self-defense offender publicly shamed as a “raaaaaacist” (p. 29).

To repeat, in a country where almost everyone knows someone who has been raped, robbed, hijacked, murdered, an oleaginous ANC official decides whether a woman, black or white, truly needs a handgun for self-defense. This process can take years. Reasons the South Africa Police Service—revamped and thoroughly integrated, racially—gives for denying an application are: a “lack of motivation,” “your husband can protect you,” “the police will protect you,” “you are too young.”

Talk about an “eff-off” attitude!

ORDER IT NOW

As for equality before the law: The South African Bill of Rights is contemptuous of it. The Bill of Rights enshrines group rights and allows for compensatory and distributive “justice.” The state’s confiscatory powers may be used to redress “past injustices.” “… To promote the achievement of equality; legislative and other measures designed to protect or advance persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination may be taken.”

I told you: The Constitution already allows a good deal of mischief in the name of the “greater good,” including land expropriation in the “public interest.” Thus the Expropriation Bill of 2008: It is the precursor to the current land expropriation process. So where, pray tell, was the news cartel when it was floated as an impetus for land nationalization?

With the 2008 Bill, the dominant ruling party had empowered itself—and “any organ of state, at any level of government”—to take ownership and possession of property “simply by giving notice to the expropriated owner.” “The state would make the ‘final’ determination of the compensation due, subject only to a limited form of court review.”

Both movable and immovable property has always been up for grabs—”livestock and farming implements, residential homes, business premises and equipment, patents, and shares.” The 2008 Bill was temporarily shelved before the 2009 elections, but not forgotten. It led naturally to talk about nationalization. (Cannibal, p. 74.)

In March 2010, a plan was tabled in Parliament for turning “all productive land into a national asset leased to farmers.” Such sentiments are hardly new. True to a promise made in Mandela’s magic 1955 communistic Freedom Charter, the ANC has already nationalized the “mineral wealth beneath the soil” and the water rights. (Has the mummified media ever wondered out loud why Cape Town has run dry?)

Thereafter, to supplement the Expropriation Bill, the Party had published a policy paper that warned, among other planned infractions, of the need to water-down the already weak property-rights provision in the Constitution.

All along had the entrenchment of a property clause in the South African Constitution angered judicial activists, who conflate the protection of private property with the entrenchment of white privilege. (Hence the subtitle of “Into the Cannibal’s Pot”: “Lessons for America …”) Their fears were overblown. Back then, I wagered that nationalization would necessitate but a minor tweak to the Constitution, since the latter already allows all the mischief mentioned.

The Hobbesian choice which the ANC had always planned to present to white farmers was between making them mere tenants of the state (by declaring all productive land a national asset under state control) and, on the other hand, “placing a ceiling on how much land individual farmers can own.”

Which, in practice, limits economies of scale, and with them successful commercial agriculture.

“One farmer, one farm” was how Zimbabwe’s Zanu-PF thugs described this policy. The South African government still asserts that it is merely putting in place a “mechanism for taking back failed farms from black farmers.”

Echoing its claims is another great mind, Breitbart’s Mr. Pollak. He has dignified the excuse that the “target of land reform, … would be ‘unused’ land,” black and white—assurances even his pals at the liberal “South African Institute of Race Relations had exposed as ‘a red herring to conceal the State’s more plausible intention to wrest control of agricultural production from white commercial farmers.” (Citation in Cannibal, p. 74.)

Since the dawn of “freedom,” in South Africa, and as a matter of daily practice, commercial farmers, mostly white, have been terrorized and threatened with land claims. As if this were not bad enough, they can now expect nationalization.

In case Zimbabwe is a distant memory, the nationalization of South Africa’s farms will increase unemployment in the agricultural sector, and with it, rural poverty. That will guarantee mass migration to the cities, with all the attendant problems which this exodus poses. Also, it will undermine South Africa’s ability to meet its food needs and deter investment in the country.

And these, so help us, are the positive aspects of land parity.

Most damningly, the country’s constitution has a clause devoted to “Limitation of Rights.” Apparently, the constitutional “scholars” who compiled the document saw no need to protect the rights of minorities “that [had] not been victims of past discrimination.” The possibility that the fortunes of hitherto un-oppressed minorities might change did not occur to the occupants of the Bench.

The material is adapted from “Into the cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa” (2011) by ilana mercer, where citation are provided.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Africans, Apartheid, South Africa 
Hide 158 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. phil says:

    Great work, Ilana. One of your best efforts, and heartfelt, I’m sure.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Wong
    Why was Saka Zulu a butcher? Why can't he be the African Alexander the Great? Did Zulu say anything bad about him? Based on what the author said about Saka in an unwarranted Western bigotry fashion, how much can we believe what is in the article?
    , @The Colonel
    Ilana
    Not a peep from the USA taxpaying PBS NPR crowd of all things justice..
    Nothing from the longtime
    Nightly schill Driftwood Judy
    Who licked Mandelas boots
    And Obama cuffed pants

    Or Pacifica commie radio


    Not to mention The Urban View on Sirius
    No pin on serious channel
    Hope to have you in again in April

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Renoman says:

    South Africa! From shining light to seething shit hole in 3 generations, just watch. Everybody thinks whitey is an absolute bastard until blackie gets in charge, then they long for the good old days.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Wong
    Shining light was on the White only in South Africa under the apartheid. The natives though still are not living well but it is better off than then. If South Africa was not polluted by the aliens from far away land, they could develop based on their own culture and tradition. Mind you the savagery image of the natives was a construct by the White alien to justify their stealing and plundering on the moral high ground like they have done in Americas and all over the world.

    The South Africans need to restore their own culture and tradition by cleansed the toxin brought in by the aliens from far away land. The alien’s way of life and government are toxic the South African physical and mental health.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Armed secession, anyone? Why a truly Federal South Africa wasnt tried in 1990 escapes me. Orange Free state, redux?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cato
    Apartheid was a "federal" system, and could have worked had whites been more generous (whites,with 20% of the population, claimed 80% of the land). At the very least, whites should have supported the partition of South Africa and claimed the Western Cape as an independent white nation. But they wanted to hang onto Johannesburg, where all of the money was. Bad mistake.

    African states in general would benefit from the example of Switzerland: division into small ethnically homogeneous cantons, with most government functions controlled at the canton level.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. How did the mythical land of Saint Nelson Mandela turn into Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness”?

    It started with anti-apartheid work. (((Ilana Mercer))), her rabbi father and the rest of the family were kicked out of South Africa for their “work” to end apartheid.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Colleen Pater
    I was thinking the jewish commie engineering of redistributing white efforts to blacks ought to be mentioned as well as Illanas background. However I think its also worth noting this and other of her articles pull no punches as explicitly white interested shes a white nationalist now whatever her families history. Theres very few jews who do this and fewer still who dont have a jewish angle motivating them to champion whites. I think for now they ought to be encouraged to be a new generation of western jews that do not weigh every action as is it good for the jews.No dubt the damage is great existential even and should not be denied should in fact be well disseminated. But the quickest and likeliest way out of this existential threat to whites and the west is an about face by our dear (((leaders))) of course it about as likely as ..... but even if ones end goal were expulsion of jews the first step would be normalizing white nationalism and jews could do that in a matter of a few years if they were motivated. if as we expect they do not it ought to be clearly on the record they were given every opportunity to not that they were damned if they did damned if they didnt. If Illanna is not a good jew who is?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. I am unclear how to respond here. I would love to lambaste the current government for permitting unfairness. But i don’t know one redresses apartheid. Amnesty lasted as long as Pres. Mandela was alive.

    But amnesty has not outlived the consequences of apartheid. My concern here Miss Mercer, is that you really don’t a grasp on the what apartheid meant in application. Slavery and its aftermath is a tragic commentary on US democracy in every way, But i have to be honest, It may pale in comparison to the apartheid practiced throughout Africa. I don’t know what the measure is for such injustice. And allow me to be clear, the injustice is predicated not colonialism, but on a system that was predicated on lifting people up, that proclaimed fairness, justice and godlness, but actually practiced everything to the opposite — and icing their cake with validations from God.

    Here’s a take on Pres. Mandela and South Africa:

    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/spying-for-apartheid/

    If that comparison is correct, then I am loath to prop myself on a high horse to condemn South Africa, just as I am loathe to support Israel’s behavior in Palestine. We are talking about a very very nasty practice — and how any white South African could have passed and walked to church any day of the week to praise a loving God and embrace a forgiving Jesus — both of whom hated injustice and hypocrisy — I in good conscience — as much as I have come to appreciate your growing conscience — this is a bridge I could not cross with you, l’est a lightening strike consume me at the first step.

    If Pres Mandela’s take is correct (as noted by Dr. Giraldi) — you need not express an iota of regret for your father’s rumored efforts against it — no sincere person of conscience could do otherwise.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtl170
    Apartheid may have been an imperfect system in need of reform, but white rule introduced modern education, raised life expectancy and standard of living for ALL concerned. With rampant black violent crime against whites in "integrated" SA and the USA, not to mention abysmal black educational and economic achievement, it seems clear that segregationist policies in places like SA and the American South were an attempt to deal with an intractable problem - incompatible races living in close proximity.

    I wish the Afrikaners well. I'd much rather President Trump send weapons to them than to Muslim insurgents in Syria.

    As for your religious references, note that Christianity has existed under all manner of political systems - segregated and integrated, feudalistic, monarchical, democratic, etc. Something about rendering to Caesar that which is Caesar's may apply.

    , @jilles dykstra
    A relative of mine, I'm Dutch, lived in S Africa from 1955 to 1985.
    Based on his stories, I wonder in which situation the blacks of S Africa will be better off, under white rule, or under black rule with whites driven out.
    The present black government of S Africa seems a disaster to me.
    To add to this racist vision from a white guy, is there any nation ruled by blacks that fares well ?
    , @Rhett Hardwick
    Nelson Mandela, although little noted in the press, when Mandela came to Massachusetts during the Clinton Administration, his daughter refused to see him. She was at UMass at the time. The reason, he had regularly beat her mother (not WInnie).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. jtl170 says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    I am unclear how to respond here. I would love to lambaste the current government for permitting unfairness. But i don't know one redresses apartheid. Amnesty lasted as long as Pres. Mandela was alive.


    But amnesty has not outlived the consequences of apartheid. My concern here Miss Mercer, is that you really don't a grasp on the what apartheid meant in application. Slavery and its aftermath is a tragic commentary on US democracy in every way, But i have to be honest, It may pale in comparison to the apartheid practiced throughout Africa. I don't know what the measure is for such injustice. And allow me to be clear, the injustice is predicated not colonialism, but on a system that was predicated on lifting people up, that proclaimed fairness, justice and godlness, but actually practiced everything to the opposite -- and icing their cake with validations from God.

    Here's a take on Pres. Mandela and South Africa:

    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/spying-for-apartheid/

    If that comparison is correct, then I am loath to prop myself on a high horse to condemn South Africa, just as I am loathe to support Israel's behavior in Palestine. We are talking about a very very nasty practice --- and how any white South African could have passed and walked to church any day of the week to praise a loving God and embrace a forgiving Jesus -- both of whom hated injustice and hypocrisy -- I in good conscience --- as much as I have come to appreciate your growing conscience -- this is a bridge I could not cross with you, l'est a lightening strike consume me at the first step.

    If Pres Mandela's take is correct (as noted by Dr. Giraldi) -- you need not express an iota of regret for your father's rumored efforts against it --- no sincere person of conscience could do otherwise.

    Apartheid may have been an imperfect system in need of reform, but white rule introduced modern education, raised life expectancy and standard of living for ALL concerned. With rampant black violent crime against whites in “integrated” SA and the USA, not to mention abysmal black educational and economic achievement, it seems clear that segregationist policies in places like SA and the American South were an attempt to deal with an intractable problem – incompatible races living in close proximity.

    I wish the Afrikaners well. I’d much rather President Trump send weapons to them than to Muslim insurgents in Syria.

    As for your religious references, note that Christianity has existed under all manner of political systems – segregated and integrated, feudalistic, monarchical, democratic, etc. Something about rendering to Caesar that which is Caesar’s may apply.

    Read More
    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    I am not clear that you have a grasp for what apartheid was or its application. All of the benefits that you claim were brought to this region of Africa was denied to the majority of the population. So whatever benefits existed were almost exclusively for whites.

    Given the application of apartheid, no person of Christ could legitimately condone, support it, muchless in engage in it and stand in a congregation announcing the joys and expectations of of Christ and the Apostles.

    It is so drastically counter to everything Christ died to bestow in this life and beyond --- that making Christ a tool of the system has no justification. You'll have to do better than note the varying societies in which Christianity existed to square a life in Christ with apartheid.

    And no one demanding justice for injustices against Palestinians, could defend it it with a clear conscience, regardless of how one may feel about a particular group --
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Daniel H says:

    White South Africans know what they have to do, but yet they won’t do it. Carving out a white nation is the ONLY way forward for peace and security. South Africa is a big country. A white state (or states) can be cared out while leaving a huge swath of land, full of resources and industry for black South Africans. White South Africans must do this or they will perish.

    Read More
    • Replies: @pyrrhus
    They should have done this decades ago. Contrary to the title of this article, it would have made no difference what "muh Constitution" said, Black government was always going to seize the land and genocide any whites who didn't escape, because that's what Africans do...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. iffen says:

    Babbling rambling.

    Might makes right, or after these many years, did you not notice?

    Read More
    • Replies: @mcohen
    The boers were ready to fight but they were betrayed by there own generals.i was there and i saw it happen.regime change was inevitable but the cape belonged to the boers and now they must seize it.no bantu tribe can claim land south of the fish river.

    Sout, vrek of trek
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Someone says:

    No, do you know who allowed it? White people. White people gave their country to these people in the name of idiotic illusions of Equality, Freedom, Liberalisma and Individualism, when in fact, Whites are the only people in the world who share those values, and everyone else is just out to loot the White Legacy dry until there’s nothing else, until they return to the barbarism they came from, because they are parasites, with low intelligence and without morals, and just like locusts, they will consume everything in their pathway until there’s nothing left and they all die.
    They do not produce, only consume.
    This will be Zimbabwe 2.0, all because Whites abandoned their own self Ethnic Interests in the name of pitiful, utopian and outright mad ideals.
    There’s no moral superiority in denying reality in favor of suicidal beautiful concepts, there’s no good in this honorable defeat (more like naive, stupid, defeat).

    Read More
    • Agree: Carroll Price
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    True. This is what happens to gullible people like those in Rhodesia who attempted to placate Marxist agitators by "doing the right thing".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. mcohen says:
    @iffen
    Babbling rambling.

    Might makes right, or after these many years, did you not notice?

    The boers were ready to fight but they were betrayed by there own generals.i was there and i saw it happen.regime change was inevitable but the cape belonged to the boers and now they must seize it.no bantu tribe can claim land south of the fish river.

    Sout, vrek of trek

    Read More
    • Replies: @TonyVodvarka
    If I'm not mistaken, the Dutch arrived and established their nation in Southern Africa a century before Bantu peoples migrated from the north. However, it would be hard to imagine anyone these days calling the Bantus invaders or, much less, settlers.
    , @iffen
    the cape belonged to the boers and now they must seize

    Too late for this McOhen.

    They would be bombed by NATO after the Trumpen Reich passes from the scene.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Mark Presco says: • Website

    I was hoping for more insight about how this developed. My limited understanding of how South Africa evolved is this:

    Whites, mainly Boers, developed mostly unoccupied, and in some cases, marginal land. The 7 major indigenous tribes kept their homelands and numbered about 5 million.

    As whites created an economy and jobs, migrants from all over Africa flooded in, swelling the population to over 50 million. They were not enslaved.

    This created the infamous townships intended the keep the migrants from swamping both the white communities and the indigenous homelands. This was the main purpose of apartheid, the preservation of traditional cultures: multiculturalism

    The ANC was voted into power by the people of these townships because they are now the majority. They have no traditional claims to the land. They were not brought there against their will. They were not genocided.

    They want what they came for, a better quality of life. First, they were furious at whites because whites improved their life only marginally. Otherwise they would have returned home. Then they were furious at the ANC because it is was even worse. Now they are desperately grabbing for everything they can get.

    Please forgive my bias and laziness, but most of what I have read drips with white guilt tripping. Feel free to enlighten me.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. CalDre says:

    Cry me a river. Those Whites should just give up the land they inherited (and of which all Blacks in South Africa are therefor deprived) and return home. Simple.

    Why should a Black African, who is extremely unlikely to find success in Denmark, France or Germany, be content with all the valuable South African land being owned by Whites, who have inherited it from ancestors who stole it from the locals, even if the locals owned it communally?

    And if Whites had any brains they’d take the large landholdings of the Jew invaders and the Jews can just return home.

    A lot of conflict would end if people didn’t want to keep owning all of the prime shit in places where they don’t belong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    Louis Farrakahn couldn't have said it any better.
    , @Anonymous
    Where they don't belong? So I take it you're opposed to the flood of third-world immigration to Europe and America and agree that it should be reversed? Incidentally, most of what is now South Africa was unpopulated when the white man came and made it productive.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. @attilathehen
    How did the mythical land of Saint Nelson Mandela turn into Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness”?

    It started with anti-apartheid work. (((Ilana Mercer))), her rabbi father and the rest of the family were kicked out of South Africa for their "work" to end apartheid.

    I was thinking the jewish commie engineering of redistributing white efforts to blacks ought to be mentioned as well as Illanas background. However I think its also worth noting this and other of her articles pull no punches as explicitly white interested shes a white nationalist now whatever her families history. Theres very few jews who do this and fewer still who dont have a jewish angle motivating them to champion whites. I think for now they ought to be encouraged to be a new generation of western jews that do not weigh every action as is it good for the jews.No dubt the damage is great existential even and should not be denied should in fact be well disseminated. But the quickest and likeliest way out of this existential threat to whites and the west is an about face by our dear (((leaders))) of course it about as likely as ….. but even if ones end goal were expulsion of jews the first step would be normalizing white nationalism and jews could do that in a matter of a few years if they were motivated. if as we expect they do not it ought to be clearly on the record they were given every opportunity to not that they were damned if they did damned if they didnt. If Illanna is not a good jew who is?

    Read More
    • Replies: @WHAT
    But there is very much an angle here: the more far-sighted nose suddenly understands colored see it as white as well, with predictable results. Hence all the hand wringing.
    , @attilathehen
    Ilana is not a good Jew. She's a degenerate who gets a kick out writing stuff the goyim fall for. I judge by actions, not by written words. It doesn't matter what Jews think because they are not a part of the West.
    , @Carroll Price
    Time will tell. Good Jews eventually become non-Jews or ex-Jews like Gilad Atzmon. All the rest play social and political games at various levels of proficiency, with some being more sincere and convincing than others.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Dante says:

    You guys should look up the Suitlanders movement they a good website too, Just Google it. It is essentially a movement where White South African’s are already prepping for the anti white anarchy to come if I remember correctly they have coordinated travel routes off grid coms survival strategy military tactics and a whole range of systems to protect themselves. I think they have thousands of members already which is encouraging.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. Jake says:

    The Numinous Negroes are what they are, wherever they are – unless better behaved and smarter people force them to assimilate to a morally and intellectually superior culture.

    Into the Cannibals Pot indeed.

    But the fact also is that black Africa is worse than it should be because of bleeding heart liberal whites, as well as whites pushing sexual revolution and contempt for everything to do with Christian European civilization. Ditto blacks across America. Blacks are the tools and weapons, pawns, used by anti-Christendom, leftist whites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "The Numinous Negroes are what they are, wherever they are – unless better behaved and smarter people force them to assimilate to a morally and intellectually superior culture."

    Thanks, Cecil Rhodes!

    "Blacks are the tools and weapons, pawns, used by anti-Christendom, leftist whites."

    Refer to my comment to jilles and educate yourself.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Who stole, or is stealing the land ?
    The whites, who, since the 17th century stole the land, or the blacks who want their land back ?
    Israel has a comparable problem, once the Palestinians are in a position to take their land back, will not the jews complain that the Palestinians are stealing ?
    The problem can be made more complicated, even the blacks of S Africa, a long time ago, were invaders.
    I think in
    Ian Hernon, ‘Britain’s Forgotten Wars, Colonial Campaigns of the 19th Century’, 2003, 2007, Chalford – Stroud
    a Boer general, when the war between the British and the Boers began, explains to his wife that the war against the British will be quite different from the wars against Hottentots and Bushmen.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. @EliteCommInc.
    I am unclear how to respond here. I would love to lambaste the current government for permitting unfairness. But i don't know one redresses apartheid. Amnesty lasted as long as Pres. Mandela was alive.


    But amnesty has not outlived the consequences of apartheid. My concern here Miss Mercer, is that you really don't a grasp on the what apartheid meant in application. Slavery and its aftermath is a tragic commentary on US democracy in every way, But i have to be honest, It may pale in comparison to the apartheid practiced throughout Africa. I don't know what the measure is for such injustice. And allow me to be clear, the injustice is predicated not colonialism, but on a system that was predicated on lifting people up, that proclaimed fairness, justice and godlness, but actually practiced everything to the opposite -- and icing their cake with validations from God.

    Here's a take on Pres. Mandela and South Africa:

    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/spying-for-apartheid/

    If that comparison is correct, then I am loath to prop myself on a high horse to condemn South Africa, just as I am loathe to support Israel's behavior in Palestine. We are talking about a very very nasty practice --- and how any white South African could have passed and walked to church any day of the week to praise a loving God and embrace a forgiving Jesus -- both of whom hated injustice and hypocrisy -- I in good conscience --- as much as I have come to appreciate your growing conscience -- this is a bridge I could not cross with you, l'est a lightening strike consume me at the first step.

    If Pres Mandela's take is correct (as noted by Dr. Giraldi) -- you need not express an iota of regret for your father's rumored efforts against it --- no sincere person of conscience could do otherwise.

    A relative of mine, I’m Dutch, lived in S Africa from 1955 to 1985.
    Based on his stories, I wonder in which situation the blacks of S Africa will be better off, under white rule, or under black rule with whites driven out.
    The present black government of S Africa seems a disaster to me.
    To add to this racist vision from a white guy, is there any nation ruled by blacks that fares well ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    To add to this racist vision from a white guy, is there any nation ruled by blacks that fares well ?
     
    Is there any nation ruled by whites that fares well?

    Are there any nations that have "fared well" without plundering, exploiting and/or enslaving others? Or being plundered, exploited and/or enslaved by others?

    What does one mean by "faring well?

    , @EliteCommInc.
    If you spend 200 (being generous here) plus years failing to educate, and financializing the majority of your muchmore brutalizing them, it's a safe bet that should the power dynamics shift, there may be consequences.

    And I suspect that dynamic would be the case regardless of skin color.

    , @Corvinus
    "To add to this racist vision from a white guy, is there any nation ruled by blacks that fares well?"

    Africans were doing quite well for themselves before the invade the world, invite the world Europeans came ashore demanding gimmedats and creating artificial borders in Africa.

    This video will offer you a glimpse as to how and why there is continued instability in Africa today, ranging from the vestiges of European imperialism to ethnic cleansing to tin-pot dictators.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbbuTjntpGc&feature=youtu.be

    Pay close attention from 5:10 to 6:22.

    , @Beckow
    I think Rwanda and a few smaller, resource-rich black countries are relatively ok. A friend worked as a doctor in Botswana; extreme under-development, but he liked it.

    Past is messy and any group can weave a story selecting only facts that suit them. The apartheid was established to keep different groups living apart, with whites on the top. The problem was not as much the apartheid, as the one-sided deal that the ruling whites offered to the blacks. Whites took the best land, water resources, minerals, a lot more land than their numbers. That's what happens when a 'deal' is done with one side having all the power. Today Israel is trying to force similar deal on the Palestinians. Over time demographics undermines most one-sided deals.

    Boers and British in S Africa would had been better off being more realistic. Take the Cape, some inland compact areas where they had majority, bring in displaced whites from Zimbabwe, Angola, etc... draw defensible borders. Give the blacks something substantial, valuable, something they can claim - maybe Natal, Rand or the area around Port Elisabeth. That required a sacrifice by many whites and instead naive idealism took over. Now they are f...ed.

    Lesson? Don't aspire to more than you can handle, political gluttony is usually fatal.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Jake says:

    Well, the (British) Commonwealth of Nations was acting to force South Africa to move to majority rule no later than 1960. South Africa was booted from the Commonwealth for not doing so. The US was using its power globally to force South Africa to go black rule no later than the start of the 1970s.

    The leaders of WASP Empire demanded that South Africa become black ruled.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Wong
    The White is an alien to the South Africa, kicking them out is the natural right of the indigenous people. De Jure aside, the White in South Africa could either negotiate a deal with the indigenous people or they could fight a protracted war with the indigenous people backed by the Russian and Cuban like in Angola or Rhodesia. The White in Rhodesia backed by the White in South Africa could not sustain the war and folded. The White extracted maximum benefits with their handpicked comprador, Nelson Mandela, and avoided to be cleansed in the battlefields.

    The White is still enjoying glass apartheid in the South Africa. The WASP in Britain and USA gained vast commercial concessions in South Africa and a global de factor judge on human rights which they used to bomb, kill and waterboard on the fabricated phantom WMD allegation as humanitarian intervention. What deal can be better than that?
    , @Anonymous
    What you call the "WASP Empire" is not ruled by WASPs and hasn't been for generations. This goes double when it comes to foreign policy.
    , @Justsaying
    A reminder that Ronald Reagan vetoed successive UN security resolutions condemning the apartheid state and resisted or slowed down attempts to impose sanctions, measures that were overwhelmingly approved by Black South Africans. It was American student sit-ins and private boycotts that went a long way toward combating and finally bringing formal apartheid to its knees. Credit must also go to ANC's armed resistance supported by other African states, Cuba and the Soviets, but not the West, who were busy propping their puppet Jonas Savimbi's insurgency against the MPLA government in Angola.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. South Africa’s in an explosive situation much like Rwanda before the killings started. It’s going to look like the ‘Walking Dead’ there’s no way the Whites can win against armed Zombie mobs of millions. Whites have already making plans for mass evacuations.

    https://suidlanders.org/our-emergency-plan/

    They have to also arm themselves and create militias.

    To make matters worse S&P have down graded their bonds to Junk! Well done ANC you have taken an advanced economy and turned it into shit in 3 decades.

    https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/south-africa/2017-11-25-junk-status-means-sa-will-have-to-pay-more-to-raise-money-analysts/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. Joe Wong says:
    @phil
    Great work, Ilana. One of your best efforts, and heartfelt, I'm sure.

    Why was Saka Zulu a butcher? Why can’t he be the African Alexander the Great? Did Zulu say anything bad about him? Based on what the author said about Saka in an unwarranted Western bigotry fashion, how much can we believe what is in the article?

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    If this was the Zulu king king who killed a small British army, with repeater rifles and shrapnel cannon, to the last man, with his army of warriors just armed with spears etc., it is my favourite example of high political organisation among the Zulus.
    They defended their land, with great bloodshed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. @jilles dykstra
    A relative of mine, I'm Dutch, lived in S Africa from 1955 to 1985.
    Based on his stories, I wonder in which situation the blacks of S Africa will be better off, under white rule, or under black rule with whites driven out.
    The present black government of S Africa seems a disaster to me.
    To add to this racist vision from a white guy, is there any nation ruled by blacks that fares well ?

    To add to this racist vision from a white guy, is there any nation ruled by blacks that fares well ?

    Is there any nation ruled by whites that fares well?

    Are there any nations that have “fared well” without plundering, exploiting and/or enslaving others? Or being plundered, exploited and/or enslaved by others?

    What does one mean by “faring well?

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Now that the EU is destroying our country more and more, things are going backwards, but say until 2005 we fared well.
    Faring well, little or no poverty, low crime rates, good health care, pension systems, etc.
    About plundering, we lost all our colonies, since then things became better for us in the Netherlands.
    In Indonesia it was the other way round, income per head of 1940, under colonial rule, was just reached again in the seventies.
    , @megabar
    One reasonable proxy for "faring well" is that people want to move to your country. People want to move to Western nations. Another reasonable criterion is "could defend itself from aggression."

    Let's make this clear -- are you suggesting that there are black-ruled nations that have performed as well as white-ruled ones, in whichever criteria you deem the most reasonable way to measure a nation?

    As for plundering, etc, consider the possibility that exploitation results from power imbalance, and that it does not cause it. I'm not aware of African nations being particularly peaceful, and they likely exploited and plundered the neighbors that they could. They could not do that to Western nations, however.
    , @Anonymous

    Is there any nation ruled by whites that fares well?
     
    http://get.whotrades.com/u3/photoD94E/20842304119-0/original.jpeg

    PS: You are a bozo.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. @jilles dykstra
    A relative of mine, I'm Dutch, lived in S Africa from 1955 to 1985.
    Based on his stories, I wonder in which situation the blacks of S Africa will be better off, under white rule, or under black rule with whites driven out.
    The present black government of S Africa seems a disaster to me.
    To add to this racist vision from a white guy, is there any nation ruled by blacks that fares well ?

    If you spend 200 (being generous here) plus years failing to educate, and financializing the majority of your muchmore brutalizing them, it’s a safe bet that should the power dynamics shift, there may be consequences.

    And I suspect that dynamic would be the case regardless of skin color.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Disordered
    The thing is, not only everything has been given back, but the guilt is so great, that the much grander amount of wealth created by white trade is being given back to the formerly enslaved. Would the Zulu have ever exploited diamonds? Without the use of natural resources the Western way, would these Africans afford cellphones? Would they even be able to make them or use them without Westernized education? Food for thought.

    Furthermore, if we talk about racial resentments, why not go back to every single racial dispute in history? Why shouldn't the West try a crusade again to free North Africa and the Levant from Mohammed? In short, what is the status quo that will make everyone happy? If you say, each race to their ancestral homelands, then why Africans and Asians that already rule nearly all of their countries, why do they need to invade Europe?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @Joe Wong
    Why was Saka Zulu a butcher? Why can't he be the African Alexander the Great? Did Zulu say anything bad about him? Based on what the author said about Saka in an unwarranted Western bigotry fashion, how much can we believe what is in the article?

    If this was the Zulu king king who killed a small British army, with repeater rifles and shrapnel cannon, to the last man, with his army of warriors just armed with spears etc., it is my favourite example of high political organisation among the Zulus.
    They defended their land, with great bloodshed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @jtl170
    Apartheid may have been an imperfect system in need of reform, but white rule introduced modern education, raised life expectancy and standard of living for ALL concerned. With rampant black violent crime against whites in "integrated" SA and the USA, not to mention abysmal black educational and economic achievement, it seems clear that segregationist policies in places like SA and the American South were an attempt to deal with an intractable problem - incompatible races living in close proximity.

    I wish the Afrikaners well. I'd much rather President Trump send weapons to them than to Muslim insurgents in Syria.

    As for your religious references, note that Christianity has existed under all manner of political systems - segregated and integrated, feudalistic, monarchical, democratic, etc. Something about rendering to Caesar that which is Caesar's may apply.

    I am not clear that you have a grasp for what apartheid was or its application. All of the benefits that you claim were brought to this region of Africa was denied to the majority of the population. So whatever benefits existed were almost exclusively for whites.

    Given the application of apartheid, no person of Christ could legitimately condone, support it, muchless in engage in it and stand in a congregation announcing the joys and expectations of of Christ and the Apostles.

    It is so drastically counter to everything Christ died to bestow in this life and beyond — that making Christ a tool of the system has no justification. You’ll have to do better than note the varying societies in which Christianity existed to square a life in Christ with apartheid.

    And no one demanding justice for injustices against Palestinians, could defend it it with a clear conscience, regardless of how one may feel about a particular group –

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    Plenty of lefties call themselves Christians while glorifying the Castro brothers.
    , @phil
    During apartheid there was net in-migration of blacks from other African countries. Of course, whites could have given more to blacks, but blacks in South Africa were generally better off than their neighbors and possibly better off than people living in the Soviet Union.

    In Zimbabwe, average living standards are less than half of what they were at their peak. We will see what happens in South Africa.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Corvinus says:
    @jilles dykstra
    A relative of mine, I'm Dutch, lived in S Africa from 1955 to 1985.
    Based on his stories, I wonder in which situation the blacks of S Africa will be better off, under white rule, or under black rule with whites driven out.
    The present black government of S Africa seems a disaster to me.
    To add to this racist vision from a white guy, is there any nation ruled by blacks that fares well ?

    “To add to this racist vision from a white guy, is there any nation ruled by blacks that fares well?”

    Africans were doing quite well for themselves before the invade the world, invite the world Europeans came ashore demanding gimmedats and creating artificial borders in Africa.

    This video will offer you a glimpse as to how and why there is continued instability in Africa today, ranging from the vestiges of European imperialism to ethnic cleansing to tin-pot dictators.

    Pay close attention from 5:10 to 6:22.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Is there any country in Afica with decent education, infrastructure, health care, birth control, housing, sewers, industry of any importance ?
    Why are African countries unable to folllow the Singapore example ?
    Why do refugees accepted by us not work, while they seem to be able to ?
    I'll copy the link
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Corvinus says:
    @Jake
    The Numinous Negroes are what they are, wherever they are - unless better behaved and smarter people force them to assimilate to a morally and intellectually superior culture.

    Into the Cannibals Pot indeed.

    But the fact also is that black Africa is worse than it should be because of bleeding heart liberal whites, as well as whites pushing sexual revolution and contempt for everything to do with Christian European civilization. Ditto blacks across America. Blacks are the tools and weapons, pawns, used by anti-Christendom, leftist whites.

    “The Numinous Negroes are what they are, wherever they are – unless better behaved and smarter people force them to assimilate to a morally and intellectually superior culture.”

    Thanks, Cecil Rhodes!

    “Blacks are the tools and weapons, pawns, used by anti-Christendom, leftist whites.”

    Refer to my comment to jilles and educate yourself.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. WHAT says:
    @Colleen Pater
    I was thinking the jewish commie engineering of redistributing white efforts to blacks ought to be mentioned as well as Illanas background. However I think its also worth noting this and other of her articles pull no punches as explicitly white interested shes a white nationalist now whatever her families history. Theres very few jews who do this and fewer still who dont have a jewish angle motivating them to champion whites. I think for now they ought to be encouraged to be a new generation of western jews that do not weigh every action as is it good for the jews.No dubt the damage is great existential even and should not be denied should in fact be well disseminated. But the quickest and likeliest way out of this existential threat to whites and the west is an about face by our dear (((leaders))) of course it about as likely as ..... but even if ones end goal were expulsion of jews the first step would be normalizing white nationalism and jews could do that in a matter of a few years if they were motivated. if as we expect they do not it ought to be clearly on the record they were given every opportunity to not that they were damned if they did damned if they didnt. If Illanna is not a good jew who is?

    But there is very much an angle here: the more far-sighted nose suddenly understands colored see it as white as well, with predictable results. Hence all the hand wringing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    But there is very much an angle here: the more far-sighted nose suddenly understands colored see it as white as well, with predictable results. Hence all the hand wringing.
     
    I sometimes wonder if (((their))) genome might have a suicidality gene that pops up with devastating regularity. It’s a very old and very consistent story through their entire history. Always pissing somebody off and getting their asses thrown out of this place and that. And this despite the fact that they could just blend in and disappear any time they so chose. Just in our era, they’ve done some stupendously and cataclysmicly self defeating things. Marxism has been a bad deal that will get much worse - the canonization of envy never ends well for a visible and highly successful group. Zionism will be existentially catastrophic - what idiot chooses the exact spot where every Christian and every Muslim looks forward to Apocalypse, and where one group thinks their God may forgive them (after annihilating them) the other thinks their God will just slaughter them (or they’ll do it for him). Immigration and SJWism have brought their dual whammy of importing an even higher IQ population with automatic Affirmative Action points (East Asians & high-caste Indians) plus hatred of whites when Jews are themselves squarely in the crosshairs - extra white even.
    , @Colleen Pater
    If you're trying to argue against identity politics, ah but Im so much younger than that now.Then what you would be saying is if you accept the given that nations are multicultural then to allow identity politics for the dominant group will surely backfire on them. Uh yeah if you accept multiculturalism as a given then another given is identity politics and another given further down the road is civil race war.But then you would have begun by destroying the entire point of a nation state which is the place from which a particular people safely operate from and engage the world.
    And if youre really retarded and saying that whites have no business in africa and therefore the multicultural state that is dooming them predictably is there comeuppance then I hope you're not an american canadian australian new zealander etc or if you are youre ok with your wife and family being raped and murdered. The proper understanding is we whites are one of millions of species of life on this planet that nature has pitted against each other for existence and the only objective moral action is to survive by any means possible. So while no ethnic subspecies of human has lived forever in any one place it wouldnt matter if say the zulu actually had bee native to south africa for 1.8 million years the boers were able to take it and should have resisted the jews attempts to give it back to blacks, but they didnt and the jews one the jews are winning a lot these past 100 years so maybe they will be the future of the universe and if so as a humanoid hoka hey, but as white I say not so fast jewboy I think you need to step over here into this nice cattle car
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Hibernian says:
    @CalDre
    Cry me a river. Those Whites should just give up the land they inherited (and of which all Blacks in South Africa are therefor deprived) and return home. Simple.

    Why should a Black African, who is extremely unlikely to find success in Denmark, France or Germany, be content with all the valuable South African land being owned by Whites, who have inherited it from ancestors who stole it from the locals, even if the locals owned it communally?

    And if Whites had any brains they'd take the large landholdings of the Jew invaders and the Jews can just return home.

    A lot of conflict would end if people didn't want to keep owning all of the prime shit in places where they don't belong.

    Louis Farrakahn couldn’t have said it any better.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre
    Thanks for putting me in the company of such a wise man.

    Problem with the Boers is they were completely content being super racists for centuries but now are crying that someone wants them to leave the territory they invaded, and in which they ruled over the natives as supremacists. Mind you, the locals are not slaughtering them, or even tarring or feathering them, just taking away what isn't their's.

    And no, I don't believe in "inheritance" elsewhere, either. That is one monumental injustice that will one day be done away with. Inheritance and free market are actually opposites - you cannot have a free market when one group, whether selected by race as in S. Africa or by clan as in the "West", is born owning all the land and the other groups the serfs. That's how the feudal ages worked. Nothing's changed, except for a while, after the serfs agitated for change, the lords threw some more crumbs to the serfs. Well, in S. Africa, the masters weren't throwing enough crumbs to the slaves, and in the rest of the world, the masses will soon rise up and take what's theirs from the 1% useless and generally greedy and evil eaters who inherited it all. Unless smart people make some alternative decisions early, the result will be Communism.

    Inheritance is evil! The greatest evil on Earth!

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Beckow says:
    @jilles dykstra
    A relative of mine, I'm Dutch, lived in S Africa from 1955 to 1985.
    Based on his stories, I wonder in which situation the blacks of S Africa will be better off, under white rule, or under black rule with whites driven out.
    The present black government of S Africa seems a disaster to me.
    To add to this racist vision from a white guy, is there any nation ruled by blacks that fares well ?

    I think Rwanda and a few smaller, resource-rich black countries are relatively ok. A friend worked as a doctor in Botswana; extreme under-development, but he liked it.

    Past is messy and any group can weave a story selecting only facts that suit them. The apartheid was established to keep different groups living apart, with whites on the top. The problem was not as much the apartheid, as the one-sided deal that the ruling whites offered to the blacks. Whites took the best land, water resources, minerals, a lot more land than their numbers. That’s what happens when a ‘deal’ is done with one side having all the power. Today Israel is trying to force similar deal on the Palestinians. Over time demographics undermines most one-sided deals.

    Boers and British in S Africa would had been better off being more realistic. Take the Cape, some inland compact areas where they had majority, bring in displaced whites from Zimbabwe, Angola, etc… draw defensible borders. Give the blacks something substantial, valuable, something they can claim – maybe Natal, Rand or the area around Port Elisabeth. That required a sacrifice by many whites and instead naive idealism took over. Now they are f…ed.

    Lesson? Don’t aspire to more than you can handle, political gluttony is usually fatal.

    Read More
    • Agree: Hibernian
    • Replies: @Meimou
    The lesson is no never give up power. The Boers didn't bite off more than can chew. They gave up power.

    Give the blacks something substantial, valuable, something they can claim – maybe Natal, Rand or the area around Port Elisabeth.

    They will no doubt do great things with it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Joe Wong says:
    @Jake
    Well, the (British) Commonwealth of Nations was acting to force South Africa to move to majority rule no later than 1960. South Africa was booted from the Commonwealth for not doing so. The US was using its power globally to force South Africa to go black rule no later than the start of the 1970s.

    The leaders of WASP Empire demanded that South Africa become black ruled.

    The White is an alien to the South Africa, kicking them out is the natural right of the indigenous people. De Jure aside, the White in South Africa could either negotiate a deal with the indigenous people or they could fight a protracted war with the indigenous people backed by the Russian and Cuban like in Angola or Rhodesia. The White in Rhodesia backed by the White in South Africa could not sustain the war and folded. The White extracted maximum benefits with their handpicked comprador, Nelson Mandela, and avoided to be cleansed in the battlefields.

    The White is still enjoying glass apartheid in the South Africa. The WASP in Britain and USA gained vast commercial concessions in South Africa and a global de factor judge on human rights which they used to bomb, kill and waterboard on the fabricated phantom WMD allegation as humanitarian intervention. What deal can be better than that?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @jacques sheete

    To add to this racist vision from a white guy, is there any nation ruled by blacks that fares well ?
     
    Is there any nation ruled by whites that fares well?

    Are there any nations that have "fared well" without plundering, exploiting and/or enslaving others? Or being plundered, exploited and/or enslaved by others?

    What does one mean by "faring well?

    Now that the EU is destroying our country more and more, things are going backwards, but say until 2005 we fared well.
    Faring well, little or no poverty, low crime rates, good health care, pension systems, etc.
    About plundering, we lost all our colonies, since then things became better for us in the Netherlands.
    In Indonesia it was the other way round, income per head of 1940, under colonial rule, was just reached again in the seventies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @Corvinus
    "To add to this racist vision from a white guy, is there any nation ruled by blacks that fares well?"

    Africans were doing quite well for themselves before the invade the world, invite the world Europeans came ashore demanding gimmedats and creating artificial borders in Africa.

    This video will offer you a glimpse as to how and why there is continued instability in Africa today, ranging from the vestiges of European imperialism to ethnic cleansing to tin-pot dictators.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbbuTjntpGc&feature=youtu.be

    Pay close attention from 5:10 to 6:22.

    Is there any country in Afica with decent education, infrastructure, health care, birth control, housing, sewers, industry of any importance ?
    Why are African countries unable to folllow the Singapore example ?
    Why do refugees accepted by us not work, while they seem to be able to ?
    I’ll copy the link

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Wong
    Why there is nobody asking Belgium to take up the responsibility to fix the mess they left behind? It is the same as the suffering broadcasted in the ME, it is all the local’s fault; but before the American led NATO invasions there were orderly societies despite they did not fit the West’s taste, but nobody is asking who are the perpetrators and why are they not be held accountable?
    , @Corvinus
    "Is there any country in Afica with decent education, infrastructure, health care, birth control, housing, sewers, industry of any importance?

    The colonial powers built up the institutions and infrastructure for their benefit--they focused on urban areas, rather than the entire region. Some nations of Africa do have "decent" things, just not on a widespread basis. Did you not watch the video to gain a sense as to why Africa, which is only 60 years removed from European control, is struggling to get on its feet?

    "Why are African countries unable to folllow the Singapore example?"

    The development of Africa and the development of Singapore followed different paths.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Singapore#1819:_British_colony_of_Singapore
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. there are no emoticons available here on UNZ to denote high-larity, sarcasm and the utter delusion of almost 100% of this. this post and commentary are high-larious in the extreme. I glanced around expecting to see J. Cleese smirking somewhere off-stage. I began laffing right away, tickled by that woman..whats her name- Illana? what is she Ukrainian?

    Illana sounds like the Canadian ‘forrin’ minister…of Ukrainian descent…who is actually the PM of Canada, in the presence of Justin Trudeau, who was a boxer..prolly got hit in the back of his head

    way to go UNZ..providing a safe-house and space to contain the lunatic and delusional white political commentariat..the less trouble they can cause out in open space

    Ramaphosa, a traitor, is in all likelihood playing political games to cement a place for himself in the people by doing the right thing finally..taking back the land. the land should have been taken back immediately by Mandella…which would have deprived Mercer of this opportunity to expose her racist lunacy. how old is she anyway?

    at the time of Mandella’s ascendancy, just before his open betrayal of the African people…Mercer could have been a child prodigy, already cut her teeth on meaty racism and could even then have spouted what she does above here? Mercer reads like she came out that way..from day one.

    oh well! the white people stole the land. they have had it for a very long time. their descendants and current occupiers of the stolen land are fine, ok..profited handsomely. they can go off and make lives any dam where they choose. there must be no compensation..just take the dam land and give it back to its rightful owners

    and who cares what the owners do with their land….its theirs. let the grass grow, feed and rest the land..build a friggin hut and sleep on it. its none of ya’all dam business. and if they starve and want some food don’t give them any. they will make it. they have for longer than all of you white petrified africans have been around.

    they can do without the Epycite corn anyway. I don’t think they would take American food aid even if they were falling on their feet

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ilyana_Rozumova
    I wholeheartedly concur.
    And Israelis should give back all land they stole from Palestinians.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @mcohen
    The boers were ready to fight but they were betrayed by there own generals.i was there and i saw it happen.regime change was inevitable but the cape belonged to the boers and now they must seize it.no bantu tribe can claim land south of the fish river.

    Sout, vrek of trek

    If I’m not mistaken, the Dutch arrived and established their nation in Southern Africa a century before Bantu peoples migrated from the north. However, it would be hard to imagine anyone these days calling the Bantus invaders or, much less, settlers.

    Read More
    • Agree: MBlanc46
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    The Dutch began by establishing a port where ships on their way to the Far East could take in water, food, take care of sick, etc.
    Cape Town at the time was pretty small.
    A colony indeed began around it.

    But the Boers, descendants of Dutch and Germans, began the Trek northwards after the British had taken over Cape town.
    The Boer nations indeed were established on territory of the natives, with force.
    Nothing special then, happened all over the world.
    Ian Hernon, 'Britain's Forgotten Wars, Colonial Campaigns of the 19th Century', 2003, 2007, Chalford - Stroud

    I suppose similar books exist about Spain, Portugal, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and, last but not least, the USA, I happen to know the books about the USA, such as
    Stan Hoig, "The Sand Creek Massacre', Oklahoma, 1961, 1982

    However, when gold and diamonds were discovered beneath the Boer nations, greedy Britain had to take the territory.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Joe Wong says:
    @Renoman
    South Africa! From shining light to seething shit hole in 3 generations, just watch. Everybody thinks whitey is an absolute bastard until blackie gets in charge, then they long for the good old days.

    Shining light was on the White only in South Africa under the apartheid. The natives though still are not living well but it is better off than then. If South Africa was not polluted by the aliens from far away land, they could develop based on their own culture and tradition. Mind you the savagery image of the natives was a construct by the White alien to justify their stealing and plundering on the moral high ground like they have done in Americas and all over the world.

    The South Africans need to restore their own culture and tradition by cleansed the toxin brought in by the aliens from far away land. The alien’s way of life and government are toxic the South African physical and mental health.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Liza
    Hey, here is the real solution. Everybody, everywhere, go back to your ancestral homeland.

    Think of how the economy will "grow" for years: we'll see increased manufacture of airplanes and ships; resettlement experts; surveyors to do the land division work needed; police, managers & clerks to oversee all this. Don't forget DNA testing people to make sure everyone goes to his rightful spot on the planet. For mixed-race and mixed-ethnics, we'll have specialists to figure this all out once and for all.

    Employment for all (while they await their own deportation and resettlement).

    O Glory Day!
    , @SunBakedSuburb
    How long until South African Blacks achieve Wakanda?
    , @KenH
    Are you related to Sum Ting?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Liza says:
    @Joe Wong
    Shining light was on the White only in South Africa under the apartheid. The natives though still are not living well but it is better off than then. If South Africa was not polluted by the aliens from far away land, they could develop based on their own culture and tradition. Mind you the savagery image of the natives was a construct by the White alien to justify their stealing and plundering on the moral high ground like they have done in Americas and all over the world.

    The South Africans need to restore their own culture and tradition by cleansed the toxin brought in by the aliens from far away land. The alien’s way of life and government are toxic the South African physical and mental health.

    Hey, here is the real solution. Everybody, everywhere, go back to your ancestral homeland.

    Think of how the economy will “grow” for years: we’ll see increased manufacture of airplanes and ships; resettlement experts; surveyors to do the land division work needed; police, managers & clerks to oversee all this. Don’t forget DNA testing people to make sure everyone goes to his rightful spot on the planet. For mixed-race and mixed-ethnics, we’ll have specialists to figure this all out once and for all.

    Employment for all (while they await their own deportation and resettlement).

    O Glory Day!

    Read More
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    I hope that you don’t mean Those Who Cannot Be Named. And the Chinese and Indians (dot, not feather) scattered all over the world.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Joe Wong says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Is there any country in Afica with decent education, infrastructure, health care, birth control, housing, sewers, industry of any importance ?
    Why are African countries unable to folllow the Singapore example ?
    Why do refugees accepted by us not work, while they seem to be able to ?
    I'll copy the link

    Why there is nobody asking Belgium to take up the responsibility to fix the mess they left behind? It is the same as the suffering broadcasted in the ME, it is all the local’s fault; but before the American led NATO invasions there were orderly societies despite they did not fit the West’s taste, but nobody is asking who are the perpetrators and why are they not be held accountable?

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    This is in essence taking place among many Europeans states. The modern Belgian is well aware on what transpired on the continent of Africa and they are well aware of their role --


    The question is always, once one admits it, accepts it

    what to do, if anything and then if something -- how does one redress that level of wrong.


    In the US the way the country redresses the historical issues with blacks is to engage in wholesaleness and it's pretty clearly the wrong choice.
    , @bomag

    Why there is nobody asking Belgium to take up the responsibility to fix the mess they left behind?
     
    Probably because the "mess" is independent of Belgium actions.

    but before the American led NATO invasions there were orderly societies despite they did not fit the West’s taste
     
    They had as many problems then as now. It is a mistake to imagine the past as utopia. A society's fundamental capability gets expressed over time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @Ben Sampson
    there are no emoticons available here on UNZ to denote high-larity, sarcasm and the utter delusion of almost 100% of this. this post and commentary are high-larious in the extreme. I glanced around expecting to see J. Cleese smirking somewhere off-stage. I began laffing right away, tickled by that woman..whats her name- Illana? what is she Ukrainian?

    Illana sounds like the Canadian 'forrin' minister...of Ukrainian descent...who is actually the PM of Canada, in the presence of Justin Trudeau, who was a boxer..prolly got hit in the back of his head

    way to go UNZ..providing a safe-house and space to contain the lunatic and delusional white political commentariat..the less trouble they can cause out in open space

    Ramaphosa, a traitor, is in all likelihood playing political games to cement a place for himself in the people by doing the right thing finally..taking back the land. the land should have been taken back immediately by Mandella...which would have deprived Mercer of this opportunity to expose her racist lunacy. how old is she anyway?

    at the time of Mandella's ascendancy, just before his open betrayal of the African people...Mercer could have been a child prodigy, already cut her teeth on meaty racism and could even then have spouted what she does above here? Mercer reads like she came out that way..from day one.

    oh well! the white people stole the land. they have had it for a very long time. their descendants and current occupiers of the stolen land are fine, ok..profited handsomely. they can go off and make lives any dam where they choose. there must be no compensation..just take the dam land and give it back to its rightful owners

    and who cares what the owners do with their land....its theirs. let the grass grow, feed and rest the land..build a friggin hut and sleep on it. its none of ya'all dam business. and if they starve and want some food don't give them any. they will make it. they have for longer than all of you white petrified africans have been around.

    they can do without the Epycite corn anyway. I don't think they would take American food aid even if they were falling on their feet

    I wholeheartedly concur.
    And Israelis should give back all land they stole from Palestinians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    I wonder what Pinker’s take on Africanization of white worlds is.

    http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2018/03/nassim-nicholas-taleb-and-andrew.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  41. Amazing how the responses to this issue in large measure betray kinship sentiments rather than historical analysis. Had the West’s formal responses shown equivalent levels of civilized outrage on routine Palestinian dispossession by Zionist Israel — and taken tangible measures to contain such trends, as they had done with Zimbabwe to devastating effect, such kinship sentiments could be understood, if not entirely forgiven. Yet no Zimbabweans are known to posses farmlands in any lush Western countryside to arouse the passions that were seen when Zimbabweans took what was rightfully theirs. Petitions are already being gathered to encourage migration of South African Whites to Western countries. One would have thought that the way to go is to help Blacks transition smoothly as their lands change hands to their rightful owners with the West offering agricultural and managerial expertise to Africans benefiting from lands appropriated from Whites, so that economic activities would proceed without hitches. But one is loathe to speculate that the shared history of dispossession of natives of by settler societies, robbing natives of their lands and resources (please spare us the Empty land Myth or terra nullius to justify land theft) remains a phenomenon that scarcely invites censure. Hardly any country of reasonable area and land mass, including the US, is not without such empty swathes of lands. That alone should not constitute an open invitation for land theft. But then, history is not only written by the victors, but acted out by them; never the vanquished. Any attempt by the formerly colonized to tell — indeed act out — their own story is generally met with scorn , ridicule and self-fulfilling prophesies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    "One would have thought that the way to go is to help Blacks transition smoothly as their lands change hands to their rightful owners with the West offering agricultural and managerial expertise to Africans benefiting from lands appropriated from Whites, so that economic activities would proceed without hitches."


    Singly the most astute" historical socialization observation you make. That failing to have incorporated the majority as partners -- as opposed to animals and enemies --


    has consequences.
    , @Ben Sampson
    I agree with the last part but not the first.

    the dominant part of white culture is rotten to its core and I expect nothing from it but what it spews..like what flows from most of the comments here above.

    look here: western white culture is now so godawful, so creepy and ghoulish that I don't even read their news publications too much anymore. the last time I looked an expert was lamenting the ban on cannibalism..the consumption of human meat. and some american states had legalized the selling of babies..were about creating a market for live human babies.

    add to that the huge clandestine market for human body parts..Israel openly killing Palestinians and harvesting their bodies. then there is homosexual marriage, adoption,teaching homosexuality in kindergarten. then a river of gender bending while allowing children of single digit years to chose their gender, sending them for gender assignment surgery.what the hell are we looking at in the west..like it is reflected in the commentary on this page..a 100% lunatic culture, dying on its feet, literally consuming itself. lord have mercy

    The Russians are better with their Christian resurgence ..though I am not religious. and there are sane cultured and brilliant white humane people all over. but the western white collective needs to be saved from itself. and in doing so we may yet save our species..as the west seems prepared to blow the planet up as their hegemony wanes

    so I disagree with you on the morality of the white countries bringing home the white farmers of South Africa. let them go home..who cares..they are of no use to Africa

    and similarly Africa needs no expertise in any way shape or form from the old slaver..Ole Marse'.. colonizer and corporate raider extraordinaire. Africa can help itself. the further away we keep western white man the better for us. I don't for the life of me understand why the hell most Africans cant see that yet..still fooled by white propaganda

    Ramaphosa must take back the land...let the white farmers go if they want to..they are free. and accept no help from the west for African agriculture. any such help is bound to be a poisoned cup, built around high fossil fuel inputs, as it is saturated with poisonous chemicals. Africa can use none of that. we must be about feeding the people..or allowing the people to feed themselves..not to poison the people

    so if production goes down while the land is cleansed and healed, and while skills, plans and support for clean sustainable agriculture are built up, that is fine. Africa does not need to poison its land as the west has done

    the way I see things is that there is a growing opportunity in the world for the formerly dominated world to drop the west entirely, and go off on a proper, sustainable, humane path of development. Western hegemony is breaking down and it brings the opportunity for us to leave.

    and that is what we must do...leave. I don't mind if all Black people go back to Africa and leave the west lily white. there is absolutely nothing about the west, that the west has and has done that I want. I can do all I need to do for myself. I want goddam white people off my back and out of my life that's what I want

    the fools who post here believe that that is all Black people want..white life. my idea is to drop the west completely, forget about it, travel around it, over it but never through it. you guys can live as you please and so can I

    if the west reforms itself, humanizes itself that's up to the west. and if it does that and seeks re-entry into all of humanity I still would not care for the west. the decision would not be up to me along of course. but if it were my answer would not be yes. the west can live by itself, on its own cant it..all you guys here? what do you need the rest of the world for?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @TonyVodvarka
    If I'm not mistaken, the Dutch arrived and established their nation in Southern Africa a century before Bantu peoples migrated from the north. However, it would be hard to imagine anyone these days calling the Bantus invaders or, much less, settlers.

    The Dutch began by establishing a port where ships on their way to the Far East could take in water, food, take care of sick, etc.
    Cape Town at the time was pretty small.
    A colony indeed began around it.

    But the Boers, descendants of Dutch and Germans, began the Trek northwards after the British had taken over Cape town.
    The Boer nations indeed were established on territory of the natives, with force.
    Nothing special then, happened all over the world.
    Ian Hernon, ‘Britain’s Forgotten Wars, Colonial Campaigns of the 19th Century’, 2003, 2007, Chalford – Stroud

    I suppose similar books exist about Spain, Portugal, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and, last but not least, the USA, I happen to know the books about the USA, such as
    Stan Hoig, “The Sand Creek Massacre’, Oklahoma, 1961, 1982

    However, when gold and diamonds were discovered beneath the Boer nations, greedy Britain had to take the territory.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TonyVodvarka
    JD, I think I recall reading that the only indigenous people in the area when the Dutch established their enclave in the seventeenth century were a relatively small population of hunter-gatherer Bushmen. Bantu tribes invaded the area with large, disciplined military formations much later, migrating from the north-west (like Shaka Zulu's tribe). Please correct me if I am wrong.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @jilles dykstra
    The Dutch began by establishing a port where ships on their way to the Far East could take in water, food, take care of sick, etc.
    Cape Town at the time was pretty small.
    A colony indeed began around it.

    But the Boers, descendants of Dutch and Germans, began the Trek northwards after the British had taken over Cape town.
    The Boer nations indeed were established on territory of the natives, with force.
    Nothing special then, happened all over the world.
    Ian Hernon, 'Britain's Forgotten Wars, Colonial Campaigns of the 19th Century', 2003, 2007, Chalford - Stroud

    I suppose similar books exist about Spain, Portugal, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and, last but not least, the USA, I happen to know the books about the USA, such as
    Stan Hoig, "The Sand Creek Massacre', Oklahoma, 1961, 1982

    However, when gold and diamonds were discovered beneath the Boer nations, greedy Britain had to take the territory.

    JD, I think I recall reading that the only indigenous people in the area when the Dutch established their enclave in the seventeenth century were a relatively small population of hunter-gatherer Bushmen. Bantu tribes invaded the area with large, disciplined military formations much later, migrating from the north-west (like Shaka Zulu’s tribe). Please correct me if I am wrong.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Rogue says:

    A number of very uninformed commentators here are assuming that the Black tribes of Southern Africa are the original indigenous inhabitants of the land.

    Not so. The Khoisan people were indigenous to the land at the time of both Bantu (Black African) migration southwards from further north in Africa and White settlement from Europe. Not only that, but White trekkers in the early 19th century often purchased land from Black tribal chiefs, and not only simply stole land, as seems to be the narrative.

    Of course, Black tribes often dispossessed land off each other and committed genocide against each other (Shaka of the Zulus a prime example).

    Furthermore, the “New” South Africa was a negotiated settlement between the White government and Black liberation groups. The Blacks were not negotiating from a position of strength, as Mandela himself admitted. Any hint of land expropriation without compensation would have killed any negotiations dead in the water.

    As for, hey man just get off the land and we’ll make it work somehow, that’s fine in Wakanda, but not in real life.

    Everyone can do subsistence farming; commercial farming is quite another matter. And a mostly rural population of 3/4 million 150 years ago is a different paradigm to a mostly urban population of 60 million today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    in response to your fist sentence.


    I agree, that attempting to understand the huge demographic shifts the result of colonization is near impossible. With the most superficial of traits, skin color, being the most important, cultural values and practices were the least considerations, unless it proved useful in divide and conquer.

    So, no I am keenly aware of your observation.
    , @CalDre

    Everyone can do subsistence farming; commercial farming is quite another matter. And a mostly rural population of 3/4 million 150 years ago is a different paradigm to a mostly urban population of 60 million today.
     
    Whites give up the land they inherited (not paid for - and even if your claim is true, that some tribal chiefs were paid for some of the land, what gave these chiefs the right to sell it?), and Blacks deal with the fall-out. If they screw it up, their people starve, no assistance.

    I do think the Whites should get some compensation for their development of the land and the tools on it (but not the land itself). And in most acquisitions, the prior owners agree to stay on for a while and teach the successors how to run the business, for reasonable compensation.

    Actually my preferred option is for S. Africa to impose a property tax and inheritance tax. Inheritance tax should be really high, so that every generation, essentially, the land again ends up in the free market - not monopolized by some fucking clan. Inheritance will one day fall just like serfdom and slavery has fallen - they are all close cousins of one another.
    , @Anonymous
    As you can see from many of the responses here, a lot of people believe that Wakanda is documentary material, not ludicrous fantasy. Who needs facts? They just get in the way.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @Joe Wong
    Why there is nobody asking Belgium to take up the responsibility to fix the mess they left behind? It is the same as the suffering broadcasted in the ME, it is all the local’s fault; but before the American led NATO invasions there were orderly societies despite they did not fit the West’s taste, but nobody is asking who are the perpetrators and why are they not be held accountable?

    This is in essence taking place among many Europeans states. The modern Belgian is well aware on what transpired on the continent of Africa and they are well aware of their role –

    The question is always, once one admits it, accepts it

    what to do, if anything and then if something — how does one redress that level of wrong.

    In the US the way the country redresses the historical issues with blacks is to engage in wholesaleness and it’s pretty clearly the wrong choice.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Wong
    Rapes, slaughtering, plundering, torturing, hypocrisy ... these are the traits of Western culture since ancient time, these behaviour reached its peak during the medieval Europe Inquisition era (about 1000 years long).

    Recently the West keeps bubbling about democracy and human rights; the rest of world was wondering whether the West started to get out of their barbarism and moved into more civilized world, but the beastly behavior of the American and their allies in Korean War, Vietnam War, and wars in the ME simply do not help to convince rest of the world that the West wants to move into civilized world.

    Anyhow the victims are just reminding themselves not to become victim again, believing the unrepentant repeat offender's smooth talk and snakeoil sales peach is deadly and harmful to their health.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @Justsaying
    Amazing how the responses to this issue in large measure betray kinship sentiments rather than historical analysis. Had the West's formal responses shown equivalent levels of civilized outrage on routine Palestinian dispossession by Zionist Israel --- and taken tangible measures to contain such trends, as they had done with Zimbabwe to devastating effect, such kinship sentiments could be understood, if not entirely forgiven. Yet no Zimbabweans are known to posses farmlands in any lush Western countryside to arouse the passions that were seen when Zimbabweans took what was rightfully theirs. Petitions are already being gathered to encourage migration of South African Whites to Western countries. One would have thought that the way to go is to help Blacks transition smoothly as their lands change hands to their rightful owners with the West offering agricultural and managerial expertise to Africans benefiting from lands appropriated from Whites, so that economic activities would proceed without hitches. But one is loathe to speculate that the shared history of dispossession of natives of by settler societies, robbing natives of their lands and resources (please spare us the Empty land Myth or terra nullius to justify land theft) remains a phenomenon that scarcely invites censure. Hardly any country of reasonable area and land mass, including the US, is not without such empty swathes of lands. That alone should not constitute an open invitation for land theft. But then, history is not only written by the victors, but acted out by them; never the vanquished. Any attempt by the formerly colonized to tell --- indeed act out --- their own story is generally met with scorn , ridicule and self-fulfilling prophesies.

    “One would have thought that the way to go is to help Blacks transition smoothly as their lands change hands to their rightful owners with the West offering agricultural and managerial expertise to Africans benefiting from lands appropriated from Whites, so that economic activities would proceed without hitches.”

    Singly the most astute” historical socialization observation you make. That failing to have incorporated the majority as partners — as opposed to animals and enemies —

    has consequences.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Corvinus says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Is there any country in Afica with decent education, infrastructure, health care, birth control, housing, sewers, industry of any importance ?
    Why are African countries unable to folllow the Singapore example ?
    Why do refugees accepted by us not work, while they seem to be able to ?
    I'll copy the link

    “Is there any country in Afica with decent education, infrastructure, health care, birth control, housing, sewers, industry of any importance?

    The colonial powers built up the institutions and infrastructure for their benefit–they focused on urban areas, rather than the entire region. Some nations of Africa do have “decent” things, just not on a widespread basis. Did you not watch the video to gain a sense as to why Africa, which is only 60 years removed from European control, is struggling to get on its feet?

    “Why are African countries unable to folllow the Singapore example?”

    The development of Africa and the development of Singapore followed different paths.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Singapore#1819:_British_colony_of_Singapore

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Can you explain to me where in Africa you see development ?
    If there was, is, why do nearly all Africans try to migrate to Europe ?

    The reason Africa does not develop might be what an African in a German TV docu said 'die Weissen können nicht einfach herumsitzen', translation 'the whites are unable to hang around'.

    What we see with the migrants is that they can.
    After being here for eight years they still do not speak the language, do not work, but do state that they want to work.

    Writing this I'm remembering that, long ago, a DDR man who had succeeded in going to then W Germany.
    He was asked what he found of W Germany, he said 'had I known I had to work so hard here, I would have stayed'.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @Joe Wong
    Shining light was on the White only in South Africa under the apartheid. The natives though still are not living well but it is better off than then. If South Africa was not polluted by the aliens from far away land, they could develop based on their own culture and tradition. Mind you the savagery image of the natives was a construct by the White alien to justify their stealing and plundering on the moral high ground like they have done in Americas and all over the world.

    The South Africans need to restore their own culture and tradition by cleansed the toxin brought in by the aliens from far away land. The alien’s way of life and government are toxic the South African physical and mental health.

    How long until South African Blacks achieve Wakanda?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Wong
    Have you read the history about crusades or subjugating the Natives in USA? But that is the wrong attitude towards the issue. How about Instead of blaming the South African Blacks, perhaps working with them as equal partner will get problems resolved peacefully, or like someone suggested here, gathering all the White in South Africa together and establish a small independent walled state like Israel in South Africa?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @Rogue
    A number of very uninformed commentators here are assuming that the Black tribes of Southern Africa are the original indigenous inhabitants of the land.

    Not so. The Khoisan people were indigenous to the land at the time of both Bantu (Black African) migration southwards from further north in Africa and White settlement from Europe. Not only that, but White trekkers in the early 19th century often purchased land from Black tribal chiefs, and not only simply stole land, as seems to be the narrative.

    Of course, Black tribes often dispossessed land off each other and committed genocide against each other (Shaka of the Zulus a prime example).

    Furthermore, the "New" South Africa was a negotiated settlement between the White government and Black liberation groups. The Blacks were not negotiating from a position of strength, as Mandela himself admitted. Any hint of land expropriation without compensation would have killed any negotiations dead in the water.

    As for, hey man just get off the land and we'll make it work somehow, that's fine in Wakanda, but not in real life.

    Everyone can do subsistence farming; commercial farming is quite another matter. And a mostly rural population of 3/4 million 150 years ago is a different paradigm to a mostly urban population of 60 million today.

    in response to your fist sentence.

    I agree, that attempting to understand the huge demographic shifts the result of colonization is near impossible. With the most superficial of traits, skin color, being the most important, cultural values and practices were the least considerations, unless it proved useful in divide and conquer.

    So, no I am keenly aware of your observation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Hibernian says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    I am not clear that you have a grasp for what apartheid was or its application. All of the benefits that you claim were brought to this region of Africa was denied to the majority of the population. So whatever benefits existed were almost exclusively for whites.

    Given the application of apartheid, no person of Christ could legitimately condone, support it, muchless in engage in it and stand in a congregation announcing the joys and expectations of of Christ and the Apostles.

    It is so drastically counter to everything Christ died to bestow in this life and beyond --- that making Christ a tool of the system has no justification. You'll have to do better than note the varying societies in which Christianity existed to square a life in Christ with apartheid.

    And no one demanding justice for injustices against Palestinians, could defend it it with a clear conscience, regardless of how one may feel about a particular group --

    Plenty of lefties call themselves Christians while glorifying the Castro brothers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Joe Wong says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    This is in essence taking place among many Europeans states. The modern Belgian is well aware on what transpired on the continent of Africa and they are well aware of their role --


    The question is always, once one admits it, accepts it

    what to do, if anything and then if something -- how does one redress that level of wrong.


    In the US the way the country redresses the historical issues with blacks is to engage in wholesaleness and it's pretty clearly the wrong choice.

    Rapes, slaughtering, plundering, torturing, hypocrisy … these are the traits of Western culture since ancient time, these behaviour reached its peak during the medieval Europe Inquisition era (about 1000 years long).

    Recently the West keeps bubbling about democracy and human rights; the rest of world was wondering whether the West started to get out of their barbarism and moved into more civilized world, but the beastly behavior of the American and their allies in Korean War, Vietnam War, and wars in the ME simply do not help to convince rest of the world that the West wants to move into civilized world.

    Anyhow the victims are just reminding themselves not to become victim again, believing the unrepentant repeat offender’s smooth talk and snakeoil sales peach is deadly and harmful to their health.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    i cannot make claim that the references concerning human behavior are unique to whites.


    History world wide is replete with these human behaviors, regardless of color. The issues I am referencing here are:

    1. to apartheid and the participation of christians in that process.

    2. to the failure of whites to incorporate the larger population into the societies they built as opposed using the majority as mere tools for their desires and the subsequent maltreatment of the same. And the resulting consequence.
    , @Anonymous
    And yet all you third-world people will stop at nothing to flood by the tens of millions into white nations and wreck them the way you've wrecked your own countries. Physician, heal thyself.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Joe Wong says:
    @SunBakedSuburb
    How long until South African Blacks achieve Wakanda?

    Have you read the history about crusades or subjugating the Natives in USA? But that is the wrong attitude towards the issue. How about Instead of blaming the South African Blacks, perhaps working with them as equal partner will get problems resolved peacefully, or like someone suggested here, gathering all the White in South Africa together and establish a small independent walled state like Israel in South Africa?

    Read More
    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    Yes, I am familiar with the history of the Christian crusades in the Middle East and the subjugation of Native Americans.

    Your idea of a protective state for White South Africans is a good one and is necessary. Better yet, U.S. authorities should allow White South Africans into this country and grant them some kind of legal status. This will piss off American Blacks and White liberals, which is a good thing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. CalDre says:
    @Hibernian
    Louis Farrakahn couldn't have said it any better.

    Thanks for putting me in the company of such a wise man.

    Problem with the Boers is they were completely content being super racists for centuries but now are crying that someone wants them to leave the territory they invaded, and in which they ruled over the natives as supremacists. Mind you, the locals are not slaughtering them, or even tarring or feathering them, just taking away what isn’t their’s.

    And no, I don’t believe in “inheritance” elsewhere, either. That is one monumental injustice that will one day be done away with. Inheritance and free market are actually opposites – you cannot have a free market when one group, whether selected by race as in S. Africa or by clan as in the “West”, is born owning all the land and the other groups the serfs. That’s how the feudal ages worked. Nothing’s changed, except for a while, after the serfs agitated for change, the lords threw some more crumbs to the serfs. Well, in S. Africa, the masters weren’t throwing enough crumbs to the slaves, and in the rest of the world, the masses will soon rise up and take what’s theirs from the 1% useless and generally greedy and evil eaters who inherited it all. Unless smart people make some alternative decisions early, the result will be Communism.

    Inheritance is evil! The greatest evil on Earth!

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    The practice of inheritance is not unnatural, untoward, evil, unprecedented or unique to any culture. Passing to one's ancestry or as per the giver's demand is a time honored practice spanning cultures around the globe.
    , @jilles dykstra
    " Problem with the Boers is they were completely content being super racists for centuries "

    Read as comparison George Orwell's Burmese Days.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @Justsaying
    Amazing how the responses to this issue in large measure betray kinship sentiments rather than historical analysis. Had the West's formal responses shown equivalent levels of civilized outrage on routine Palestinian dispossession by Zionist Israel --- and taken tangible measures to contain such trends, as they had done with Zimbabwe to devastating effect, such kinship sentiments could be understood, if not entirely forgiven. Yet no Zimbabweans are known to posses farmlands in any lush Western countryside to arouse the passions that were seen when Zimbabweans took what was rightfully theirs. Petitions are already being gathered to encourage migration of South African Whites to Western countries. One would have thought that the way to go is to help Blacks transition smoothly as their lands change hands to their rightful owners with the West offering agricultural and managerial expertise to Africans benefiting from lands appropriated from Whites, so that economic activities would proceed without hitches. But one is loathe to speculate that the shared history of dispossession of natives of by settler societies, robbing natives of their lands and resources (please spare us the Empty land Myth or terra nullius to justify land theft) remains a phenomenon that scarcely invites censure. Hardly any country of reasonable area and land mass, including the US, is not without such empty swathes of lands. That alone should not constitute an open invitation for land theft. But then, history is not only written by the victors, but acted out by them; never the vanquished. Any attempt by the formerly colonized to tell --- indeed act out --- their own story is generally met with scorn , ridicule and self-fulfilling prophesies.

    I agree with the last part but not the first.

    the dominant part of white culture is rotten to its core and I expect nothing from it but what it spews..like what flows from most of the comments here above.

    look here: western white culture is now so godawful, so creepy and ghoulish that I don’t even read their news publications too much anymore. the last time I looked an expert was lamenting the ban on cannibalism..the consumption of human meat. and some american states had legalized the selling of babies..were about creating a market for live human babies.

    add to that the huge clandestine market for human body parts..Israel openly killing Palestinians and harvesting their bodies. then there is homosexual marriage, adoption,teaching homosexuality in kindergarten. then a river of gender bending while allowing children of single digit years to chose their gender, sending them for gender assignment surgery.what the hell are we looking at in the west..like it is reflected in the commentary on this page..a 100% lunatic culture, dying on its feet, literally consuming itself. lord have mercy

    The Russians are better with their Christian resurgence ..though I am not religious. and there are sane cultured and brilliant white humane people all over. but the western white collective needs to be saved from itself. and in doing so we may yet save our species..as the west seems prepared to blow the planet up as their hegemony wanes

    so I disagree with you on the morality of the white countries bringing home the white farmers of South Africa. let them go home..who cares..they are of no use to Africa

    and similarly Africa needs no expertise in any way shape or form from the old slaver..Ole Marse’.. colonizer and corporate raider extraordinaire. Africa can help itself. the further away we keep western white man the better for us. I don’t for the life of me understand why the hell most Africans cant see that yet..still fooled by white propaganda

    Ramaphosa must take back the land…let the white farmers go if they want to..they are free. and accept no help from the west for African agriculture. any such help is bound to be a poisoned cup, built around high fossil fuel inputs, as it is saturated with poisonous chemicals. Africa can use none of that. we must be about feeding the people..or allowing the people to feed themselves..not to poison the people

    so if production goes down while the land is cleansed and healed, and while skills, plans and support for clean sustainable agriculture are built up, that is fine. Africa does not need to poison its land as the west has done

    the way I see things is that there is a growing opportunity in the world for the formerly dominated world to drop the west entirely, and go off on a proper, sustainable, humane path of development. Western hegemony is breaking down and it brings the opportunity for us to leave.

    and that is what we must do…leave. I don’t mind if all Black people go back to Africa and leave the west lily white. there is absolutely nothing about the west, that the west has and has done that I want. I can do all I need to do for myself. I want goddam white people off my back and out of my life that’s what I want

    the fools who post here believe that that is all Black people want..white life. my idea is to drop the west completely, forget about it, travel around it, over it but never through it. you guys can live as you please and so can I

    if the west reforms itself, humanizes itself that’s up to the west. and if it does that and seeks re-entry into all of humanity I still would not care for the west. the decision would not be up to me along of course. but if it were my answer would not be yes. the west can live by itself, on its own cant it..all you guys here? what do you need the rest of the world for?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    the dominant part of white culture is rotten to its core and I expect nothing from it but what it spews..
     
    Once you take your surgical instruments and really investigate, you will find that the rotten core is the "Judeo" part of the fictional "Judeo-Christian". Excise that putrid core and the culture will start to heal (there are also some rotten cores from the Blue Bloods and the assholes of the world but it's a much smaller surgery which can be done after).
    , @Anonymous
    Leaving aside your many psychotic fantasies about white people, the simple fact is that you third-world people can't get enough of us and refuse to leave us alone. There's nothing we'd like better than for you to stay in your own parts of the world but you refuse. What's to be done about that?

    Neither you nor I had anything to do with what happened 100 years ago in some faraway place. All we have is the reality of here and now. And that reality is that you and yours are trying to wreck every single thing that's good about the few remaining civilized countries on the planet. What's to be done about that?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. CalDre says:
    @Rogue
    A number of very uninformed commentators here are assuming that the Black tribes of Southern Africa are the original indigenous inhabitants of the land.

    Not so. The Khoisan people were indigenous to the land at the time of both Bantu (Black African) migration southwards from further north in Africa and White settlement from Europe. Not only that, but White trekkers in the early 19th century often purchased land from Black tribal chiefs, and not only simply stole land, as seems to be the narrative.

    Of course, Black tribes often dispossessed land off each other and committed genocide against each other (Shaka of the Zulus a prime example).

    Furthermore, the "New" South Africa was a negotiated settlement between the White government and Black liberation groups. The Blacks were not negotiating from a position of strength, as Mandela himself admitted. Any hint of land expropriation without compensation would have killed any negotiations dead in the water.

    As for, hey man just get off the land and we'll make it work somehow, that's fine in Wakanda, but not in real life.

    Everyone can do subsistence farming; commercial farming is quite another matter. And a mostly rural population of 3/4 million 150 years ago is a different paradigm to a mostly urban population of 60 million today.

    Everyone can do subsistence farming; commercial farming is quite another matter. And a mostly rural population of 3/4 million 150 years ago is a different paradigm to a mostly urban population of 60 million today.

    Whites give up the land they inherited (not paid for – and even if your claim is true, that some tribal chiefs were paid for some of the land, what gave these chiefs the right to sell it?), and Blacks deal with the fall-out. If they screw it up, their people starve, no assistance.

    I do think the Whites should get some compensation for their development of the land and the tools on it (but not the land itself). And in most acquisitions, the prior owners agree to stay on for a while and teach the successors how to run the business, for reasonable compensation.

    Actually my preferred option is for S. Africa to impose a property tax and inheritance tax. Inheritance tax should be really high, so that every generation, essentially, the land again ends up in the free market – not monopolized by some fucking clan. Inheritance will one day fall just like serfdom and slavery has fallen – they are all close cousins of one another.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rogue
    You clearly haven't the faintest clue about Black African tribal dynamics, especially in the past, to question the right of tribal chiefs to sell or give away property, of whatever nature, in their domain.

    But let me make a prediction for you: if there is widespread redistribution of commercial farmland in South Africa, from people with skills, acquired over generations in many instances, to a random group of people from whatever background - the greatest likelihood is overwhelming failure.

    And my above prediction is based on sound criteria, not a thumb-suck. More than 90% of commercial farmland that has so far been redistributed in SA has been a proven failure.

    Apart from which, did you not read my previous comment? The Blacks did not win power in SA via armed struggle or revolution - their military endeavors were truly feeble - but through a process of negotiation lasting approximately 4 years. Neither were the Black liberation groups arguing from a position of strength.

    Essentially, the White population ceded the right to keep the franchise to themselves, and make it universal for all the people of the country. Certainly, there would have been no going forward if private property rights were to be infringed.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. CalDre says:
    @Ben Sampson
    I agree with the last part but not the first.

    the dominant part of white culture is rotten to its core and I expect nothing from it but what it spews..like what flows from most of the comments here above.

    look here: western white culture is now so godawful, so creepy and ghoulish that I don't even read their news publications too much anymore. the last time I looked an expert was lamenting the ban on cannibalism..the consumption of human meat. and some american states had legalized the selling of babies..were about creating a market for live human babies.

    add to that the huge clandestine market for human body parts..Israel openly killing Palestinians and harvesting their bodies. then there is homosexual marriage, adoption,teaching homosexuality in kindergarten. then a river of gender bending while allowing children of single digit years to chose their gender, sending them for gender assignment surgery.what the hell are we looking at in the west..like it is reflected in the commentary on this page..a 100% lunatic culture, dying on its feet, literally consuming itself. lord have mercy

    The Russians are better with their Christian resurgence ..though I am not religious. and there are sane cultured and brilliant white humane people all over. but the western white collective needs to be saved from itself. and in doing so we may yet save our species..as the west seems prepared to blow the planet up as their hegemony wanes

    so I disagree with you on the morality of the white countries bringing home the white farmers of South Africa. let them go home..who cares..they are of no use to Africa

    and similarly Africa needs no expertise in any way shape or form from the old slaver..Ole Marse'.. colonizer and corporate raider extraordinaire. Africa can help itself. the further away we keep western white man the better for us. I don't for the life of me understand why the hell most Africans cant see that yet..still fooled by white propaganda

    Ramaphosa must take back the land...let the white farmers go if they want to..they are free. and accept no help from the west for African agriculture. any such help is bound to be a poisoned cup, built around high fossil fuel inputs, as it is saturated with poisonous chemicals. Africa can use none of that. we must be about feeding the people..or allowing the people to feed themselves..not to poison the people

    so if production goes down while the land is cleansed and healed, and while skills, plans and support for clean sustainable agriculture are built up, that is fine. Africa does not need to poison its land as the west has done

    the way I see things is that there is a growing opportunity in the world for the formerly dominated world to drop the west entirely, and go off on a proper, sustainable, humane path of development. Western hegemony is breaking down and it brings the opportunity for us to leave.

    and that is what we must do...leave. I don't mind if all Black people go back to Africa and leave the west lily white. there is absolutely nothing about the west, that the west has and has done that I want. I can do all I need to do for myself. I want goddam white people off my back and out of my life that's what I want

    the fools who post here believe that that is all Black people want..white life. my idea is to drop the west completely, forget about it, travel around it, over it but never through it. you guys can live as you please and so can I

    if the west reforms itself, humanizes itself that's up to the west. and if it does that and seeks re-entry into all of humanity I still would not care for the west. the decision would not be up to me along of course. but if it were my answer would not be yes. the west can live by itself, on its own cant it..all you guys here? what do you need the rest of the world for?

    the dominant part of white culture is rotten to its core and I expect nothing from it but what it spews..

    Once you take your surgical instruments and really investigate, you will find that the rotten core is the “Judeo” part of the fictional “Judeo-Christian”. Excise that putrid core and the culture will start to heal (there are also some rotten cores from the Blue Bloods and the assholes of the world but it’s a much smaller surgery which can be done after).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. I have sidestep this issue. It is totally unfamiliar to me.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  58. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The deeper history of South Africa:

    There are TWO MAIN RACIAL GROUPS in the world: the KHOI-SAN and EVERYONE ELSE – regular “Africans” (other than pygmies and “bushmen”), all Europeans and Asians (possibly excepting “Negritos”).

    Until about 500 years ago, the Western portion of Southern Africa was mainly inhabited by Khoi-San. No Bantus, no Whites.

    Then the Whites moved in. The Bantus also moved in from the East, but did not settle South of the Fish River until long AFTER the Whites. Earlier, the Bantus (Zulu, Xhosa etc.) had seized substantial numbers in South-Eastern Africa. This is how their language picked up click sounds not found farther North.

    Together, Whites and Bantus largely displaced and annihilated the native Khoi-San. In the later 20th century, White rule gave way to Xhosa/Zulu supremacy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    CORRECTION:

    The Bantus (Zulu, Xhosa etc.) had earlier seized substantial numbers OF KHOI-SAN WOMEN in South-Eastern Africa. This is how their languages picked up "click sounds" not found in Bantu languages farther North.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @Joe Wong
    Rapes, slaughtering, plundering, torturing, hypocrisy ... these are the traits of Western culture since ancient time, these behaviour reached its peak during the medieval Europe Inquisition era (about 1000 years long).

    Recently the West keeps bubbling about democracy and human rights; the rest of world was wondering whether the West started to get out of their barbarism and moved into more civilized world, but the beastly behavior of the American and their allies in Korean War, Vietnam War, and wars in the ME simply do not help to convince rest of the world that the West wants to move into civilized world.

    Anyhow the victims are just reminding themselves not to become victim again, believing the unrepentant repeat offender's smooth talk and snakeoil sales peach is deadly and harmful to their health.

    i cannot make claim that the references concerning human behavior are unique to whites.

    History world wide is replete with these human behaviors, regardless of color. The issues I am referencing here are:

    1. to apartheid and the participation of christians in that process.

    2. to the failure of whites to incorporate the larger population into the societies they built as opposed using the majority as mere tools for their desires and the subsequent maltreatment of the same. And the resulting consequence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/bury-them-alive-white-south-africans-fear-for-their-future-as-horrific-farm-attacks-escalate/news-story/3a63389a1b0066b6b0b77522c06d6476


    ‘Bury them alive!’: White South Africans fear for their future as horrific farm attacks escalate

    …………………………
    According to the TAU, last year there were 345 attacks resulting in 70 deaths — the highest death toll since 2008. In 2015 there were 318 attacks resulting in 64 deaths, and the year before there were 277 attacks resulting in 67 deaths.

    In total, between 1998 and the end of 2016, 1848 people have been murdered in farm attacks — 1187 farmers, 490 family members, 147 farm employees, and 24 people who happened to be visiting the farm at the time.

    While South Africa has one of the highest rates of violent crime anywhere in the world, the attacks on white farmers are no ordinary crimes.

    In a 2014 report, “The Reality of Farm Tortures in South Africa”, AfriForum wrote that “the horror experienced during farm tortures is almost incomprehensible”.

    “The well-known ‘blood sisters’ from the South African company Crimescene-cleanup have rightly indicated that, in their experience, farm tortures are by far the most horrific acts of violence in South Africa,” the report said.

    “They are of the opinion that the term ‘farm murders’ is misleading and that the terms ‘farm terror’ and ‘farm tortures’ are more suitable.”

    While sometimes farmers and their families are tortured to obtain information, such as the whereabouts of keys to the safe, human rights groups say the excessive brutality may be intended to send a message to the general farming community — get out of our country.

    Victims are often restrained, harmed with weapons such as machetes and pitchforks, burned with boiling water or hot irons, dragged behind vehicles and shot. Female victims are often raped during attacks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    Whites segregate, blacks slaughter.
    , @Stan d Mute

    Victims are often restrained, harmed with weapons such as machetes and pitchforks, burned with boiling water or hot irons, dragged behind vehicles and shot. Female victims are often raped during attacks.
     
    We’ve seen this movie before. Literally, the 1960’s Africa Addio displayed in full cinematic color what it looks like when the natives take full control. The outcome is always the same.

    The more interesting question from a historical perspective is how the Chinese colonization project will fare. There are some videos out showing the “challenges” the Chinese face as well as their contempt for the natives. In SA remember there is/was a significant “colored” class between the whites and natives that doesn’t exist in the Chinese versions.
    , @Anonymous
    Notice that the western "MSM" remains steadfastly silent on these horrors.

    All about 'who; whom' as another contributor on this site says.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Rogue says:
    @CalDre

    Everyone can do subsistence farming; commercial farming is quite another matter. And a mostly rural population of 3/4 million 150 years ago is a different paradigm to a mostly urban population of 60 million today.
     
    Whites give up the land they inherited (not paid for - and even if your claim is true, that some tribal chiefs were paid for some of the land, what gave these chiefs the right to sell it?), and Blacks deal with the fall-out. If they screw it up, their people starve, no assistance.

    I do think the Whites should get some compensation for their development of the land and the tools on it (but not the land itself). And in most acquisitions, the prior owners agree to stay on for a while and teach the successors how to run the business, for reasonable compensation.

    Actually my preferred option is for S. Africa to impose a property tax and inheritance tax. Inheritance tax should be really high, so that every generation, essentially, the land again ends up in the free market - not monopolized by some fucking clan. Inheritance will one day fall just like serfdom and slavery has fallen - they are all close cousins of one another.

    You clearly haven’t the faintest clue about Black African tribal dynamics, especially in the past, to question the right of tribal chiefs to sell or give away property, of whatever nature, in their domain.

    But let me make a prediction for you: if there is widespread redistribution of commercial farmland in South Africa, from people with skills, acquired over generations in many instances, to a random group of people from whatever background – the greatest likelihood is overwhelming failure.

    And my above prediction is based on sound criteria, not a thumb-suck. More than 90% of commercial farmland that has so far been redistributed in SA has been a proven failure.

    Apart from which, did you not read my previous comment? The Blacks did not win power in SA via armed struggle or revolution – their military endeavors were truly feeble – but through a process of negotiation lasting approximately 4 years. Neither were the Black liberation groups arguing from a position of strength.

    Essentially, the White population ceded the right to keep the franchise to themselves, and make it universal for all the people of the country. Certainly, there would have been no going forward if private property rights were to be infringed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    You clearly haven’t the faintest clue about Black African tribal dynamics, especially in the past, to question the right of tribal chiefs to sell or give away property, of whatever nature, in their domain.
     
    You are correct, I have not studied the Black African tribal dynamics of each tribe with which the Boers interacted. Have you? How do we know which tribe had the right to sell the land? Was it a matter of which was the most powerful tribe that could knock the others off the spot, as is typically the case (even today, with nations)? In that case, even assuming the "governing documents" of the tribe authorized the ownership of land (did it? were there land registries before the Boers arrived?), did that particular tribal chief have the right to sell that land to foreigners? And did his "deed" only cover the period for so long as that chief ruled (or the tribe ruled the area), or was it really "forever"? Do you have any legal opinions documenting these transfers of land? What was the compensation paid? Was there any duress, fraud or coercion in the exchange?

    In the end to me none of it matters because inheritance is a vile evil that needs to be exterminated. Like I wrote earlier, I wish S. Africa would just take the land through progressive property taxes and suitable inheritance taxes (say, 90% or so), I think taking it outright is not fair, but then again, inheritance itself is utterly unfair, even more unfair than the "land theft" of which you complain.


    But let me make a prediction for you: if there is widespread redistribution of commercial farmland in South Africa, from people with skills, acquired over generations in many instances, to a random group of people from whatever background – the greatest likelihood is overwhelming failure.
     
    It's a quite foreseeable outcome, and in that situation, as I wrote previously, I don't think anybody should step in to help. Make your own bed and sleep in it. In my view the solution is the taxes plus paying the white farmers a good sum to teach their successors how to farm the land - i.e. to retain them as managers or consultants, but not as "owners". It's only rational. But if the people want to jump off the cliff that's their business, just don't ask me to help clean up the bloody mess.

    Certainly, there would have been no going forward if private property rights were to be infringed.
     
    Inheritance is not a private property "right", it is an abomination, and the sooner this terrible abomination is destroyed, the better. (Note I am not talking about some reasonable home, to which everyone should be entitled, and if it comes from their parents and is one they grew up in so much the better, or heirlooms and the like.)

    That's actually the most appealing aspect of communism, get rid of inherited wealth/power/control.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    The deeper history of South Africa:

    There are TWO MAIN RACIAL GROUPS in the world: the KHOI-SAN and EVERYONE ELSE - regular "Africans" (other than pygmies and "bushmen"), all Europeans and Asians (possibly excepting "Negritos").

    Until about 500 years ago, the Western portion of Southern Africa was mainly inhabited by Khoi-San. No Bantus, no Whites.

    Then the Whites moved in. The Bantus also moved in from the East, but did not settle South of the Fish River until long AFTER the Whites. Earlier, the Bantus (Zulu, Xhosa etc.) had seized substantial numbers in South-Eastern Africa. This is how their language picked up click sounds not found farther North.

    Together, Whites and Bantus largely displaced and annihilated the native Khoi-San. In the later 20th century, White rule gave way to Xhosa/Zulu supremacy.

    CORRECTION:

    The Bantus (Zulu, Xhosa etc.) had earlier seized substantial numbers OF KHOI-SAN WOMEN in South-Eastern Africa. This is how their languages picked up “click sounds” not found in Bantu languages farther North.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @CalDre
    Thanks for putting me in the company of such a wise man.

    Problem with the Boers is they were completely content being super racists for centuries but now are crying that someone wants them to leave the territory they invaded, and in which they ruled over the natives as supremacists. Mind you, the locals are not slaughtering them, or even tarring or feathering them, just taking away what isn't their's.

    And no, I don't believe in "inheritance" elsewhere, either. That is one monumental injustice that will one day be done away with. Inheritance and free market are actually opposites - you cannot have a free market when one group, whether selected by race as in S. Africa or by clan as in the "West", is born owning all the land and the other groups the serfs. That's how the feudal ages worked. Nothing's changed, except for a while, after the serfs agitated for change, the lords threw some more crumbs to the serfs. Well, in S. Africa, the masters weren't throwing enough crumbs to the slaves, and in the rest of the world, the masses will soon rise up and take what's theirs from the 1% useless and generally greedy and evil eaters who inherited it all. Unless smart people make some alternative decisions early, the result will be Communism.

    Inheritance is evil! The greatest evil on Earth!

    The practice of inheritance is not unnatural, untoward, evil, unprecedented or unique to any culture. Passing to one’s ancestry or as per the giver’s demand is a time honored practice spanning cultures around the globe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre
    I disagree, inheritance is incredibly evil and unjust, on the same level as slavery. Before slavery was abolished, it was also "a time honored practice spanning cultures around the globe".

    The only societies which permitted inheritance were the ones where the powerful declared property to be their own (i.e. monopolized land) and then, further expanding their power, passed the fruits of their theft on to their children. Anyone who objected was killed or otherwise punished. If this is some "time honored practice", so be it, I find it utterly repulsive, criminal, and against "natural law" (by the way there are many so-called "time honored practices" in which humans no longer engage).

    Inheritance is simply the powerful stomping on the powerless, and yes, that has happened throughout history and is "time honored" - but some day, as Christ proclaimed, "the meek shall inherit the Earth"!

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. CalDre says:
    @Rogue
    You clearly haven't the faintest clue about Black African tribal dynamics, especially in the past, to question the right of tribal chiefs to sell or give away property, of whatever nature, in their domain.

    But let me make a prediction for you: if there is widespread redistribution of commercial farmland in South Africa, from people with skills, acquired over generations in many instances, to a random group of people from whatever background - the greatest likelihood is overwhelming failure.

    And my above prediction is based on sound criteria, not a thumb-suck. More than 90% of commercial farmland that has so far been redistributed in SA has been a proven failure.

    Apart from which, did you not read my previous comment? The Blacks did not win power in SA via armed struggle or revolution - their military endeavors were truly feeble - but through a process of negotiation lasting approximately 4 years. Neither were the Black liberation groups arguing from a position of strength.

    Essentially, the White population ceded the right to keep the franchise to themselves, and make it universal for all the people of the country. Certainly, there would have been no going forward if private property rights were to be infringed.

    You clearly haven’t the faintest clue about Black African tribal dynamics, especially in the past, to question the right of tribal chiefs to sell or give away property, of whatever nature, in their domain.

    You are correct, I have not studied the Black African tribal dynamics of each tribe with which the Boers interacted. Have you? How do we know which tribe had the right to sell the land? Was it a matter of which was the most powerful tribe that could knock the others off the spot, as is typically the case (even today, with nations)? In that case, even assuming the “governing documents” of the tribe authorized the ownership of land (did it? were there land registries before the Boers arrived?), did that particular tribal chief have the right to sell that land to foreigners? And did his “deed” only cover the period for so long as that chief ruled (or the tribe ruled the area), or was it really “forever”? Do you have any legal opinions documenting these transfers of land? What was the compensation paid? Was there any duress, fraud or coercion in the exchange?

    In the end to me none of it matters because inheritance is a vile evil that needs to be exterminated. Like I wrote earlier, I wish S. Africa would just take the land through progressive property taxes and suitable inheritance taxes (say, 90% or so), I think taking it outright is not fair, but then again, inheritance itself is utterly unfair, even more unfair than the “land theft” of which you complain.

    But let me make a prediction for you: if there is widespread redistribution of commercial farmland in South Africa, from people with skills, acquired over generations in many instances, to a random group of people from whatever background – the greatest likelihood is overwhelming failure.

    It’s a quite foreseeable outcome, and in that situation, as I wrote previously, I don’t think anybody should step in to help. Make your own bed and sleep in it. In my view the solution is the taxes plus paying the white farmers a good sum to teach their successors how to farm the land – i.e. to retain them as managers or consultants, but not as “owners”. It’s only rational. But if the people want to jump off the cliff that’s their business, just don’t ask me to help clean up the bloody mess.

    Certainly, there would have been no going forward if private property rights were to be infringed.

    Inheritance is not a private property “right”, it is an abomination, and the sooner this terrible abomination is destroyed, the better. (Note I am not talking about some reasonable home, to which everyone should be entitled, and if it comes from their parents and is one they grew up in so much the better, or heirlooms and the like.)

    That’s actually the most appealing aspect of communism, get rid of inherited wealth/power/control.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rogue
    You have a bizarre obsession with "inheritance" which I don't find with anyone else on Unz Review. At least, not that I'm aware of.

    Inheritance is a profoundly righteous economic model, enshrined in scripture. Communism is of the Devil - the father of lies.

    If you subscribe to Marxist theory, that is up to you. I'm a total anti-Marxist. That includes Cultural Marxism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. CalDre says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    The practice of inheritance is not unnatural, untoward, evil, unprecedented or unique to any culture. Passing to one's ancestry or as per the giver's demand is a time honored practice spanning cultures around the globe.

    I disagree, inheritance is incredibly evil and unjust, on the same level as slavery. Before slavery was abolished, it was also “a time honored practice spanning cultures around the globe”.

    The only societies which permitted inheritance were the ones where the powerful declared property to be their own (i.e. monopolized land) and then, further expanding their power, passed the fruits of their theft on to their children. Anyone who objected was killed or otherwise punished. If this is some “time honored practice”, so be it, I find it utterly repulsive, criminal, and against “natural law” (by the way there are many so-called “time honored practices” in which humans no longer engage).

    Inheritance is simply the powerful stomping on the powerless, and yes, that has happened throughout history and is “time honored” – but some day, as Christ proclaimed, “the meek shall inherit the Earth”!

    Read More
    • LOL: Stan d Mute
    • Replies: @megabar
    There are some downsides to inheritance, for sure. But consider one positive aspect of it: People are driven to utilize and improve resources that they own. Consider that private ownership of resources can avoid the tragedy of the commons. So to, then, might inheritance make a person, as they near their death, want to continue to improve their resources so that they can pass them to their offspring, rather than squander them.
    , @EliteCommInc.
    Absolute nonsense. People the world round handed down their property to their family members since time inmemoriam -- there's not a single thing wrong with the practice. it doesn't even have a unique place in any economic system.

    Suppose my sister inherits all of my father's goods -- she may not deserve, but those are my father's goods to hand to whom ever he chooses. I think you are simply advancing the press as contentiousness, not as any sincere advance that impacts any economy or social fare. And people have every right to contest inheritances, given that some people operate dishonestly, but minus that - it's a private matter.


    Now, if you want to discuss power inheritance as in the concept of divine or social right -- that is a completely different issue.

    I don't think you understand what is meant by meek.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @WHAT
    But there is very much an angle here: the more far-sighted nose suddenly understands colored see it as white as well, with predictable results. Hence all the hand wringing.

    But there is very much an angle here: the more far-sighted nose suddenly understands colored see it as white as well, with predictable results. Hence all the hand wringing.

    I sometimes wonder if (((their))) genome might have a suicidality gene that pops up with devastating regularity. It’s a very old and very consistent story through their entire history. Always pissing somebody off and getting their asses thrown out of this place and that. And this despite the fact that they could just blend in and disappear any time they so chose. Just in our era, they’ve done some stupendously and cataclysmicly self defeating things. Marxism has been a bad deal that will get much worse – the canonization of envy never ends well for a visible and highly successful group. Zionism will be existentially catastrophic – what idiot chooses the exact spot where every Christian and every Muslim looks forward to Apocalypse, and where one group thinks their God may forgive them (after annihilating them) the other thinks their God will just slaughter them (or they’ll do it for him). Immigration and SJWism have brought their dual whammy of importing an even higher IQ population with automatic Affirmative Action points (East Asians & high-caste Indians) plus hatred of whites when Jews are themselves squarely in the crosshairs – extra white even.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. MBlanc46 says:
    @Liza
    Hey, here is the real solution. Everybody, everywhere, go back to your ancestral homeland.

    Think of how the economy will "grow" for years: we'll see increased manufacture of airplanes and ships; resettlement experts; surveyors to do the land division work needed; police, managers & clerks to oversee all this. Don't forget DNA testing people to make sure everyone goes to his rightful spot on the planet. For mixed-race and mixed-ethnics, we'll have specialists to figure this all out once and for all.

    Employment for all (while they await their own deportation and resettlement).

    O Glory Day!

    I hope that you don’t mean Those Who Cannot Be Named. And the Chinese and Indians (dot, not feather) scattered all over the world.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. MBlanc46 says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/bury-them-alive-white-south-africans-fear-for-their-future-as-horrific-farm-attacks-escalate/news-story/3a63389a1b0066b6b0b77522c06d6476

    ‘Bury them alive!’: White South Africans fear for their future as horrific farm attacks escalate

    ..............................
    According to the TAU, last year there were 345 attacks resulting in 70 deaths — the highest death toll since 2008. In 2015 there were 318 attacks resulting in 64 deaths, and the year before there were 277 attacks resulting in 67 deaths.

    In total, between 1998 and the end of 2016, 1848 people have been murdered in farm attacks — 1187 farmers, 490 family members, 147 farm employees, and 24 people who happened to be visiting the farm at the time.

    While South Africa has one of the highest rates of violent crime anywhere in the world, the attacks on white farmers are no ordinary crimes.

    In a 2014 report, “The Reality of Farm Tortures in South Africa”, AfriForum wrote that “the horror experienced during farm tortures is almost incomprehensible”.

    “The well-known ‘blood sisters’ from the South African company Crimescene-cleanup have rightly indicated that, in their experience, farm tortures are by far the most horrific acts of violence in South Africa,” the report said.

    “They are of the opinion that the term ‘farm murders’ is misleading and that the terms ‘farm terror’ and ‘farm tortures’ are more suitable.”

    While sometimes farmers and their families are tortured to obtain information, such as the whereabouts of keys to the safe, human rights groups say the excessive brutality may be intended to send a message to the general farming community — get out of our country.

    Victims are often restrained, harmed with weapons such as machetes and pitchforks, burned with boiling water or hot irons, dragged behind vehicles and shot. Female victims are often raped during attacks.

    Whites segregate, blacks slaughter.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @Bardon Kaldian
    http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/bury-them-alive-white-south-africans-fear-for-their-future-as-horrific-farm-attacks-escalate/news-story/3a63389a1b0066b6b0b77522c06d6476

    ‘Bury them alive!’: White South Africans fear for their future as horrific farm attacks escalate

    ..............................
    According to the TAU, last year there were 345 attacks resulting in 70 deaths — the highest death toll since 2008. In 2015 there were 318 attacks resulting in 64 deaths, and the year before there were 277 attacks resulting in 67 deaths.

    In total, between 1998 and the end of 2016, 1848 people have been murdered in farm attacks — 1187 farmers, 490 family members, 147 farm employees, and 24 people who happened to be visiting the farm at the time.

    While South Africa has one of the highest rates of violent crime anywhere in the world, the attacks on white farmers are no ordinary crimes.

    In a 2014 report, “The Reality of Farm Tortures in South Africa”, AfriForum wrote that “the horror experienced during farm tortures is almost incomprehensible”.

    “The well-known ‘blood sisters’ from the South African company Crimescene-cleanup have rightly indicated that, in their experience, farm tortures are by far the most horrific acts of violence in South Africa,” the report said.

    “They are of the opinion that the term ‘farm murders’ is misleading and that the terms ‘farm terror’ and ‘farm tortures’ are more suitable.”

    While sometimes farmers and their families are tortured to obtain information, such as the whereabouts of keys to the safe, human rights groups say the excessive brutality may be intended to send a message to the general farming community — get out of our country.

    Victims are often restrained, harmed with weapons such as machetes and pitchforks, burned with boiling water or hot irons, dragged behind vehicles and shot. Female victims are often raped during attacks.

    Victims are often restrained, harmed with weapons such as machetes and pitchforks, burned with boiling water or hot irons, dragged behind vehicles and shot. Female victims are often raped during attacks.

    We’ve seen this movie before. Literally, the 1960’s Africa Addio displayed in full cinematic color what it looks like when the natives take full control. The outcome is always the same.

    The more interesting question from a historical perspective is how the Chinese colonization project will fare. There are some videos out showing the “challenges” the Chinese face as well as their contempt for the natives. In SA remember there is/was a significant “colored” class between the whites and natives that doesn’t exist in the Chinese versions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. megabar says:
    @jacques sheete

    To add to this racist vision from a white guy, is there any nation ruled by blacks that fares well ?
     
    Is there any nation ruled by whites that fares well?

    Are there any nations that have "fared well" without plundering, exploiting and/or enslaving others? Or being plundered, exploited and/or enslaved by others?

    What does one mean by "faring well?

    One reasonable proxy for “faring well” is that people want to move to your country. People want to move to Western nations. Another reasonable criterion is “could defend itself from aggression.”

    Let’s make this clear — are you suggesting that there are black-ruled nations that have performed as well as white-ruled ones, in whichever criteria you deem the most reasonable way to measure a nation?

    As for plundering, etc, consider the possibility that exploitation results from power imbalance, and that it does not cause it. I’m not aware of African nations being particularly peaceful, and they likely exploited and plundered the neighbors that they could. They could not do that to Western nations, however.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @Colleen Pater
    I was thinking the jewish commie engineering of redistributing white efforts to blacks ought to be mentioned as well as Illanas background. However I think its also worth noting this and other of her articles pull no punches as explicitly white interested shes a white nationalist now whatever her families history. Theres very few jews who do this and fewer still who dont have a jewish angle motivating them to champion whites. I think for now they ought to be encouraged to be a new generation of western jews that do not weigh every action as is it good for the jews.No dubt the damage is great existential even and should not be denied should in fact be well disseminated. But the quickest and likeliest way out of this existential threat to whites and the west is an about face by our dear (((leaders))) of course it about as likely as ..... but even if ones end goal were expulsion of jews the first step would be normalizing white nationalism and jews could do that in a matter of a few years if they were motivated. if as we expect they do not it ought to be clearly on the record they were given every opportunity to not that they were damned if they did damned if they didnt. If Illanna is not a good jew who is?

    Ilana is not a good Jew. She’s a degenerate who gets a kick out writing stuff the goyim fall for. I judge by actions, not by written words. It doesn’t matter what Jews think because they are not a part of the West.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Quite consistently, you disparage this site's most incisive and insightful contributors. I daresay most here are past wondering about your own motives.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Rogue says:
    @CalDre

    You clearly haven’t the faintest clue about Black African tribal dynamics, especially in the past, to question the right of tribal chiefs to sell or give away property, of whatever nature, in their domain.
     
    You are correct, I have not studied the Black African tribal dynamics of each tribe with which the Boers interacted. Have you? How do we know which tribe had the right to sell the land? Was it a matter of which was the most powerful tribe that could knock the others off the spot, as is typically the case (even today, with nations)? In that case, even assuming the "governing documents" of the tribe authorized the ownership of land (did it? were there land registries before the Boers arrived?), did that particular tribal chief have the right to sell that land to foreigners? And did his "deed" only cover the period for so long as that chief ruled (or the tribe ruled the area), or was it really "forever"? Do you have any legal opinions documenting these transfers of land? What was the compensation paid? Was there any duress, fraud or coercion in the exchange?

    In the end to me none of it matters because inheritance is a vile evil that needs to be exterminated. Like I wrote earlier, I wish S. Africa would just take the land through progressive property taxes and suitable inheritance taxes (say, 90% or so), I think taking it outright is not fair, but then again, inheritance itself is utterly unfair, even more unfair than the "land theft" of which you complain.


    But let me make a prediction for you: if there is widespread redistribution of commercial farmland in South Africa, from people with skills, acquired over generations in many instances, to a random group of people from whatever background – the greatest likelihood is overwhelming failure.
     
    It's a quite foreseeable outcome, and in that situation, as I wrote previously, I don't think anybody should step in to help. Make your own bed and sleep in it. In my view the solution is the taxes plus paying the white farmers a good sum to teach their successors how to farm the land - i.e. to retain them as managers or consultants, but not as "owners". It's only rational. But if the people want to jump off the cliff that's their business, just don't ask me to help clean up the bloody mess.

    Certainly, there would have been no going forward if private property rights were to be infringed.
     
    Inheritance is not a private property "right", it is an abomination, and the sooner this terrible abomination is destroyed, the better. (Note I am not talking about some reasonable home, to which everyone should be entitled, and if it comes from their parents and is one they grew up in so much the better, or heirlooms and the like.)

    That's actually the most appealing aspect of communism, get rid of inherited wealth/power/control.

    You have a bizarre obsession with “inheritance” which I don’t find with anyone else on Unz Review. At least, not that I’m aware of.

    Inheritance is a profoundly righteous economic model, enshrined in scripture. Communism is of the Devil – the father of lies.

    If you subscribe to Marxist theory, that is up to you. I’m a total anti-Marxist. That includes Cultural Marxism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    You have a bizarre obsession with “inheritance” which I don’t find with anyone else on Unz Review.
     
    Actually, if I did have an obsession, it's a bid odd, given my 294 or so comments prior to today, today is the first time I recall making one on it.

    Inheritance is a profoundly righteous economic model, enshrined in scripture
     
    The New Testament mainly speaks of inheriting the Kingdom of God and the like. A few references to inheriting simple possessions (tools, etc.). Can you please provide the citations that "enshrine" the inheritance of large swaths of land, to the exclusion of all others from that land? (No need to quote from the Old (Jew) Testament, that is the word of Satan.)

    Communism is of the Devil – the father of lies.
     
    Well never mind then, you obviously don't know the first thing about scripture. But, the one aspect of Communism about which there is some pertinence, is it's anti-religious fervor. Being against inheritance (of capital, wealth and power), does not mean one is anti-religious. Indeed under your zealous reason Jesus himself was a "Communist" and hence "the Devil", as he favored sharing all wealth among all people. He certainly did not countenance greed or inherited power or a monopoly on nature. Why should one man inherit a beautiful beach when it belongs to all humanity? What would Jesus say? (Please provide references to scripture to support your claim.)

    If you subscribe to Marxist theory, that is up to you.
     
    Have you ever read Marx? What is Marxist theory to you? What about the labor theory of value? Or the tendency to monopolization? Or the concept of surplus labor? Or other economic theories Marx wrote about? Is that all "false" because "Marx" wrote it? LOL.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. megabar says:
    @CalDre
    I disagree, inheritance is incredibly evil and unjust, on the same level as slavery. Before slavery was abolished, it was also "a time honored practice spanning cultures around the globe".

    The only societies which permitted inheritance were the ones where the powerful declared property to be their own (i.e. monopolized land) and then, further expanding their power, passed the fruits of their theft on to their children. Anyone who objected was killed or otherwise punished. If this is some "time honored practice", so be it, I find it utterly repulsive, criminal, and against "natural law" (by the way there are many so-called "time honored practices" in which humans no longer engage).

    Inheritance is simply the powerful stomping on the powerless, and yes, that has happened throughout history and is "time honored" - but some day, as Christ proclaimed, "the meek shall inherit the Earth"!

    There are some downsides to inheritance, for sure. But consider one positive aspect of it: People are driven to utilize and improve resources that they own. Consider that private ownership of resources can avoid the tragedy of the commons. So to, then, might inheritance make a person, as they near their death, want to continue to improve their resources so that they can pass them to their offspring, rather than squander them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    People are driven to utilize and improve resources that they own.
     
    Really? Under your theory of human nature why would Zuckerberg or Buffet do anything? They have more money they or their progeny can ever spend. Even though in both cases they have contributed nothing extraordinary to society. One could go through the list. The real contributors to humanity are not the ones that have all the money or property - the latter are just the parasitic class. Granted a farmer is in most cases not in the same league as Zuckerberg or Buffet, but I'm sure people would keep farming the fields even if they didn't own them, just to get the profits of the harvest. In any case, a 90% tax would still leave 10% to the hand of the gifter.

    Consider that private ownership of resources can avoid the tragedy of the commons.
     
    Emphasis on may. In most cases, actually, private ownership of resources encourages overconsumption every bit as much as communal ownership. But I am not arguing against private ownership of property - I believe in that. I just don't believe in inheritance. It should be taxed at a special high rate.

    inheritance make a person, as they near their death, want to continue to improve their resources so that they can pass them to their offspring, rather than squander them.
     
    I don't see any evidence of that. Most workers, e.g., do not own their business, yet they do not "squander" it. I know, the elite selfish fucks always threaten, if you don't allows us to rule the world forever, we will fuck it up! There is a better way to deal with terrorists than to appease them. Anyway you can pretty much destroy that argument by allowing some limited inheritance, say 5-10%.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Constitutions are good only if and when governments choose to obey them which is virtually never. The US Constitution is a prime example of a finely worded document that, since 1865 (and long before) has been totally ignored by the Washington establishment. As to white farmers in South Africa, you can forget about a constitution offering any hope.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  75. KenH says:
    @Joe Wong
    Shining light was on the White only in South Africa under the apartheid. The natives though still are not living well but it is better off than then. If South Africa was not polluted by the aliens from far away land, they could develop based on their own culture and tradition. Mind you the savagery image of the natives was a construct by the White alien to justify their stealing and plundering on the moral high ground like they have done in Americas and all over the world.

    The South Africans need to restore their own culture and tradition by cleansed the toxin brought in by the aliens from far away land. The alien’s way of life and government are toxic the South African physical and mental health.

    Are you related to Sum Ting?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Cato says:
    @TomSchmidt
    Armed secession, anyone? Why a truly Federal South Africa wasnt tried in 1990 escapes me. Orange Free state, redux?

    Apartheid was a “federal” system, and could have worked had whites been more generous (whites,with 20% of the population, claimed 80% of the land). At the very least, whites should have supported the partition of South Africa and claimed the Western Cape as an independent white nation. But they wanted to hang onto Johannesburg, where all of the money was. Bad mistake.

    African states in general would benefit from the example of Switzerland: division into small ethnically homogeneous cantons, with most government functions controlled at the canton level.

    Read More
    • Agree: Daniel H
    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    could have worked had whites been more generous (whites,with 20% of the population, claimed 80% of the land)
     
    The fact is that the natives were more interested in the various goodies provided by the European invaders than they were in this land of which you write. Keep always in mind that in the late 19th Century and early 20th Century, most of Africa was unexplored.

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/stanley-meets-livingstone-91118102/

    So the natives were drawn to such amazing witch doctery as clean water, abundant food, the wheel, infants that live, inviting the neighbors for dinner with no intention to eat them, clothing, music that didn’t involve logs, etc. Look at any remote African village today or better still at one of the uncontacted Amazonian tribes or the Andaman Islanders - imagine going from that to today in just a few generations. Population numbers skyrocketed. Look at native population growth vs time vs proximity to Europeans and contrast to yet uncontacted regions’ numbers in Malthusian state.

    We are today just a hundred years on from that age of exploration. Forklifting Stone Age People directly into the Industrial Age and then on to the Information Age in a century is almost unimaginable and it’s indeed proving to be impossible.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @Colleen Pater
    I was thinking the jewish commie engineering of redistributing white efforts to blacks ought to be mentioned as well as Illanas background. However I think its also worth noting this and other of her articles pull no punches as explicitly white interested shes a white nationalist now whatever her families history. Theres very few jews who do this and fewer still who dont have a jewish angle motivating them to champion whites. I think for now they ought to be encouraged to be a new generation of western jews that do not weigh every action as is it good for the jews.No dubt the damage is great existential even and should not be denied should in fact be well disseminated. But the quickest and likeliest way out of this existential threat to whites and the west is an about face by our dear (((leaders))) of course it about as likely as ..... but even if ones end goal were expulsion of jews the first step would be normalizing white nationalism and jews could do that in a matter of a few years if they were motivated. if as we expect they do not it ought to be clearly on the record they were given every opportunity to not that they were damned if they did damned if they didnt. If Illanna is not a good jew who is?

    Time will tell. Good Jews eventually become non-Jews or ex-Jews like Gilad Atzmon. All the rest play social and political games at various levels of proficiency, with some being more sincere and convincing than others.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Colleen Pater
    Exactly right a good jew is not a jew at all anymore. In a place like france or greece they should not even be allowed neither should by nordic irish ass. But in mutt white nations they unlike the rest of us must fully assimilate because unlike the rest of us they have a 2000 year track record of duplicity they must amend if they are not cool with that i get it they can go to israel.
    I only suggest these allowance because unlike many Im serious about actual war. In other words many are content to hold pure ideas because ultimately they don't really think any of this is real. I understand we are actually in an existential position and the world is on the cusp of a 500- 2000 year power realignment plans that will actually work have to be made we cant afford keyboard superheros gumming up the ability to think practically. hitler failed to get rid of the jews because its a really difficult thing to do and because even saying who is or isn't is really hard. Jews really have been pretty important contributors to our tech and would be pretty good adversaries if they were alienated from the west entirely. and most of all, right now in the USA center of world power they have half the wealth and power dislodging them would not be easy and we would still have to deal with the mess they made.flipping them might just be a lot easier than we think. They too have suffered a multiculturalist leftist identity crisis they are rarely religious they marry out and like eldridge cleaver pointed out they buy into the white cultural hegemony, in other words on a certain level they want to be us more than ever and lets not forget genetically even the pure AKZ are 50-60% italian I mean they are probably closer to me genetically than a greek or an icelander im irish norwegian. I gues as a racist anti semite Im in a minority when i say if they would stop acting the way they do and cease keeping genetically and culturally apart I dont have any real ick factor about assimilating them genetically the way say other races must be kept out. of course im not voluteering to personally do this but if jews and wasps want to get it on at harvard fine as long as they again become whites rather than jews and citizens of the world
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. phil says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    I am not clear that you have a grasp for what apartheid was or its application. All of the benefits that you claim were brought to this region of Africa was denied to the majority of the population. So whatever benefits existed were almost exclusively for whites.

    Given the application of apartheid, no person of Christ could legitimately condone, support it, muchless in engage in it and stand in a congregation announcing the joys and expectations of of Christ and the Apostles.

    It is so drastically counter to everything Christ died to bestow in this life and beyond --- that making Christ a tool of the system has no justification. You'll have to do better than note the varying societies in which Christianity existed to square a life in Christ with apartheid.

    And no one demanding justice for injustices against Palestinians, could defend it it with a clear conscience, regardless of how one may feel about a particular group --

    During apartheid there was net in-migration of blacks from other African countries. Of course, whites could have given more to blacks, but blacks in South Africa were generally better off than their neighbors and possibly better off than people living in the Soviet Union.

    In Zimbabwe, average living standards are less than half of what they were at their peak. We will see what happens in South Africa.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    There is a wide breadth of comments on this issue. Allow me to be clear:


    1. i don't agree with rev Farrakahn about Jews as a general state of being.

    2. your comments suggests that if i beat my dog five times less than i beat my neighbors, it's ok to beat
    my dog -- mind you human beings aren't dogs.

    3. the very nature of apartheid means no one claiming Christ can engage in it with a clear conscience.
    offering up that its crumbs were beneficial misses the point of what Christ meant when he made the
    reference.

    4. most are better off in the US than most around the globe -- that does not by definition suggest
    that violating my person or my rights is acceptable.

    Your argument is that my trouncing you is ok because , others are trounced worse. i am not inclined to accept that as standard --
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @Someone
    No, do you know who allowed it? White people. White people gave their country to these people in the name of idiotic illusions of Equality, Freedom, Liberalisma and Individualism, when in fact, Whites are the only people in the world who share those values, and everyone else is just out to loot the White Legacy dry until there's nothing else, until they return to the barbarism they came from, because they are parasites, with low intelligence and without morals, and just like locusts, they will consume everything in their pathway until there's nothing left and they all die.
    They do not produce, only consume.
    This will be Zimbabwe 2.0, all because Whites abandoned their own self Ethnic Interests in the name of pitiful, utopian and outright mad ideals.
    There's no moral superiority in denying reality in favor of suicidal beautiful concepts, there's no good in this honorable defeat (more like naive, stupid, defeat).

    True. This is what happens to gullible people like those in Rhodesia who attempted to placate Marxist agitators by “doing the right thing”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. I believe the sensible thing, especially for America, is to take this opportunity to repatriate all of Africa’s stolen children we still hold hostage here. Let’s send home, with reparations, our brilliant black scientists, lawyers, doctors, and engineers so that together with Africans, they can build Wakanda atop the ashes of Apartheid.

    Oh sure, America will suffer, perhaps catastrophically, from the enormous talent drain of losing its brightest and best, but somehow Detroit, Baltimore, Newark, Chicago, and the rest will have to forge on without them to build it all for us. But justice requires that we at last do the right thing and now appears to be the right time.

    Wakanda_Is_Real.

    #blaxit

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  81. If you make an error in farming you have to wait one year to correct it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre
    Why that depends entirely on the error.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. CalDre says:
    @megabar
    There are some downsides to inheritance, for sure. But consider one positive aspect of it: People are driven to utilize and improve resources that they own. Consider that private ownership of resources can avoid the tragedy of the commons. So to, then, might inheritance make a person, as they near their death, want to continue to improve their resources so that they can pass them to their offspring, rather than squander them.

    People are driven to utilize and improve resources that they own.

    Really? Under your theory of human nature why would Zuckerberg or Buffet do anything? They have more money they or their progeny can ever spend. Even though in both cases they have contributed nothing extraordinary to society. One could go through the list. The real contributors to humanity are not the ones that have all the money or property – the latter are just the parasitic class. Granted a farmer is in most cases not in the same league as Zuckerberg or Buffet, but I’m sure people would keep farming the fields even if they didn’t own them, just to get the profits of the harvest. In any case, a 90% tax would still leave 10% to the hand of the gifter.

    Consider that private ownership of resources can avoid the tragedy of the commons.

    Emphasis on may. In most cases, actually, private ownership of resources encourages overconsumption every bit as much as communal ownership. But I am not arguing against private ownership of property – I believe in that. I just don’t believe in inheritance. It should be taxed at a special high rate.

    inheritance make a person, as they near their death, want to continue to improve their resources so that they can pass them to their offspring, rather than squander them.

    I don’t see any evidence of that. Most workers, e.g., do not own their business, yet they do not “squander” it. I know, the elite selfish fucks always threaten, if you don’t allows us to rule the world forever, we will fuck it up! There is a better way to deal with terrorists than to appease them. Anyway you can pretty much destroy that argument by allowing some limited inheritance, say 5-10%.

    Read More
    • Replies: @megabar

    Under your theory of human nature why would Zuckerberg or Buffet do anything?
     
    I don't see your argument. My point is that people are driven to improve things they own and (as they get older) can pass on to their kids. I never said that there is a limit at which they stop wanting that. Indeed, if the only thing Zuckerberg cared about was living as a king, he'd sell all of his shares today and retire, living on investments etc. But, instead, he is driven to improve and build Facebook into something more than it already is.

    Most workers, e.g., do not own their business, yet they do not “squander” it
     
    Workers and owners are not the same thing. Workers don't inherently care about the resource, except that they are fired by the owner when they do something that squanders it. More generally, because workers are employed at the owner's pleasure (and vice-versa), each takes on some of the motivations of the other.

    Anyway you can pretty much destroy that argument by allowing some limited inheritance, say 5-10%.
     
    Not really. If the amount of inheritance tax is high enough, then any investment in a resource is not worth it. If your going to lose 90% of something, it very well might be better to exploit/ruin it before the tax hits. It's like home improvements. Roughly speaking, most home improvements will pay $.50 on the dollar when you go to sell the house. So you shouldn't really improve your house if you intend to sell it soon (minor cosmetic things that help sell the house are excluded).

    The right level of inheritance tax is one that encourages people to improve things to the end, yet prevent runaway wealth gain such that a de facto ruling class is created by one successful generation. That is, every generation should be very productive in order to maintain or grow their level of wealth.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. CalDre says:
    @Ilyana_Rozumova
    If you make an error in farming you have to wait one year to correct it.

    Why that depends entirely on the error.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. CalDre says:
    @Rogue
    You have a bizarre obsession with "inheritance" which I don't find with anyone else on Unz Review. At least, not that I'm aware of.

    Inheritance is a profoundly righteous economic model, enshrined in scripture. Communism is of the Devil - the father of lies.

    If you subscribe to Marxist theory, that is up to you. I'm a total anti-Marxist. That includes Cultural Marxism.

    You have a bizarre obsession with “inheritance” which I don’t find with anyone else on Unz Review.

    Actually, if I did have an obsession, it’s a bid odd, given my 294 or so comments prior to today, today is the first time I recall making one on it.

    Inheritance is a profoundly righteous economic model, enshrined in scripture

    The New Testament mainly speaks of inheriting the Kingdom of God and the like. A few references to inheriting simple possessions (tools, etc.). Can you please provide the citations that “enshrine” the inheritance of large swaths of land, to the exclusion of all others from that land? (No need to quote from the Old (Jew) Testament, that is the word of Satan.)

    Communism is of the Devil – the father of lies.

    Well never mind then, you obviously don’t know the first thing about scripture. But, the one aspect of Communism about which there is some pertinence, is it’s anti-religious fervor. Being against inheritance (of capital, wealth and power), does not mean one is anti-religious. Indeed under your zealous reason Jesus himself was a “Communist” and hence “the Devil”, as he favored sharing all wealth among all people. He certainly did not countenance greed or inherited power or a monopoly on nature. Why should one man inherit a beautiful beach when it belongs to all humanity? What would Jesus say? (Please provide references to scripture to support your claim.)

    If you subscribe to Marxist theory, that is up to you.

    Have you ever read Marx? What is Marxist theory to you? What about the labor theory of value? Or the tendency to monopolization? Or the concept of surplus labor? Or other economic theories Marx wrote about? Is that all “false” because “Marx” wrote it? LOL.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rogue
    One can't be a Christian and not wholly accept the Old Testament in the same manner one accepts the New Testament. The early Christians only had the Old Testament.

    Marx hated God and wanted to dethrone Him. I'm not interested in reading anything he wrote, seeing as he was a servant of the father of lies.

    Communism is in many ways a counterfeit of Christianity - except that it forcibly takes your goods as opposed to encouraging your generosity with what is actually yours.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Daniel H says:

    >>Have you ever read Marx? What is Marxist theory to you?

    Has ANYBODY ever read Das Kapital all the way through? Sorry, the man could have used an editor. I am certain that their are useful insights, even truths in Marx’s work. But how many normally intelligent readers have the stamina to get through the tome?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rogue
    I wouldn't waste my time trying to read Marx.

    I do recall getting hold of Mein Kampf when I was in my 20's. Not because I like Hitler or am a Nazi yada yada, but was hoping to be profoundly shocked by what I assumed would be political porn.

    Result? Boooorrriiinggg!! I doubt I read as much as a fifth of it before taking it back to the library.
    , @jilles dykstra
    My idea is that nobody ever read it.
    The book is incomprehensible, I stopped at page 20.
    That it is incomprehensible may be explained that it took Marx ten or eleven years to 'prove' his assertion that capital would be concentrated by fewer and fewer people.
    Though the distribution of capital is very uneven, we never saw fully what Marx predicted.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The one and the only cure for this intensifying nightmare can be described in a single word: Separation.

    It’s the only thing that will work, unless you believe that genocide is a solution to anything (as some appear to believe, sadly). It’s also the only solution that will work in Europe and America, though our Fearless Leaders are driving us hell-bent in the other direction. People who deny history, coincidentally enough, fail to understand how nations came about in the first place, and what purpose they have always served.

    Separation or Genocide. What’s your choice?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  87. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @attilathehen
    Ilana is not a good Jew. She's a degenerate who gets a kick out writing stuff the goyim fall for. I judge by actions, not by written words. It doesn't matter what Jews think because they are not a part of the West.

    Quite consistently, you disparage this site’s most incisive and insightful contributors. I daresay most here are past wondering about your own motives.

    Read More
    • Replies: @attilathehen
    Gee, I "disparage" this site's "most incisive and insightful contributors"?

    Let's analyze some of these contributors. John Derbyshire, who has a Chinese wife and offspring, has stated that Asians are superior to whites.

    (((Ilana Mercer)) and her family were kicked out of South Africa for their anti-apartheid work.

    Brother Nathanel, Philip Giraldi will rail against the Jews but will not provide an answer as to where we should put the Jews.

    "Anonymous" commentators have ranted against Robert Spencer because he is supposedly not white.

    The various "anonymous" commentators have eventually revealed themselves as non-white or involved with Asian women.

    Unz Review struck me as a place that was trying to save the West. When I point out facts, all I get is cry baby nonsense.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. What difference does a Constitution -of any kind- make when 75% of the people can’t read anyway?

    https://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/sas-shocking-literacy-stats-1595411

    This is like Detroit Michigan having libraries isn’t it?

    https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/detroit-public-schools-93-not-proficient-reading-96-not-proficient

    Wakanda IS South Africa

    #blaxit

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Wakanda IS South Africa
     
    Not so fast. South Africa still has four million white people whose hard work daily holds the economy together. If you want to see the real Wakanda, you're better off looking at Burkina Faso, Niger, Burundi and Zimbabwe.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @phil
    During apartheid there was net in-migration of blacks from other African countries. Of course, whites could have given more to blacks, but blacks in South Africa were generally better off than their neighbors and possibly better off than people living in the Soviet Union.

    In Zimbabwe, average living standards are less than half of what they were at their peak. We will see what happens in South Africa.

    There is a wide breadth of comments on this issue. Allow me to be clear:

    1. i don’t agree with rev Farrakahn about Jews as a general state of being.

    2. your comments suggests that if i beat my dog five times less than i beat my neighbors, it’s ok to beat
    my dog — mind you human beings aren’t dogs.

    3. the very nature of apartheid means no one claiming Christ can engage in it with a clear conscience.
    offering up that its crumbs were beneficial misses the point of what Christ meant when he made the
    reference.

    4. most are better off in the US than most around the globe — that does not by definition suggest
    that violating my person or my rights is acceptable.

    Your argument is that my trouncing you is ok because , others are trounced worse. i am not inclined to accept that as standard –

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rogue
    Sorry, I don't agree.

    Apartheid (or separate development) had existed in South Africa long before it was given a formal name in 1948.

    The basic idea behind it was to uplift all the different races in SA - there being officially 4 different ethnic groups in the country, which could be further subdivided tribally and linguistically, at each racial groups state of development.

    A major project of the Apartheid government was to allocate traditional tribal land to the various Black tribes so they could have self-governence, but with SA state support.

    This is essentially the same as the 2 small African states surrounded by SA (Lesotho and Swaziland) which were granted independence by Britain. Unfortunately, the Homelands (as they were designated) were not particularly contiguous, and therefore lacked credibility.

    There is no question that the Blacks in South Africa benefitted under White rule, despite certainly being oppressed.

    Longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, generally lower crime rates than what exists today, food security, good rates of literacy and a higher per capita income than pretty much anywhere else in Africa. A hefty chunk of White taxpayers money went towards school education for all the non-white races in South Africa. Their education was not at the same level of financing as White education, to be sure, but then Whites paid at least two thirds of the country's taxes.

    With regards to your views that all people in a country should be treated exactly the same, and that this is consistent with Christianity, I'm not sure that is really the case. In scripture, both slave and free are certainly equal before God, but obviously not in the societies in which they lived.

    Equality amongst all people is a good ideal, and I do in fact hold to it, but it's really a post WW2 ideal in terms of human history, certainly as far as the West is concerned. And how is it working out for the West? Not looking too good.

    There is the kingdom of God and there is the kingdom of man, the church and the state. The church should be run as a church, and not a state. And the state as a state, and not a church. They overlap but have different functions. Many Christians seem to feel that the state should be run like a big church, but I don't agree, and the gospel message hardly concerns itself with how the state should be run. It was delivered during the Roman Empire after all.

    Just for the record: since the end of White rule in SA the laws of the country have become increasingly unChristian. Indeed, SA is a unique welding together of the worst of African culture (incompetence and rampant corruption) and the worst of Western culture (gay marriage, abortion on demand, a ban on any kind of corporal punishment).

    However dastardly the former White rulers of SA were, the current Black rulers are simply a kleptocracy - hence talk of land expropriation without compensation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. @CalDre
    I disagree, inheritance is incredibly evil and unjust, on the same level as slavery. Before slavery was abolished, it was also "a time honored practice spanning cultures around the globe".

    The only societies which permitted inheritance were the ones where the powerful declared property to be their own (i.e. monopolized land) and then, further expanding their power, passed the fruits of their theft on to their children. Anyone who objected was killed or otherwise punished. If this is some "time honored practice", so be it, I find it utterly repulsive, criminal, and against "natural law" (by the way there are many so-called "time honored practices" in which humans no longer engage).

    Inheritance is simply the powerful stomping on the powerless, and yes, that has happened throughout history and is "time honored" - but some day, as Christ proclaimed, "the meek shall inherit the Earth"!

    Absolute nonsense. People the world round handed down their property to their family members since time inmemoriam — there’s not a single thing wrong with the practice. it doesn’t even have a unique place in any economic system.

    Suppose my sister inherits all of my father’s goods — she may not deserve, but those are my father’s goods to hand to whom ever he chooses. I think you are simply advancing the press as contentiousness, not as any sincere advance that impacts any economy or social fare. And people have every right to contest inheritances, given that some people operate dishonestly, but minus that – it’s a private matter.

    Now, if you want to discuss power inheritance as in the concept of divine or social right — that is a completely different issue.

    I don’t think you understand what is meant by meek.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    People the world round handed down their property to their family members since time inmemoriam
     
    False. Are you utterly ignorant or purposefully spreading lies? Private property is at most a few thousands years old, when human history spans maybe 200,000 years. It developed when a few greedy thugs took something for themselves and killed those who challenged them. Over time they became the "kings" and "lords" of the world and enslaved everybody else (serfdom was, essentially, slavery). Even then it was not absolute, at any time one group of thugs ("kings") could attack another group of thugs ("other kings") and take their land and enslave their serfs. This is the "noble" (pun intended) history of private property to which you refer. But even during those periods there were many societies which did not succumb to the usurpers. See e.g. http://www.henrygeorge.org/pchp29.htm And even in recent years ideologies have emerged that would undo that travesty, such as communism. I am more for a middle ground, allow private property, have no income tax whatsoever (do not punish laborers), but put a heavy tax on inheritance.

    it doesn’t even have a unique place in any economic system.
     
    Perhaps you can prove me "wrong" with an exception but economic systems that have private property start out as (or, in case of US, end up as - there were special factors in the conquest of US land that allowed an initial wide distribution of property) centralized oligarchic systems that are not democratic, fair, or just. But murder is even more widespread in economic systems, I suppose you will sing the praises of murder next? Fact is there hasn't been, and currently isn't, anything close to a "just" economic system. Even in the "shining light" of the US, .1% of the people, most of whom have done nothing with their lives, own 99% of the wealth. I am ready for revolution. Just tell me the time and place. This evil system must end. And if Communism is the only alternative, I will not support it, but Communism it will be. The current unjust system simply cannot last. (And Trump the oligarch reducing inheritance tax - fuck that Orangutan.)

    In other words, either there will be a just distribution of wealth in society, or a new group of "kings" (thugs) will destroy the current group of "other kings" (thugs) and take what was their's. Usually this is accomplished by promising a significant portion of the "spoils" to the commoners (no sweat off their back, right?).

    I don’t think you understand what is meant by meek.
     
    "Meekness is humility toward God and toward others. It is having the right or the power to do something but refraining for the benefit of someone else. " The oligarchs are selfish cold mass-murderers and oppressors in this world. Thugs. They are the opposite of meek. They are the spawn of Satan. Including Oprah and uber-hypocrite Buffet. By their selfish acts they have chosen sides.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @CalDre
    Cry me a river. Those Whites should just give up the land they inherited (and of which all Blacks in South Africa are therefor deprived) and return home. Simple.

    Why should a Black African, who is extremely unlikely to find success in Denmark, France or Germany, be content with all the valuable South African land being owned by Whites, who have inherited it from ancestors who stole it from the locals, even if the locals owned it communally?

    And if Whites had any brains they'd take the large landholdings of the Jew invaders and the Jews can just return home.

    A lot of conflict would end if people didn't want to keep owning all of the prime shit in places where they don't belong.

    Where they don’t belong? So I take it you’re opposed to the flood of third-world immigration to Europe and America and agree that it should be reversed? Incidentally, most of what is now South Africa was unpopulated when the white man came and made it productive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    I take it you’re opposed to the flood of third-world immigration to Europe and America and agree that it should be reversed?
     
    Absolutely. But there is exception for people invited in. So illegals must go. But it is unjust to expel those invited, or forced over.

    That said, I am all for making payments and giving one-way tickets for certain people to renounce their citizenship.

    Incidentally, most of what is now South Africa was unpopulated when the white man came and made it productive.
     
    Yes, this is common refrain of the invaders. Sorry, not biting. Just basic logic tells you there was no good land unoccupied in the 1700s in Africa. No doubt it was more sparsely populated than today, but so was Europe.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Jake
    Well, the (British) Commonwealth of Nations was acting to force South Africa to move to majority rule no later than 1960. South Africa was booted from the Commonwealth for not doing so. The US was using its power globally to force South Africa to go black rule no later than the start of the 1970s.

    The leaders of WASP Empire demanded that South Africa become black ruled.

    What you call the “WASP Empire” is not ruled by WASPs and hasn’t been for generations. This goes double when it comes to foreign policy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @jacques sheete

    To add to this racist vision from a white guy, is there any nation ruled by blacks that fares well ?
     
    Is there any nation ruled by whites that fares well?

    Are there any nations that have "fared well" without plundering, exploiting and/or enslaving others? Or being plundered, exploited and/or enslaved by others?

    What does one mean by "faring well?

    Is there any nation ruled by whites that fares well?

    PS: You are a bozo.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @Cato
    Apartheid was a "federal" system, and could have worked had whites been more generous (whites,with 20% of the population, claimed 80% of the land). At the very least, whites should have supported the partition of South Africa and claimed the Western Cape as an independent white nation. But they wanted to hang onto Johannesburg, where all of the money was. Bad mistake.

    African states in general would benefit from the example of Switzerland: division into small ethnically homogeneous cantons, with most government functions controlled at the canton level.

    could have worked had whites been more generous (whites,with 20% of the population, claimed 80% of the land)

    The fact is that the natives were more interested in the various goodies provided by the European invaders than they were in this land of which you write. Keep always in mind that in the late 19th Century and early 20th Century, most of Africa was unexplored.

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/stanley-meets-livingstone-91118102/

    So the natives were drawn to such amazing witch doctery as clean water, abundant food, the wheel, infants that live, inviting the neighbors for dinner with no intention to eat them, clothing, music that didn’t involve logs, etc. Look at any remote African village today or better still at one of the uncontacted Amazonian tribes or the Andaman Islanders – imagine going from that to today in just a few generations. Population numbers skyrocketed. Look at native population growth vs time vs proximity to Europeans and contrast to yet uncontacted regions’ numbers in Malthusian state.

    We are today just a hundred years on from that age of exploration. Forklifting Stone Age People directly into the Industrial Age and then on to the Information Age in a century is almost unimaginable and it’s indeed proving to be impossible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Keep always in mind that in the late 19th Century and early 20th Century, most of Africa was unexplored.

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/stanley-meets-livingstone-91118102/
     
    Not only unexplored, much of it was virtually uninhabited, except by wild animals. Hence it actually was a paradise of sorts. And incidentally, this is why so many early explorers lived to tell the tale, whereas they'd now be brought down by endemic diseases in this hideously overpopulated continent, in the absence of advanced (white) medicine.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Rogue
    A number of very uninformed commentators here are assuming that the Black tribes of Southern Africa are the original indigenous inhabitants of the land.

    Not so. The Khoisan people were indigenous to the land at the time of both Bantu (Black African) migration southwards from further north in Africa and White settlement from Europe. Not only that, but White trekkers in the early 19th century often purchased land from Black tribal chiefs, and not only simply stole land, as seems to be the narrative.

    Of course, Black tribes often dispossessed land off each other and committed genocide against each other (Shaka of the Zulus a prime example).

    Furthermore, the "New" South Africa was a negotiated settlement between the White government and Black liberation groups. The Blacks were not negotiating from a position of strength, as Mandela himself admitted. Any hint of land expropriation without compensation would have killed any negotiations dead in the water.

    As for, hey man just get off the land and we'll make it work somehow, that's fine in Wakanda, but not in real life.

    Everyone can do subsistence farming; commercial farming is quite another matter. And a mostly rural population of 3/4 million 150 years ago is a different paradigm to a mostly urban population of 60 million today.

    As you can see from many of the responses here, a lot of people believe that Wakanda is documentary material, not ludicrous fantasy. Who needs facts? They just get in the way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rogue
    Indeed. Zimbabwe used to be a net food exporter, now a net food importer.

    South Africa's agricultural industry is much bigger than Zimbabwe's - so any large scale expropriation will be a much bigger stuff-up than what is happening there.

    It's a bit heartless for some people commenting here to wish food shortages, skyrocketing food prices - and possibly starvation - on the Black South African masses. Not to mention the Whites, the several million mixed-race people and 1.5 million Asians.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Joe Wong
    Rapes, slaughtering, plundering, torturing, hypocrisy ... these are the traits of Western culture since ancient time, these behaviour reached its peak during the medieval Europe Inquisition era (about 1000 years long).

    Recently the West keeps bubbling about democracy and human rights; the rest of world was wondering whether the West started to get out of their barbarism and moved into more civilized world, but the beastly behavior of the American and their allies in Korean War, Vietnam War, and wars in the ME simply do not help to convince rest of the world that the West wants to move into civilized world.

    Anyhow the victims are just reminding themselves not to become victim again, believing the unrepentant repeat offender's smooth talk and snakeoil sales peach is deadly and harmful to their health.

    And yet all you third-world people will stop at nothing to flood by the tens of millions into white nations and wreck them the way you’ve wrecked your own countries. Physician, heal thyself.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Ben Sampson
    I agree with the last part but not the first.

    the dominant part of white culture is rotten to its core and I expect nothing from it but what it spews..like what flows from most of the comments here above.

    look here: western white culture is now so godawful, so creepy and ghoulish that I don't even read their news publications too much anymore. the last time I looked an expert was lamenting the ban on cannibalism..the consumption of human meat. and some american states had legalized the selling of babies..were about creating a market for live human babies.

    add to that the huge clandestine market for human body parts..Israel openly killing Palestinians and harvesting their bodies. then there is homosexual marriage, adoption,teaching homosexuality in kindergarten. then a river of gender bending while allowing children of single digit years to chose their gender, sending them for gender assignment surgery.what the hell are we looking at in the west..like it is reflected in the commentary on this page..a 100% lunatic culture, dying on its feet, literally consuming itself. lord have mercy

    The Russians are better with their Christian resurgence ..though I am not religious. and there are sane cultured and brilliant white humane people all over. but the western white collective needs to be saved from itself. and in doing so we may yet save our species..as the west seems prepared to blow the planet up as their hegemony wanes

    so I disagree with you on the morality of the white countries bringing home the white farmers of South Africa. let them go home..who cares..they are of no use to Africa

    and similarly Africa needs no expertise in any way shape or form from the old slaver..Ole Marse'.. colonizer and corporate raider extraordinaire. Africa can help itself. the further away we keep western white man the better for us. I don't for the life of me understand why the hell most Africans cant see that yet..still fooled by white propaganda

    Ramaphosa must take back the land...let the white farmers go if they want to..they are free. and accept no help from the west for African agriculture. any such help is bound to be a poisoned cup, built around high fossil fuel inputs, as it is saturated with poisonous chemicals. Africa can use none of that. we must be about feeding the people..or allowing the people to feed themselves..not to poison the people

    so if production goes down while the land is cleansed and healed, and while skills, plans and support for clean sustainable agriculture are built up, that is fine. Africa does not need to poison its land as the west has done

    the way I see things is that there is a growing opportunity in the world for the formerly dominated world to drop the west entirely, and go off on a proper, sustainable, humane path of development. Western hegemony is breaking down and it brings the opportunity for us to leave.

    and that is what we must do...leave. I don't mind if all Black people go back to Africa and leave the west lily white. there is absolutely nothing about the west, that the west has and has done that I want. I can do all I need to do for myself. I want goddam white people off my back and out of my life that's what I want

    the fools who post here believe that that is all Black people want..white life. my idea is to drop the west completely, forget about it, travel around it, over it but never through it. you guys can live as you please and so can I

    if the west reforms itself, humanizes itself that's up to the west. and if it does that and seeks re-entry into all of humanity I still would not care for the west. the decision would not be up to me along of course. but if it were my answer would not be yes. the west can live by itself, on its own cant it..all you guys here? what do you need the rest of the world for?

    Leaving aside your many psychotic fantasies about white people, the simple fact is that you third-world people can’t get enough of us and refuse to leave us alone. There’s nothing we’d like better than for you to stay in your own parts of the world but you refuse. What’s to be done about that?

    Neither you nor I had anything to do with what happened 100 years ago in some faraway place. All we have is the reality of here and now. And that reality is that you and yours are trying to wreck every single thing that’s good about the few remaining civilized countries on the planet. What’s to be done about that?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/bury-them-alive-white-south-africans-fear-for-their-future-as-horrific-farm-attacks-escalate/news-story/3a63389a1b0066b6b0b77522c06d6476

    ‘Bury them alive!’: White South Africans fear for their future as horrific farm attacks escalate

    ..............................
    According to the TAU, last year there were 345 attacks resulting in 70 deaths — the highest death toll since 2008. In 2015 there were 318 attacks resulting in 64 deaths, and the year before there were 277 attacks resulting in 67 deaths.

    In total, between 1998 and the end of 2016, 1848 people have been murdered in farm attacks — 1187 farmers, 490 family members, 147 farm employees, and 24 people who happened to be visiting the farm at the time.

    While South Africa has one of the highest rates of violent crime anywhere in the world, the attacks on white farmers are no ordinary crimes.

    In a 2014 report, “The Reality of Farm Tortures in South Africa”, AfriForum wrote that “the horror experienced during farm tortures is almost incomprehensible”.

    “The well-known ‘blood sisters’ from the South African company Crimescene-cleanup have rightly indicated that, in their experience, farm tortures are by far the most horrific acts of violence in South Africa,” the report said.

    “They are of the opinion that the term ‘farm murders’ is misleading and that the terms ‘farm terror’ and ‘farm tortures’ are more suitable.”

    While sometimes farmers and their families are tortured to obtain information, such as the whereabouts of keys to the safe, human rights groups say the excessive brutality may be intended to send a message to the general farming community — get out of our country.

    Victims are often restrained, harmed with weapons such as machetes and pitchforks, burned with boiling water or hot irons, dragged behind vehicles and shot. Female victims are often raped during attacks.

    Notice that the western “MSM” remains steadfastly silent on these horrors.

    All about ‘who; whom’ as another contributor on this site says.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Stan d Mute
    What difference does a Constitution -of any kind- make when 75% of the people can’t read anyway?

    https://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/sas-shocking-literacy-stats-1595411

    This is like Detroit Michigan having libraries isn’t it?

    https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/detroit-public-schools-93-not-proficient-reading-96-not-proficient

    Wakanda IS South Africa

    #blaxit

    Wakanda IS South Africa

    Not so fast. South Africa still has four million white people whose hard work daily holds the economy together. If you want to see the real Wakanda, you’re better off looking at Burkina Faso, Niger, Burundi and Zimbabwe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Stan d Mute

    could have worked had whites been more generous (whites,with 20% of the population, claimed 80% of the land)
     
    The fact is that the natives were more interested in the various goodies provided by the European invaders than they were in this land of which you write. Keep always in mind that in the late 19th Century and early 20th Century, most of Africa was unexplored.

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/stanley-meets-livingstone-91118102/

    So the natives were drawn to such amazing witch doctery as clean water, abundant food, the wheel, infants that live, inviting the neighbors for dinner with no intention to eat them, clothing, music that didn’t involve logs, etc. Look at any remote African village today or better still at one of the uncontacted Amazonian tribes or the Andaman Islanders - imagine going from that to today in just a few generations. Population numbers skyrocketed. Look at native population growth vs time vs proximity to Europeans and contrast to yet uncontacted regions’ numbers in Malthusian state.

    We are today just a hundred years on from that age of exploration. Forklifting Stone Age People directly into the Industrial Age and then on to the Information Age in a century is almost unimaginable and it’s indeed proving to be impossible.

    Keep always in mind that in the late 19th Century and early 20th Century, most of Africa was unexplored.

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/stanley-meets-livingstone-91118102/

    Not only unexplored, much of it was virtually uninhabited, except by wild animals. Hence it actually was a paradise of sorts. And incidentally, this is why so many early explorers lived to tell the tale, whereas they’d now be brought down by endemic diseases in this hideously overpopulated continent, in the absence of advanced (white) medicine.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Antolx says:

    a genocide is taking place in south africa ,even the children as old as 4 years old rapped and burned alive,and nobody cares no a single web pubshised the atrocities that are happening right now.
    The sad true is that african, african american and other minorities not only they are happy with the land expropiation but they want europeans to be there to not abandon south africa and dont let them emigrate to europe or usa ,they want to stay in south africa and slowly kill them all without any escapatory.Read the coment in where the petition for let them return to europe or america and you will see that want all european dead
    if they have the power the same thing would happen in any western nation.
    When we will say enouth is enought there is no justice behind this we need to organize and fight for our interest like all the people do,we are not the bad guys we are fighting for our survival

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  102. Rogue says:
    @CalDre

    You have a bizarre obsession with “inheritance” which I don’t find with anyone else on Unz Review.
     
    Actually, if I did have an obsession, it's a bid odd, given my 294 or so comments prior to today, today is the first time I recall making one on it.

    Inheritance is a profoundly righteous economic model, enshrined in scripture
     
    The New Testament mainly speaks of inheriting the Kingdom of God and the like. A few references to inheriting simple possessions (tools, etc.). Can you please provide the citations that "enshrine" the inheritance of large swaths of land, to the exclusion of all others from that land? (No need to quote from the Old (Jew) Testament, that is the word of Satan.)

    Communism is of the Devil – the father of lies.
     
    Well never mind then, you obviously don't know the first thing about scripture. But, the one aspect of Communism about which there is some pertinence, is it's anti-religious fervor. Being against inheritance (of capital, wealth and power), does not mean one is anti-religious. Indeed under your zealous reason Jesus himself was a "Communist" and hence "the Devil", as he favored sharing all wealth among all people. He certainly did not countenance greed or inherited power or a monopoly on nature. Why should one man inherit a beautiful beach when it belongs to all humanity? What would Jesus say? (Please provide references to scripture to support your claim.)

    If you subscribe to Marxist theory, that is up to you.
     
    Have you ever read Marx? What is Marxist theory to you? What about the labor theory of value? Or the tendency to monopolization? Or the concept of surplus labor? Or other economic theories Marx wrote about? Is that all "false" because "Marx" wrote it? LOL.

    One can’t be a Christian and not wholly accept the Old Testament in the same manner one accepts the New Testament. The early Christians only had the Old Testament.

    Marx hated God and wanted to dethrone Him. I’m not interested in reading anything he wrote, seeing as he was a servant of the father of lies.

    Communism is in many ways a counterfeit of Christianity – except that it forcibly takes your goods as opposed to encouraging your generosity with what is actually yours.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    One can’t be a Christian and not wholly accept the Old Testament in the same manner one accepts the New Testament.
     
    I couldn't disagree more - in fact you cannot be a true Christian if you accept the Old Testament. The Old Testament is the word of the Satanic Beast Yahweh and the Synagogue of Satan which Christ condemned. And I don't care what some elitist corrupt group of assholes said in some conference 1,000+ years ago. All I need to do is read the text and it is abundantly clear the Old Testament describes a Satanic Beast and the New Testament a God. Sad for you that you have fallen for it.

    Marx hated God and wanted to dethrone Him. I’m not interested in reading anything he wrote, seeing as he was a servant of the father of lies.
     
    Close your mind all you want, but maybe you shouldn't be using the internet, it was invented by an atheist. Ideas are orthogonal - just because someone is wrong about one thing doesn't mean he is wrong about everything. Well, except for in your world.

    except that it forcibly takes your goods as opposed to encouraging your generosity with what is actually yours.
     
    All taxation "forcibly takes your goods", so we've crossed that Rubicon. Moreover, the law giving exclusive rights to property to one person forcibly takes it from me, as I am not allowed to use it. That is also force, though of course it is force you love. You do not have a consistent position. Finally, "actually yours" is entirely conclusory. My entire point is I challenged that someone who inherits something that it is "actually theirs". It's only theirs if the idiot 99% want to punch themselves in the face. In fact, I would go further and say nobody "owns" land; I grant for practical purposes there is a need for exclusive possession to the extent necessary to make productive use of it for the benefit of society as a whole, but that's it. The world belongs to everyone equally, not to the descendants of the tyrants and criminals who usurped it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. Rogue says:
    @Anonymous
    As you can see from many of the responses here, a lot of people believe that Wakanda is documentary material, not ludicrous fantasy. Who needs facts? They just get in the way.

    Indeed. Zimbabwe used to be a net food exporter, now a net food importer.

    South Africa’s agricultural industry is much bigger than Zimbabwe’s – so any large scale expropriation will be a much bigger stuff-up than what is happening there.

    It’s a bit heartless for some people commenting here to wish food shortages, skyrocketing food prices – and possibly starvation – on the Black South African masses. Not to mention the Whites, the several million mixed-race people and 1.5 million Asians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Rogue says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    There is a wide breadth of comments on this issue. Allow me to be clear:


    1. i don't agree with rev Farrakahn about Jews as a general state of being.

    2. your comments suggests that if i beat my dog five times less than i beat my neighbors, it's ok to beat
    my dog -- mind you human beings aren't dogs.

    3. the very nature of apartheid means no one claiming Christ can engage in it with a clear conscience.
    offering up that its crumbs were beneficial misses the point of what Christ meant when he made the
    reference.

    4. most are better off in the US than most around the globe -- that does not by definition suggest
    that violating my person or my rights is acceptable.

    Your argument is that my trouncing you is ok because , others are trounced worse. i am not inclined to accept that as standard --

    Sorry, I don’t agree.

    Apartheid (or separate development) had existed in South Africa long before it was given a formal name in 1948.

    The basic idea behind it was to uplift all the different races in SA – there being officially 4 different ethnic groups in the country, which could be further subdivided tribally and linguistically, at each racial groups state of development.

    A major project of the Apartheid government was to allocate traditional tribal land to the various Black tribes so they could have self-governence, but with SA state support.

    This is essentially the same as the 2 small African states surrounded by SA (Lesotho and Swaziland) which were granted independence by Britain. Unfortunately, the Homelands (as they were designated) were not particularly contiguous, and therefore lacked credibility.

    There is no question that the Blacks in South Africa benefitted under White rule, despite certainly being oppressed.

    Longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, generally lower crime rates than what exists today, food security, good rates of literacy and a higher per capita income than pretty much anywhere else in Africa. A hefty chunk of White taxpayers money went towards school education for all the non-white races in South Africa. Their education was not at the same level of financing as White education, to be sure, but then Whites paid at least two thirds of the country’s taxes.

    With regards to your views that all people in a country should be treated exactly the same, and that this is consistent with Christianity, I’m not sure that is really the case. In scripture, both slave and free are certainly equal before God, but obviously not in the societies in which they lived.

    Equality amongst all people is a good ideal, and I do in fact hold to it, but it’s really a post WW2 ideal in terms of human history, certainly as far as the West is concerned. And how is it working out for the West? Not looking too good.

    There is the kingdom of God and there is the kingdom of man, the church and the state. The church should be run as a church, and not a state. And the state as a state, and not a church. They overlap but have different functions. Many Christians seem to feel that the state should be run like a big church, but I don’t agree, and the gospel message hardly concerns itself with how the state should be run. It was delivered during the Roman Empire after all.

    Just for the record: since the end of White rule in SA the laws of the country have become increasingly unChristian. Indeed, SA is a unique welding together of the worst of African culture (incompetence and rampant corruption) and the worst of Western culture (gay marriage, abortion on demand, a ban on any kind of corporal punishment).

    However dastardly the former White rulers of SA were, the current Black rulers are simply a kleptocracy – hence talk of land expropriation without compensation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Rogue says:
    @Daniel H
    >>Have you ever read Marx? What is Marxist theory to you?

    Has ANYBODY ever read Das Kapital all the way through? Sorry, the man could have used an editor. I am certain that their are useful insights, even truths in Marx's work. But how many normally intelligent readers have the stamina to get through the tome?

    I wouldn’t waste my time trying to read Marx.

    I do recall getting hold of Mein Kampf when I was in my 20′s. Not because I like Hitler or am a Nazi yada yada, but was hoping to be profoundly shocked by what I assumed would be political porn.

    Result? Boooorrriiinggg!! I doubt I read as much as a fifth of it before taking it back to the library.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Indeed boring, but I persevered.
    Wanted to know if Hitler wanted war or the extermination of jews.
    Both things I did not find.
    That jews were parasites, yes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. CalDre says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    Absolute nonsense. People the world round handed down their property to their family members since time inmemoriam -- there's not a single thing wrong with the practice. it doesn't even have a unique place in any economic system.

    Suppose my sister inherits all of my father's goods -- she may not deserve, but those are my father's goods to hand to whom ever he chooses. I think you are simply advancing the press as contentiousness, not as any sincere advance that impacts any economy or social fare. And people have every right to contest inheritances, given that some people operate dishonestly, but minus that - it's a private matter.


    Now, if you want to discuss power inheritance as in the concept of divine or social right -- that is a completely different issue.

    I don't think you understand what is meant by meek.

    People the world round handed down their property to their family members since time inmemoriam

    False. Are you utterly ignorant or purposefully spreading lies? Private property is at most a few thousands years old, when human history spans maybe 200,000 years. It developed when a few greedy thugs took something for themselves and killed those who challenged them. Over time they became the “kings” and “lords” of the world and enslaved everybody else (serfdom was, essentially, slavery). Even then it was not absolute, at any time one group of thugs (“kings”) could attack another group of thugs (“other kings”) and take their land and enslave their serfs. This is the “noble” (pun intended) history of private property to which you refer. But even during those periods there were many societies which did not succumb to the usurpers. See e.g. http://www.henrygeorge.org/pchp29.htm And even in recent years ideologies have emerged that would undo that travesty, such as communism. I am more for a middle ground, allow private property, have no income tax whatsoever (do not punish laborers), but put a heavy tax on inheritance.

    it doesn’t even have a unique place in any economic system.

    Perhaps you can prove me “wrong” with an exception but economic systems that have private property start out as (or, in case of US, end up as – there were special factors in the conquest of US land that allowed an initial wide distribution of property) centralized oligarchic systems that are not democratic, fair, or just. But murder is even more widespread in economic systems, I suppose you will sing the praises of murder next? Fact is there hasn’t been, and currently isn’t, anything close to a “just” economic system. Even in the “shining light” of the US, .1% of the people, most of whom have done nothing with their lives, own 99% of the wealth. I am ready for revolution. Just tell me the time and place. This evil system must end. And if Communism is the only alternative, I will not support it, but Communism it will be. The current unjust system simply cannot last. (And Trump the oligarch reducing inheritance tax – fuck that Orangutan.)

    In other words, either there will be a just distribution of wealth in society, or a new group of “kings” (thugs) will destroy the current group of “other kings” (thugs) and take what was their’s. Usually this is accomplished by promising a significant portion of the “spoils” to the commoners (no sweat off their back, right?).

    I don’t think you understand what is meant by meek.

    “Meekness is humility toward God and toward others. It is having the right or the power to do something but refraining for the benefit of someone else. ” The oligarchs are selfish cold mass-murderers and oppressors in this world. Thugs. They are the opposite of meek. They are the spawn of Satan. Including Oprah and uber-hypocrite Buffet. By their selfish acts they have chosen sides.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    No. my view of the commonly held view and practice. Let's not play tiddle winks. You are making the accusation the burden is on you to prove that inheritance is not a standard practice round the world.

    I will skip and ignore the childishness of name calling. Let's just suffice it to say, your comments reflect the issues (some of them about inheritance) it does not in any way diminish the practice as a nonunique practice across cultures.

    I think you should actually read the reference you posted, the nexus of the press is not against inheritance -- it that said stake holders violated their contractual agreement.

    And what settles my position is that the referenced site acknowledges the cross cultural practice of inheritance. The article says, that inheritence is widespread. it is not a critique of inheritence, but the concept of private ownership of the land -- and his critique is limited to the European feudal system ---

    It says absolutely nothing negative about the private monies, goods, businesses, etc being handed over to after a passing as inheritance to others --


    I am not sure why so many of you have a tendency to note one aspect of a thing and proceed to make wholesale over-generalizations and misapplication. It's probably a good idea to stop when your own reference contradicts your view.

    You are advancing a critique of land ownership to the issue of inheritance --- they are not same thing just because they have mutual links to the matter of inheritance.

    Have at it. After all -- you did describe "meekness" fairly accurately -- close enough.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. CalDre says:
    @Anonymous
    Where they don't belong? So I take it you're opposed to the flood of third-world immigration to Europe and America and agree that it should be reversed? Incidentally, most of what is now South Africa was unpopulated when the white man came and made it productive.

    I take it you’re opposed to the flood of third-world immigration to Europe and America and agree that it should be reversed?

    Absolutely. But there is exception for people invited in. So illegals must go. But it is unjust to expel those invited, or forced over.

    That said, I am all for making payments and giving one-way tickets for certain people to renounce their citizenship.

    Incidentally, most of what is now South Africa was unpopulated when the white man came and made it productive.

    Yes, this is common refrain of the invaders. Sorry, not biting. Just basic logic tells you there was no good land unoccupied in the 1700s in Africa. No doubt it was more sparsely populated than today, but so was Europe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Denis Coghlan
    Not true. The Khoi San indigenous peoples were nomads whose territory ranged from Southern Angola to the Cape of Good Hope. They were hunter gatherers who did not grow food crops of any kind and constructed minimalist grass huts for shelter.

    The Negroid Bantu peoples started to move south long after the Dutch landed in the Cape and imported farmers from Holland to provide food stocks for their trading ships rounding the Cape sailing to and from the East Indies.

    The land was extremely poor for farming and many gave up and asked to return to Holland or go to the East Indies. The few who remained traded with the Khoi and some intermarried thus the origins of the Afrikaner and the Afrikaans language which is basic Dutch combined with African languages and a smattering of English. It is the only language that can be read and understood by two different languages.

    As with their language so progressed their farming methods. Within a short space of time they learned to tame this inhospitable land and turned it into a land of bounty, in much the same way the Israelis have done.

    The Bantu peoples settled in the Eastern Cape and Natal bringing with them their cattle and practiced subsistence farming, moving on to new pastures when the land became exhausted. They built no permanent structures but did establish large villages comprising of single storey mud huts.

    They traded with the new African tribe called Afrikaaners for food and trinkets and thus began the Bantu population explosion in tandem with the massive expansion of commercial farming.

    No one stole any land from anyone!

    Post 1994 the new democratic government began to buy white farms on the agreed willing seller willing buyer system agreed in the constitutional negotiations. These farms were handed over to supporters of the ruling party who sold off anything movable and either left the farms to go to rack and ruin or in a few cases leased the farm back to a white farmer, often the original owners. There have of course been a few success stories but not enough to give substance to any prospect of sufficient food production in the event all the white farmers abandon South Africa.

    Take the unfortunate Zimbabwe paradigm. Mugabe simplistically considered that replacement of the few white farmers with thousands of people with no farming skills on small parcels of land would work. It didn't, Zimbabwe went from being a net exporter of food to a major importer, mainly from South Africa.

    The one area in Zimbabwe's agricultural revolution that did flourish was tobacco which was easy to grow on the small holdings but nowhere near the levels previously produced.

    The new leaders of Zimbabwe, President Manangagwa did not mince words when he told his people that he was giving back the farms to their previous owners. He said and I quote him , "If the white man had never come to Africa, the black people would still be dressed in animal skins and living in huts".

    Many of the expelled Zimbabwean farmers were grabbed by Angola, Zambia Nigeria and myriad other countries. Zambia for instance was an importer of food, now it exports food to Zimbabwe. Angola, who also imports massive quantities of food from South Africa, is less dependant.

    Which brings me to my last point. It's not just the people of South Africa that will suffer starvation if the white farmers leave, it will be the whole of Southern Africa. Every country in Southern Africa will be affected. Botswana being a desert country imports most of it's food from South Africa, there's no alternative source of food for an expanding urban population that's lost its ability to live off the land.

    The platitude that white farmers should be dispossessed and forced to work for the new black farmers is not realistic. There's also the very probable repercussion that they will revolt with support from the most unexpected quarters.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. CalDre says:
    @Rogue
    One can't be a Christian and not wholly accept the Old Testament in the same manner one accepts the New Testament. The early Christians only had the Old Testament.

    Marx hated God and wanted to dethrone Him. I'm not interested in reading anything he wrote, seeing as he was a servant of the father of lies.

    Communism is in many ways a counterfeit of Christianity - except that it forcibly takes your goods as opposed to encouraging your generosity with what is actually yours.

    One can’t be a Christian and not wholly accept the Old Testament in the same manner one accepts the New Testament.

    I couldn’t disagree more – in fact you cannot be a true Christian if you accept the Old Testament. The Old Testament is the word of the Satanic Beast Yahweh and the Synagogue of Satan which Christ condemned. And I don’t care what some elitist corrupt group of assholes said in some conference 1,000+ years ago. All I need to do is read the text and it is abundantly clear the Old Testament describes a Satanic Beast and the New Testament a God. Sad for you that you have fallen for it.

    Marx hated God and wanted to dethrone Him. I’m not interested in reading anything he wrote, seeing as he was a servant of the father of lies.

    Close your mind all you want, but maybe you shouldn’t be using the internet, it was invented by an atheist. Ideas are orthogonal – just because someone is wrong about one thing doesn’t mean he is wrong about everything. Well, except for in your world.

    except that it forcibly takes your goods as opposed to encouraging your generosity with what is actually yours.

    All taxation “forcibly takes your goods”, so we’ve crossed that Rubicon. Moreover, the law giving exclusive rights to property to one person forcibly takes it from me, as I am not allowed to use it. That is also force, though of course it is force you love. You do not have a consistent position. Finally, “actually yours” is entirely conclusory. My entire point is I challenged that someone who inherits something that it is “actually theirs”. It’s only theirs if the idiot 99% want to punch themselves in the face. In fact, I would go further and say nobody “owns” land; I grant for practical purposes there is a need for exclusive possession to the extent necessary to make productive use of it for the benefit of society as a whole, but that’s it. The world belongs to everyone equally, not to the descendants of the tyrants and criminals who usurped it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rogue
    "you cannot be a true Christian if you accept the Old Testament"

    Let's just say that neither Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants or any other branch of Christianity would agree with you.

    My comments regarding Marx are based on the writings of Richard Wurmbrand, a Jewish convert to Christianity who became a Christian pastor and was imprisoned in brutal conditions in Communist Romania. His views on Marx, and therefore Marxist doctrine, are very insightful regarding the spiritual underpinnings of that system. There was more to it than mere atheism. But you are right about one thing - I did get it off the internet.

    "All taxation “forcibly takes your goods”, so we’ve crossed that Rubicon"

    Common sense rules. The state has to be supported, so a degree of taxation is inevitable. If an average income is taxed at 10% most people would consider that reasonable, methinks. On the other hand, if an average income is taxed at 90% most people would consider that draconian and unjustified.

    The point is, in a Capitalist system, despite all its many flaws, what you have and earn is yours but you must contribute some of what you have to society.

    By contrast, under Communism, what you have and earn fundamentally does not belong to you - and the state decides how much you can have.

    The latter system is more controlling; the former, crappy as it might be in so many ways, is less so. So that's why I prefer it. And that's also quite apart from the spiritual underpinnings of Marxism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. imbroglio says:

    I don’t know why Ilana bothers posting to this site.

    Those who comment to the effect that, “the expropriated whites are getting what they deserve,” may not be so happy in a future America in which their homes, savings and retirement plans will be expropriated to be turned over to “past victims of oppression” and their children left devastated and without recourse.

    Those who don’t see that coming are blind as well as dumb.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    k

    I don’t know why Ilana bothers posting to this site.
     
    Well, I for one am glad she does. This article is her second home-run in a row. I hadn't made a practice of reading her essays regularly but I may start.

    Agree with you about the dismaying, celebratory aspect of some comments here, but it's worthwhile knowing what we're up against. They plan a combination of enslavement and slaughter for the people who built Western Civilization. They need to be resisted with everything we have.

    An integral part of that resistance has to involve identifying and shaming (at the least!) the particular 'characters' behind the MSM propaganda which daily feeds the fire of grievance--some of which is indeed legitimate, but the vast majority of which is manufactured for political purposes.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @phil
    Great work, Ilana. One of your best efforts, and heartfelt, I'm sure.

    Ilana
    Not a peep from the USA taxpaying PBS NPR crowd of all things justice..
    Nothing from the longtime
    Nightly schill Driftwood Judy
    Who licked Mandelas boots
    And Obama cuffed pants

    Or Pacifica commie radio

    Not to mention The Urban View on Sirius
    No pin on serious channel
    Hope to have you in again in April

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. Rogue says:
    @CalDre

    One can’t be a Christian and not wholly accept the Old Testament in the same manner one accepts the New Testament.
     
    I couldn't disagree more - in fact you cannot be a true Christian if you accept the Old Testament. The Old Testament is the word of the Satanic Beast Yahweh and the Synagogue of Satan which Christ condemned. And I don't care what some elitist corrupt group of assholes said in some conference 1,000+ years ago. All I need to do is read the text and it is abundantly clear the Old Testament describes a Satanic Beast and the New Testament a God. Sad for you that you have fallen for it.

    Marx hated God and wanted to dethrone Him. I’m not interested in reading anything he wrote, seeing as he was a servant of the father of lies.
     
    Close your mind all you want, but maybe you shouldn't be using the internet, it was invented by an atheist. Ideas are orthogonal - just because someone is wrong about one thing doesn't mean he is wrong about everything. Well, except for in your world.

    except that it forcibly takes your goods as opposed to encouraging your generosity with what is actually yours.
     
    All taxation "forcibly takes your goods", so we've crossed that Rubicon. Moreover, the law giving exclusive rights to property to one person forcibly takes it from me, as I am not allowed to use it. That is also force, though of course it is force you love. You do not have a consistent position. Finally, "actually yours" is entirely conclusory. My entire point is I challenged that someone who inherits something that it is "actually theirs". It's only theirs if the idiot 99% want to punch themselves in the face. In fact, I would go further and say nobody "owns" land; I grant for practical purposes there is a need for exclusive possession to the extent necessary to make productive use of it for the benefit of society as a whole, but that's it. The world belongs to everyone equally, not to the descendants of the tyrants and criminals who usurped it.

    “you cannot be a true Christian if you accept the Old Testament”

    Let’s just say that neither Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants or any other branch of Christianity would agree with you.

    My comments regarding Marx are based on the writings of Richard Wurmbrand, a Jewish convert to Christianity who became a Christian pastor and was imprisoned in brutal conditions in Communist Romania. His views on Marx, and therefore Marxist doctrine, are very insightful regarding the spiritual underpinnings of that system. There was more to it than mere atheism. But you are right about one thing – I did get it off the internet.

    “All taxation “forcibly takes your goods”, so we’ve crossed that Rubicon”

    Common sense rules. The state has to be supported, so a degree of taxation is inevitable. If an average income is taxed at 10% most people would consider that reasonable, methinks. On the other hand, if an average income is taxed at 90% most people would consider that draconian and unjustified.

    The point is, in a Capitalist system, despite all its many flaws, what you have and earn is yours but you must contribute some of what you have to society.

    By contrast, under Communism, what you have and earn fundamentally does not belong to you – and the state decides how much you can have.

    The latter system is more controlling; the former, crappy as it might be in so many ways, is less so. So that’s why I prefer it. And that’s also quite apart from the spiritual underpinnings of Marxism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre
    "Let’s just say that neither Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants or any other branch of Christianity would agree with you. " Fortunately for me my views are not up for a vote. Even though if you go up to the average Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant in the street, and ask them if the following passage (and many, many more like it) is the word of God or the word of the Beast, what will they say?

    13 Deuteronomy 6-10: If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

    20 Deuteronomy 10-15: 10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
     

    So I think a lot of Christians believe the "Old Testament" is part of Christianity because that is what they learned, not because they really believe it. The Jewish bible truly is a work of evil. And if you ask me the Jews worked it into Christianity so they could run with this "Judeo-Christian" crap. Which has worked remarkably well for them. But I'm not fooled.

    I agree Marx has flaws. I have read his works extensively. But that does not make all he writes wrong. He also believed the sun was bright. Does that make it false? Yes, he was a materialist, and yes he opposed the Church for oppressing the people (which, at the time, it did), but lots of people you probably read and whose scripts you watch in movies have similar views.

    "If an average income is taxed at 10% most people would consider that reasonable, methinks. " That's fine for you to think but I prefer no income tax but a property tax. And I don't believe in private property, aside from some areas which are also covered in the Bible, such as clothes, tools, etc., which is just common sense. Plus my income is taxed vastly more than 10%. If you add all taxes, including property, sales, etc., it is closer to 80%. Even more if you include the "interest" tax I have to pay to the oligarchs who inherited their money. And you are right, I do find that draconian and unjustified. That's why I am ready for revolution, today. The richer you are, the less tax you pay. That uber-hypocrite Buffet probably pays 0.1% tax (he lies and says is it 20-some% but that is a gross and deliberate distortion).

    "The point is, in a Capitalist system, despite all its many flaws, what you have and earn is yours" That's absolutely false. First the vast majority of people have nothing, as the oligarchs own the bulk of wealth. And if you are lucky you can slave your life for them, earning them a profit on everything you make, a tax if you will, which the State enforces with violence, or you can pay them fruit of your hard work to buy some property they were born with. No thanks. Utterly unjust in any case.

    There is nothing, absolutely nothing, about capitalism which requires inheritance.

    "The latter system is more controlling; the former, crappy as it might be in so many ways, is less so." Yes, that is the oligarchs' propaganda, isn't it? We own everything so you can be free? LOL.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. Don’t forget that Afrikaner fight for self-determination was subverted by Boer elites & Anglo-American globalism: https://www.amren.com/features/2013/05/when-patriotism-meets-conservatism/

    Still, I am not so pessimistic. I think there is a good chance for Boers to create their nation-state among the ruins of what was SA. They just have to dissociate from Anglo-Jewish globalist ideology & concentrate in a defensible area.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  113. megabar says:
    @CalDre

    People are driven to utilize and improve resources that they own.
     
    Really? Under your theory of human nature why would Zuckerberg or Buffet do anything? They have more money they or their progeny can ever spend. Even though in both cases they have contributed nothing extraordinary to society. One could go through the list. The real contributors to humanity are not the ones that have all the money or property - the latter are just the parasitic class. Granted a farmer is in most cases not in the same league as Zuckerberg or Buffet, but I'm sure people would keep farming the fields even if they didn't own them, just to get the profits of the harvest. In any case, a 90% tax would still leave 10% to the hand of the gifter.

    Consider that private ownership of resources can avoid the tragedy of the commons.
     
    Emphasis on may. In most cases, actually, private ownership of resources encourages overconsumption every bit as much as communal ownership. But I am not arguing against private ownership of property - I believe in that. I just don't believe in inheritance. It should be taxed at a special high rate.

    inheritance make a person, as they near their death, want to continue to improve their resources so that they can pass them to their offspring, rather than squander them.
     
    I don't see any evidence of that. Most workers, e.g., do not own their business, yet they do not "squander" it. I know, the elite selfish fucks always threaten, if you don't allows us to rule the world forever, we will fuck it up! There is a better way to deal with terrorists than to appease them. Anyway you can pretty much destroy that argument by allowing some limited inheritance, say 5-10%.

    Under your theory of human nature why would Zuckerberg or Buffet do anything?

    I don’t see your argument. My point is that people are driven to improve things they own and (as they get older) can pass on to their kids. I never said that there is a limit at which they stop wanting that. Indeed, if the only thing Zuckerberg cared about was living as a king, he’d sell all of his shares today and retire, living on investments etc. But, instead, he is driven to improve and build Facebook into something more than it already is.

    Most workers, e.g., do not own their business, yet they do not “squander” it

    Workers and owners are not the same thing. Workers don’t inherently care about the resource, except that they are fired by the owner when they do something that squanders it. More generally, because workers are employed at the owner’s pleasure (and vice-versa), each takes on some of the motivations of the other.

    Anyway you can pretty much destroy that argument by allowing some limited inheritance, say 5-10%.

    Not really. If the amount of inheritance tax is high enough, then any investment in a resource is not worth it. If your going to lose 90% of something, it very well might be better to exploit/ruin it before the tax hits. It’s like home improvements. Roughly speaking, most home improvements will pay $.50 on the dollar when you go to sell the house. So you shouldn’t really improve your house if you intend to sell it soon (minor cosmetic things that help sell the house are excluded).

    The right level of inheritance tax is one that encourages people to improve things to the end, yet prevent runaway wealth gain such that a de facto ruling class is created by one successful generation. That is, every generation should be very productive in order to maintain or grow their level of wealth.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @Joe Wong
    Have you read the history about crusades or subjugating the Natives in USA? But that is the wrong attitude towards the issue. How about Instead of blaming the South African Blacks, perhaps working with them as equal partner will get problems resolved peacefully, or like someone suggested here, gathering all the White in South Africa together and establish a small independent walled state like Israel in South Africa?

    Yes, I am familiar with the history of the Christian crusades in the Middle East and the subjugation of Native Americans.

    Your idea of a protective state for White South Africans is a good one and is necessary. Better yet, U.S. authorities should allow White South Africans into this country and grant them some kind of legal status. This will piss off American Blacks and White liberals, which is a good thing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    U.S. authorities should allow White South Africans into this country and grant them some kind of legal status. This will piss off American Blacks and White liberals, which is a good thing.
     
    It's also a good reason why it'll never happen. The only way I could be wrong is if the 2016 election turns out to be the bellwether of a new order rather than the last gasp of an old one.

    And frankly, that could only happen if there were to be a sea change in the cast and ownership of the mass media, and that most definitely is not happening.

    Unfortunately.
    , @EliteCommInc.
    We don't need any immigrants.
    , @Stan d Mute

    U.S. authorities should allow White South Africans into this country and grant them some kind of legal status. This will piss off American Blacks and White liberals, which is a good thing.
     
    This has to be one of the dumbest ideas I’ve seen on Unz (but I do block a lot of commenters so..)

    The whites in SA are the people who created this catastrophe. They had the power to prevent it, to stop the insane over-population of natives before they became a demographic time bomb, to forcibly expel them, etc. Instead, the people who should have known better than anyone on the planet the true nature of the natives, chose to give up their authority over what they’d built and hand it freely to the natives. And your idea is to bring them here? Thinking they’ll piss off white SJWs and negroes?

    What we should be doing is encouraging Wakanda by repatriation and restoration of our American negroes to the real Wakanda in SA. It’s a “first world nation” “built by Africans” isn’t it? So encourage them to go and keep building it. Let them do whatever they wish with the idiot whites who created that mess, who cares? Maybe some American and European whites will learn from the spectacle.

    Wakanda is South Africa

    #blaxit
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @WHAT
    But there is very much an angle here: the more far-sighted nose suddenly understands colored see it as white as well, with predictable results. Hence all the hand wringing.

    If you’re trying to argue against identity politics, ah but Im so much younger than that now.Then what you would be saying is if you accept the given that nations are multicultural then to allow identity politics for the dominant group will surely backfire on them. Uh yeah if you accept multiculturalism as a given then another given is identity politics and another given further down the road is civil race war.But then you would have begun by destroying the entire point of a nation state which is the place from which a particular people safely operate from and engage the world.
    And if youre really retarded and saying that whites have no business in africa and therefore the multicultural state that is dooming them predictably is there comeuppance then I hope you’re not an american canadian australian new zealander etc or if you are youre ok with your wife and family being raped and murdered. The proper understanding is we whites are one of millions of species of life on this planet that nature has pitted against each other for existence and the only objective moral action is to survive by any means possible. So while no ethnic subspecies of human has lived forever in any one place it wouldnt matter if say the zulu actually had bee native to south africa for 1.8 million years the boers were able to take it and should have resisted the jews attempts to give it back to blacks, but they didnt and the jews one the jews are winning a lot these past 100 years so maybe they will be the future of the universe and if so as a humanoid hoka hey, but as white I say not so fast jewboy I think you need to step over here into this nice cattle car

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @Carroll Price
    Time will tell. Good Jews eventually become non-Jews or ex-Jews like Gilad Atzmon. All the rest play social and political games at various levels of proficiency, with some being more sincere and convincing than others.

    Exactly right a good jew is not a jew at all anymore. In a place like france or greece they should not even be allowed neither should by nordic irish ass. But in mutt white nations they unlike the rest of us must fully assimilate because unlike the rest of us they have a 2000 year track record of duplicity they must amend if they are not cool with that i get it they can go to israel.
    I only suggest these allowance because unlike many Im serious about actual war. In other words many are content to hold pure ideas because ultimately they don’t really think any of this is real. I understand we are actually in an existential position and the world is on the cusp of a 500- 2000 year power realignment plans that will actually work have to be made we cant afford keyboard superheros gumming up the ability to think practically. hitler failed to get rid of the jews because its a really difficult thing to do and because even saying who is or isn’t is really hard. Jews really have been pretty important contributors to our tech and would be pretty good adversaries if they were alienated from the west entirely. and most of all, right now in the USA center of world power they have half the wealth and power dislodging them would not be easy and we would still have to deal with the mess they made.flipping them might just be a lot easier than we think. They too have suffered a multiculturalist leftist identity crisis they are rarely religious they marry out and like eldridge cleaver pointed out they buy into the white cultural hegemony, in other words on a certain level they want to be us more than ever and lets not forget genetically even the pure AKZ are 50-60% italian I mean they are probably closer to me genetically than a greek or an icelander im irish norwegian. I gues as a racist anti semite Im in a minority when i say if they would stop acting the way they do and cease keeping genetically and culturally apart I dont have any real ick factor about assimilating them genetically the way say other races must be kept out. of course im not voluteering to personally do this but if jews and wasps want to get it on at harvard fine as long as they again become whites rather than jews and citizens of the world

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. iffen says:
    @mcohen
    The boers were ready to fight but they were betrayed by there own generals.i was there and i saw it happen.regime change was inevitable but the cape belonged to the boers and now they must seize it.no bantu tribe can claim land south of the fish river.

    Sout, vrek of trek

    the cape belonged to the boers and now they must seize

    Too late for this McOhen.

    They would be bombed by NATO after the Trumpen Reich passes from the scene.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @Anonymous
    Quite consistently, you disparage this site's most incisive and insightful contributors. I daresay most here are past wondering about your own motives.

    Gee, I “disparage” this site’s “most incisive and insightful contributors”?

    Let’s analyze some of these contributors. John Derbyshire, who has a Chinese wife and offspring, has stated that Asians are superior to whites.

    (((Ilana Mercer)) and her family were kicked out of South Africa for their anti-apartheid work.

    Brother Nathanel, Philip Giraldi will rail against the Jews but will not provide an answer as to where we should put the Jews.

    “Anonymous” commentators have ranted against Robert Spencer because he is supposedly not white.

    The various “anonymous” commentators have eventually revealed themselves as non-white or involved with Asian women.

    Unz Review struck me as a place that was trying to save the West. When I point out facts, all I get is cry baby nonsense.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Brother Nathanel, Philip Giraldi will rail against the Jews but will not provide an answer as to where we should put the Jews.

    Where should we put them? Or do you rail and then not provide answers as well?
    , @Anonymous
    Okay, I won't bother responding to you anymore. You appear to be genuinely psychotic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. iffen says:
    @attilathehen
    Gee, I "disparage" this site's "most incisive and insightful contributors"?

    Let's analyze some of these contributors. John Derbyshire, who has a Chinese wife and offspring, has stated that Asians are superior to whites.

    (((Ilana Mercer)) and her family were kicked out of South Africa for their anti-apartheid work.

    Brother Nathanel, Philip Giraldi will rail against the Jews but will not provide an answer as to where we should put the Jews.

    "Anonymous" commentators have ranted against Robert Spencer because he is supposedly not white.

    The various "anonymous" commentators have eventually revealed themselves as non-white or involved with Asian women.

    Unz Review struck me as a place that was trying to save the West. When I point out facts, all I get is cry baby nonsense.

    Brother Nathanel, Philip Giraldi will rail against the Jews but will not provide an answer as to where we should put the Jews.

    Where should we put them? Or do you rail and then not provide answers as well?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @imbroglio
    I don't know why Ilana bothers posting to this site.

    Those who comment to the effect that, "the expropriated whites are getting what they deserve," may not be so happy in a future America in which their homes, savings and retirement plans will be expropriated to be turned over to "past victims of oppression" and their children left devastated and without recourse.

    Those who don't see that coming are blind as well as dumb.

    k

    I don’t know why Ilana bothers posting to this site.

    Well, I for one am glad she does. This article is her second home-run in a row. I hadn’t made a practice of reading her essays regularly but I may start.

    Agree with you about the dismaying, celebratory aspect of some comments here, but it’s worthwhile knowing what we’re up against. They plan a combination of enslavement and slaughter for the people who built Western Civilization. They need to be resisted with everything we have.

    An integral part of that resistance has to involve identifying and shaming (at the least!) the particular ‘characters’ behind the MSM propaganda which daily feeds the fire of grievance–some of which is indeed legitimate, but the vast majority of which is manufactured for political purposes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @SunBakedSuburb
    Yes, I am familiar with the history of the Christian crusades in the Middle East and the subjugation of Native Americans.

    Your idea of a protective state for White South Africans is a good one and is necessary. Better yet, U.S. authorities should allow White South Africans into this country and grant them some kind of legal status. This will piss off American Blacks and White liberals, which is a good thing.

    U.S. authorities should allow White South Africans into this country and grant them some kind of legal status. This will piss off American Blacks and White liberals, which is a good thing.

    It’s also a good reason why it’ll never happen. The only way I could be wrong is if the 2016 election turns out to be the bellwether of a new order rather than the last gasp of an old one.

    And frankly, that could only happen if there were to be a sea change in the cast and ownership of the mass media, and that most definitely is not happening.

    Unfortunately.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @attilathehen
    Gee, I "disparage" this site's "most incisive and insightful contributors"?

    Let's analyze some of these contributors. John Derbyshire, who has a Chinese wife and offspring, has stated that Asians are superior to whites.

    (((Ilana Mercer)) and her family were kicked out of South Africa for their anti-apartheid work.

    Brother Nathanel, Philip Giraldi will rail against the Jews but will not provide an answer as to where we should put the Jews.

    "Anonymous" commentators have ranted against Robert Spencer because he is supposedly not white.

    The various "anonymous" commentators have eventually revealed themselves as non-white or involved with Asian women.

    Unz Review struck me as a place that was trying to save the West. When I point out facts, all I get is cry baby nonsense.

    Okay, I won’t bother responding to you anymore. You appear to be genuinely psychotic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @Rogue
    I wouldn't waste my time trying to read Marx.

    I do recall getting hold of Mein Kampf when I was in my 20's. Not because I like Hitler or am a Nazi yada yada, but was hoping to be profoundly shocked by what I assumed would be political porn.

    Result? Boooorrriiinggg!! I doubt I read as much as a fifth of it before taking it back to the library.

    Indeed boring, but I persevered.
    Wanted to know if Hitler wanted war or the extermination of jews.
    Both things I did not find.
    That jews were parasites, yes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @Daniel H
    >>Have you ever read Marx? What is Marxist theory to you?

    Has ANYBODY ever read Das Kapital all the way through? Sorry, the man could have used an editor. I am certain that their are useful insights, even truths in Marx's work. But how many normally intelligent readers have the stamina to get through the tome?

    My idea is that nobody ever read it.
    The book is incomprehensible, I stopped at page 20.
    That it is incomprehensible may be explained that it took Marx ten or eleven years to ‘prove’ his assertion that capital would be concentrated by fewer and fewer people.
    Though the distribution of capital is very uneven, we never saw fully what Marx predicted.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @CalDre
    Thanks for putting me in the company of such a wise man.

    Problem with the Boers is they were completely content being super racists for centuries but now are crying that someone wants them to leave the territory they invaded, and in which they ruled over the natives as supremacists. Mind you, the locals are not slaughtering them, or even tarring or feathering them, just taking away what isn't their's.

    And no, I don't believe in "inheritance" elsewhere, either. That is one monumental injustice that will one day be done away with. Inheritance and free market are actually opposites - you cannot have a free market when one group, whether selected by race as in S. Africa or by clan as in the "West", is born owning all the land and the other groups the serfs. That's how the feudal ages worked. Nothing's changed, except for a while, after the serfs agitated for change, the lords threw some more crumbs to the serfs. Well, in S. Africa, the masters weren't throwing enough crumbs to the slaves, and in the rest of the world, the masses will soon rise up and take what's theirs from the 1% useless and generally greedy and evil eaters who inherited it all. Unless smart people make some alternative decisions early, the result will be Communism.

    Inheritance is evil! The greatest evil on Earth!

    ” Problem with the Boers is they were completely content being super racists for centuries ”

    Read as comparison George Orwell’s Burmese Days.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. CalDre says:
    @Rogue
    "you cannot be a true Christian if you accept the Old Testament"

    Let's just say that neither Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants or any other branch of Christianity would agree with you.

    My comments regarding Marx are based on the writings of Richard Wurmbrand, a Jewish convert to Christianity who became a Christian pastor and was imprisoned in brutal conditions in Communist Romania. His views on Marx, and therefore Marxist doctrine, are very insightful regarding the spiritual underpinnings of that system. There was more to it than mere atheism. But you are right about one thing - I did get it off the internet.

    "All taxation “forcibly takes your goods”, so we’ve crossed that Rubicon"

    Common sense rules. The state has to be supported, so a degree of taxation is inevitable. If an average income is taxed at 10% most people would consider that reasonable, methinks. On the other hand, if an average income is taxed at 90% most people would consider that draconian and unjustified.

    The point is, in a Capitalist system, despite all its many flaws, what you have and earn is yours but you must contribute some of what you have to society.

    By contrast, under Communism, what you have and earn fundamentally does not belong to you - and the state decides how much you can have.

    The latter system is more controlling; the former, crappy as it might be in so many ways, is less so. So that's why I prefer it. And that's also quite apart from the spiritual underpinnings of Marxism.

    “Let’s just say that neither Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants or any other branch of Christianity would agree with you. ” Fortunately for me my views are not up for a vote. Even though if you go up to the average Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant in the street, and ask them if the following passage (and many, many more like it) is the word of God or the word of the Beast, what will they say?

    13 Deuteronomy 6-10: If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

    20 Deuteronomy 10-15: 10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

    So I think a lot of Christians believe the “Old Testament” is part of Christianity because that is what they learned, not because they really believe it. The Jewish bible truly is a work of evil. And if you ask me the Jews worked it into Christianity so they could run with this “Judeo-Christian” crap. Which has worked remarkably well for them. But I’m not fooled.

    I agree Marx has flaws. I have read his works extensively. But that does not make all he writes wrong. He also believed the sun was bright. Does that make it false? Yes, he was a materialist, and yes he opposed the Church for oppressing the people (which, at the time, it did), but lots of people you probably read and whose scripts you watch in movies have similar views.

    “If an average income is taxed at 10% most people would consider that reasonable, methinks. ” That’s fine for you to think but I prefer no income tax but a property tax. And I don’t believe in private property, aside from some areas which are also covered in the Bible, such as clothes, tools, etc., which is just common sense. Plus my income is taxed vastly more than 10%. If you add all taxes, including property, sales, etc., it is closer to 80%. Even more if you include the “interest” tax I have to pay to the oligarchs who inherited their money. And you are right, I do find that draconian and unjustified. That’s why I am ready for revolution, today. The richer you are, the less tax you pay. That uber-hypocrite Buffet probably pays 0.1% tax (he lies and says is it 20-some% but that is a gross and deliberate distortion).

    “The point is, in a Capitalist system, despite all its many flaws, what you have and earn is yours” That’s absolutely false. First the vast majority of people have nothing, as the oligarchs own the bulk of wealth. And if you are lucky you can slave your life for them, earning them a profit on everything you make, a tax if you will, which the State enforces with violence, or you can pay them fruit of your hard work to buy some property they were born with. No thanks. Utterly unjust in any case.

    There is nothing, absolutely nothing, about capitalism which requires inheritance.

    “The latter system is more controlling; the former, crappy as it might be in so many ways, is less so.” Yes, that is the oligarchs’ propaganda, isn’t it? We own everything so you can be free? LOL.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @Corvinus
    "Is there any country in Afica with decent education, infrastructure, health care, birth control, housing, sewers, industry of any importance?

    The colonial powers built up the institutions and infrastructure for their benefit--they focused on urban areas, rather than the entire region. Some nations of Africa do have "decent" things, just not on a widespread basis. Did you not watch the video to gain a sense as to why Africa, which is only 60 years removed from European control, is struggling to get on its feet?

    "Why are African countries unable to folllow the Singapore example?"

    The development of Africa and the development of Singapore followed different paths.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Singapore#1819:_British_colony_of_Singapore

    Can you explain to me where in Africa you see development ?
    If there was, is, why do nearly all Africans try to migrate to Europe ?

    The reason Africa does not develop might be what an African in a German TV docu said ‘die Weissen können nicht einfach herumsitzen’, translation ‘the whites are unable to hang around’.

    What we see with the migrants is that they can.
    After being here for eight years they still do not speak the language, do not work, but do state that they want to work.

    Writing this I’m remembering that, long ago, a DDR man who had succeeded in going to then W Germany.
    He was asked what he found of W Germany, he said ‘had I known I had to work so hard here, I would have stayed’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Can you explain to me where in Africa you see development?"

    Africa has no where but to go up.

    http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2017/04/19/economic-growth-in-africa-is-on-the-upswing-following-a-sharp-slowdown

    https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/amyjadesimi/2017/03/14/how-chinas-60-billion-for-africa-will-drive-global-prosperity/&refURL=https://www.google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/

    "If there was, is, why do nearly all Africans try to migrate to Europe?"

    Nearly all? No, some Africans try to migrate to Europe, for the same reasons Europeans migrated to the United States.

    "The reason Africa does not develop might be what an African in a German TV docu said ‘die Weissen können nicht einfach herumsitzen’, translation ‘the whites are unable to hang around’."

    Actually, Africa is developing. See the above two links.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @SunBakedSuburb
    Yes, I am familiar with the history of the Christian crusades in the Middle East and the subjugation of Native Americans.

    Your idea of a protective state for White South Africans is a good one and is necessary. Better yet, U.S. authorities should allow White South Africans into this country and grant them some kind of legal status. This will piss off American Blacks and White liberals, which is a good thing.

    We don’t need any immigrants.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. Mith says:

    No mention of Britain reneging on the deal to fund land buy-backs ????

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  130. pyrrhus says:
    @Daniel H
    White South Africans know what they have to do, but yet they won't do it. Carving out a white nation is the ONLY way forward for peace and security. South Africa is a big country. A white state (or states) can be cared out while leaving a huge swath of land, full of resources and industry for black South Africans. White South Africans must do this or they will perish.

    They should have done this decades ago. Contrary to the title of this article, it would have made no difference what “muh Constitution” said, Black government was always going to seize the land and genocide any whites who didn’t escape, because that’s what Africans do…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @CalDre

    People the world round handed down their property to their family members since time inmemoriam
     
    False. Are you utterly ignorant or purposefully spreading lies? Private property is at most a few thousands years old, when human history spans maybe 200,000 years. It developed when a few greedy thugs took something for themselves and killed those who challenged them. Over time they became the "kings" and "lords" of the world and enslaved everybody else (serfdom was, essentially, slavery). Even then it was not absolute, at any time one group of thugs ("kings") could attack another group of thugs ("other kings") and take their land and enslave their serfs. This is the "noble" (pun intended) history of private property to which you refer. But even during those periods there were many societies which did not succumb to the usurpers. See e.g. http://www.henrygeorge.org/pchp29.htm And even in recent years ideologies have emerged that would undo that travesty, such as communism. I am more for a middle ground, allow private property, have no income tax whatsoever (do not punish laborers), but put a heavy tax on inheritance.

    it doesn’t even have a unique place in any economic system.
     
    Perhaps you can prove me "wrong" with an exception but economic systems that have private property start out as (or, in case of US, end up as - there were special factors in the conquest of US land that allowed an initial wide distribution of property) centralized oligarchic systems that are not democratic, fair, or just. But murder is even more widespread in economic systems, I suppose you will sing the praises of murder next? Fact is there hasn't been, and currently isn't, anything close to a "just" economic system. Even in the "shining light" of the US, .1% of the people, most of whom have done nothing with their lives, own 99% of the wealth. I am ready for revolution. Just tell me the time and place. This evil system must end. And if Communism is the only alternative, I will not support it, but Communism it will be. The current unjust system simply cannot last. (And Trump the oligarch reducing inheritance tax - fuck that Orangutan.)

    In other words, either there will be a just distribution of wealth in society, or a new group of "kings" (thugs) will destroy the current group of "other kings" (thugs) and take what was their's. Usually this is accomplished by promising a significant portion of the "spoils" to the commoners (no sweat off their back, right?).

    I don’t think you understand what is meant by meek.
     
    "Meekness is humility toward God and toward others. It is having the right or the power to do something but refraining for the benefit of someone else. " The oligarchs are selfish cold mass-murderers and oppressors in this world. Thugs. They are the opposite of meek. They are the spawn of Satan. Including Oprah and uber-hypocrite Buffet. By their selfish acts they have chosen sides.

    No. my view of the commonly held view and practice. Let’s not play tiddle winks. You are making the accusation the burden is on you to prove that inheritance is not a standard practice round the world.

    I will skip and ignore the childishness of name calling. Let’s just suffice it to say, your comments reflect the issues (some of them about inheritance) it does not in any way diminish the practice as a nonunique practice across cultures.

    I think you should actually read the reference you posted, the nexus of the press is not against inheritance — it that said stake holders violated their contractual agreement.

    And what settles my position is that the referenced site acknowledges the cross cultural practice of inheritance. The article says, that inheritence is widespread. it is not a critique of inheritence, but the concept of private ownership of the land — and his critique is limited to the European feudal system —

    It says absolutely nothing negative about the private monies, goods, businesses, etc being handed over to after a passing as inheritance to others –

    I am not sure why so many of you have a tendency to note one aspect of a thing and proceed to make wholesale over-generalizations and misapplication. It’s probably a good idea to stop when your own reference contradicts your view.

    You are advancing a critique of land ownership to the issue of inheritance — they are not same thing just because they have mutual links to the matter of inheritance.

    Have at it. After all — you did describe “meekness” fairly accurately — close enough.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. For those of you defending colonialism based on the ability of whites to take by force, violate contractual agreements, use technical western concepts to contend for some manner of legal tending which had no meaning for most African societies —

    As I understand the arguments you support Israel’s claim to greater Palestine based on

    1. their development

    2 divine right

    3 legal technicalities

    and or any combination of the above to include

    4. the use if force as justification

    So you are granting Israel’s claims as accurate, having veracity and therefore valid.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    Colonialism is objectionable for a great many reasons and everybody, Europeans as well (especially?), would be better off if it never happened. But the simple fact is that the resources in these lands would have remained unextracted and there would be nothing like modern infrastructure (now crumbling from mal-use) without European intervention. You can reject the former while being fully cognizant of the implications of the latter.

    The Israeli situation in Palestine is completely different from the European colonization of Africa (or Asia), apart from the fact that Israelis aren’t Europeans. Israel could not maintain its occupation and land theft without massive assistance from the US and Europe, who receive no real benefits from the relationship. Israel is not an imperial outpost in any economic sense, like colonial administrators of old. Rather, it is a safe haven for International Jewry to flee when the situation gets too hot in the host countries (interestingly, exactly as anticipated in Mein Kampf).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @EliteCommInc.
    For those of you defending colonialism based on the ability of whites to take by force, violate contractual agreements, use technical western concepts to contend for some manner of legal tending which had no meaning for most African societies ---

    As I understand the arguments you support Israel's claim to greater Palestine based on

    1. their development

    2 divine right

    3 legal technicalities

    and or any combination of the above to include

    4. the use if force as justification


    So you are granting Israel's claims as accurate, having veracity and therefore valid.

    Colonialism is objectionable for a great many reasons and everybody, Europeans as well (especially?), would be better off if it never happened. But the simple fact is that the resources in these lands would have remained unextracted and there would be nothing like modern infrastructure (now crumbling from mal-use) without European intervention. You can reject the former while being fully cognizant of the implications of the latter.

    The Israeli situation in Palestine is completely different from the European colonization of Africa (or Asia), apart from the fact that Israelis aren’t Europeans. Israel could not maintain its occupation and land theft without massive assistance from the US and Europe, who receive no real benefits from the relationship. Israel is not an imperial outpost in any economic sense, like colonial administrators of old. Rather, it is a safe haven for International Jewry to flee when the situation gets too hot in the host countries (interestingly, exactly as anticipated in Mein Kampf).

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    I am unclear what mineral contracts, ,mineral exploration and extraction bear on the question apartheid.

    One is not synonymous with the other.


    I am supremely confident that one can be a colony and still engage in fair practices towards one's fellows, abide by agreements, not engage in swindling or applying standards not on the table to wrestled through contractual disputes.


    That is the issue. In making the case for whites as superior and or developers and therefore justified in their abuse leaves no room to complain about Israelis who consider themselves, superior and will develop the region in ways the Arabs do not, including how they will extract resources and use the land. An Israeli can and does make the same claims -- as colonials

    No colony could sustain its initial existence without the aide of their mother countries/outside support.

    It's hard to square a position that says, if I operate on behalf of my mother country it's ok. But if i do the same, make the same arguments on behalf of myself -- it's abusive. Eventually, those outposts made the claims on behalf of themselves. One could just as well consider the zionists in Palestine setting up shop (outposts) on behalf of their fellow Jews among the hinetrland of Europe, for clearly, the Jews intend to make sure Israel is white Jewish and not wholly Jewish as god himself intended. waiting to establish their own.

    The wiggle room here is nil and null.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @EliteCommInc.
    I am unclear how to respond here. I would love to lambaste the current government for permitting unfairness. But i don't know one redresses apartheid. Amnesty lasted as long as Pres. Mandela was alive.


    But amnesty has not outlived the consequences of apartheid. My concern here Miss Mercer, is that you really don't a grasp on the what apartheid meant in application. Slavery and its aftermath is a tragic commentary on US democracy in every way, But i have to be honest, It may pale in comparison to the apartheid practiced throughout Africa. I don't know what the measure is for such injustice. And allow me to be clear, the injustice is predicated not colonialism, but on a system that was predicated on lifting people up, that proclaimed fairness, justice and godlness, but actually practiced everything to the opposite -- and icing their cake with validations from God.

    Here's a take on Pres. Mandela and South Africa:

    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/spying-for-apartheid/

    If that comparison is correct, then I am loath to prop myself on a high horse to condemn South Africa, just as I am loathe to support Israel's behavior in Palestine. We are talking about a very very nasty practice --- and how any white South African could have passed and walked to church any day of the week to praise a loving God and embrace a forgiving Jesus -- both of whom hated injustice and hypocrisy -- I in good conscience --- as much as I have come to appreciate your growing conscience -- this is a bridge I could not cross with you, l'est a lightening strike consume me at the first step.

    If Pres Mandela's take is correct (as noted by Dr. Giraldi) -- you need not express an iota of regret for your father's rumored efforts against it --- no sincere person of conscience could do otherwise.

    Nelson Mandela, although little noted in the press, when Mandela came to Massachusetts during the Clinton Administration, his daughter refused to see him. She was at UMass at the time. The reason, he had regularly beat her mother (not WInnie).

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    I have no doubt that families have their issues.


    but the observation by Pres. Mandela isn't changed by those family issues. Unlike the reasons Israel uses to justify taking more of Palestine that she is entitled or the attempts to justify apartheid.

    I have no doubt that many Israelis and colonials persons of influence, distinction - in fact considered heroes for one aspect of their work:

    beat their wives
    raped
    stole - steal
    engage in incest and any number untoward behavior.

    The difference is that while Pres Mandela was alive -- he stood fast against white reprisals. Whatever the accusations about homelife, he exercised amazing restraint in dealing with the white society that practiced apartheid as a matter of christian.

    You can change the subject if you'd like to dwell on intra-personal dynamics as opposed to public policy if you
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @Beefcake the Mighty
    Colonialism is objectionable for a great many reasons and everybody, Europeans as well (especially?), would be better off if it never happened. But the simple fact is that the resources in these lands would have remained unextracted and there would be nothing like modern infrastructure (now crumbling from mal-use) without European intervention. You can reject the former while being fully cognizant of the implications of the latter.

    The Israeli situation in Palestine is completely different from the European colonization of Africa (or Asia), apart from the fact that Israelis aren’t Europeans. Israel could not maintain its occupation and land theft without massive assistance from the US and Europe, who receive no real benefits from the relationship. Israel is not an imperial outpost in any economic sense, like colonial administrators of old. Rather, it is a safe haven for International Jewry to flee when the situation gets too hot in the host countries (interestingly, exactly as anticipated in Mein Kampf).

    I am unclear what mineral contracts, ,mineral exploration and extraction bear on the question apartheid.

    One is not synonymous with the other.

    I am supremely confident that one can be a colony and still engage in fair practices towards one’s fellows, abide by agreements, not engage in swindling or applying standards not on the table to wrestled through contractual disputes.

    That is the issue. In making the case for whites as superior and or developers and therefore justified in their abuse leaves no room to complain about Israelis who consider themselves, superior and will develop the region in ways the Arabs do not, including how they will extract resources and use the land. An Israeli can and does make the same claims — as colonials

    No colony could sustain its initial existence without the aide of their mother countries/outside support.

    It’s hard to square a position that says, if I operate on behalf of my mother country it’s ok. But if i do the same, make the same arguments on behalf of myself — it’s abusive. Eventually, those outposts made the claims on behalf of themselves. One could just as well consider the zionists in Palestine setting up shop (outposts) on behalf of their fellow Jews among the hinetrland of Europe, for clearly, the Jews intend to make sure Israel is white Jewish and not wholly Jewish as god himself intended. waiting to establish their own.

    The wiggle room here is nil and null.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @Rhett Hardwick
    Nelson Mandela, although little noted in the press, when Mandela came to Massachusetts during the Clinton Administration, his daughter refused to see him. She was at UMass at the time. The reason, he had regularly beat her mother (not WInnie).

    I have no doubt that families have their issues.

    but the observation by Pres. Mandela isn’t changed by those family issues. Unlike the reasons Israel uses to justify taking more of Palestine that she is entitled or the attempts to justify apartheid.

    I have no doubt that many Israelis and colonials persons of influence, distinction – in fact considered heroes for one aspect of their work:

    beat their wives
    raped
    stole – steal
    engage in incest and any number untoward behavior.

    The difference is that while Pres Mandela was alive — he stood fast against white reprisals. Whatever the accusations about homelife, he exercised amazing restraint in dealing with the white society that practiced apartheid as a matter of christian.

    You can change the subject if you’d like to dwell on intra-personal dynamics as opposed to public policy if you

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Whether or not there are legal prohibitions against behavior seems to matter a whole lot less in the Brave New World of the Left we live in. The US has had some decent laws against illegal immigration but when the government refuses to enforce them (as under Obama/Bush II) or “Judicial Activist” Judges, and “Sanctuary Mayors/Governors” put up roadblocks to their enforcement, they become worthless. Free Speech laws seem to increasingly suffer a similar fate, as, it seems likely, will gun laws.

    Unless the powers that be enforce laws under the true spirit and letter of the law, they might as well be written on slips of paper in a fortune cookie.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  138. @Jake
    Well, the (British) Commonwealth of Nations was acting to force South Africa to move to majority rule no later than 1960. South Africa was booted from the Commonwealth for not doing so. The US was using its power globally to force South Africa to go black rule no later than the start of the 1970s.

    The leaders of WASP Empire demanded that South Africa become black ruled.

    A reminder that Ronald Reagan vetoed successive UN security resolutions condemning the apartheid state and resisted or slowed down attempts to impose sanctions, measures that were overwhelmingly approved by Black South Africans. It was American student sit-ins and private boycotts that went a long way toward combating and finally bringing formal apartheid to its knees. Credit must also go to ANC’s armed resistance supported by other African states, Cuba and the Soviets, but not the West, who were busy propping their puppet Jonas Savimbi’s insurgency against the MPLA government in Angola.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rogue
    What utter tripe you speak.

    It was economic sanctions by the West (most of Western Europe, North America and Australasia) that started the process of ending Apartheid in South Africa.

    SA did not have a South African lobby in the USA, so there was no interest on the part of US lawmakers to not virtue signal and therefore throw White SA under the bus, unlike some other country - but its name escapes me...

    In any event, the main catalyst for the USA passing sanctions on SA was due to the senator for Chapaquidick - him of impeccable morals - conducting a whirlwind tour of SA and pointedly not engaging with any Black leaders who were not in favour of economic sanctions. Your contention that the Blacks overwhelmingly supported sanctions in SA is not exactly true. A majority did, but it was not overwhelmingly so. Apart from which, what would the average Black peasant have understood about economics. I say that as a statement of fact, not as a racial slur.

    Reagan's veto was overturned as more than 2 thirds of congress voted in favour of sanctions.

    However, what really put the squeeze on the SA economy was the recalling of foreign loans, primarily from US financial institutions.

    Student sit-ins and private boycotts? Balderdash!

    The USSR, Cuba or other African states had no bearing whatsoever on political change in SA. After the South African involvement in the Angolan war had ended, we had zero dealings with any of these countries, be it economic, military or anything else.

    As for the ANC or other Black liberation groups in SA, their combat abilities (an oxymoron) were quite ineffective - several terrorist attacks which killed people indiscriminate of race, age or gender -
    notwithstanding.

    , @EliteCommInc.
    I would add that armed resistance made ending apartheid much tougher. Especially resistance supported by any communist state.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. bomag says:
    @Joe Wong
    Why there is nobody asking Belgium to take up the responsibility to fix the mess they left behind? It is the same as the suffering broadcasted in the ME, it is all the local’s fault; but before the American led NATO invasions there were orderly societies despite they did not fit the West’s taste, but nobody is asking who are the perpetrators and why are they not be held accountable?

    Why there is nobody asking Belgium to take up the responsibility to fix the mess they left behind?

    Probably because the “mess” is independent of Belgium actions.

    but before the American led NATO invasions there were orderly societies despite they did not fit the West’s taste

    They had as many problems then as now. It is a mistake to imagine the past as utopia. A society’s fundamental capability gets expressed over time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    You might want to read,



    "King Leopold's Ghost."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. Rogue says:
    @Justsaying
    A reminder that Ronald Reagan vetoed successive UN security resolutions condemning the apartheid state and resisted or slowed down attempts to impose sanctions, measures that were overwhelmingly approved by Black South Africans. It was American student sit-ins and private boycotts that went a long way toward combating and finally bringing formal apartheid to its knees. Credit must also go to ANC's armed resistance supported by other African states, Cuba and the Soviets, but not the West, who were busy propping their puppet Jonas Savimbi's insurgency against the MPLA government in Angola.

    What utter tripe you speak.

    It was economic sanctions by the West (most of Western Europe, North America and Australasia) that started the process of ending Apartheid in South Africa.

    SA did not have a South African lobby in the USA, so there was no interest on the part of US lawmakers to not virtue signal and therefore throw White SA under the bus, unlike some other country – but its name escapes me…

    In any event, the main catalyst for the USA passing sanctions on SA was due to the senator for Chapaquidick – him of impeccable morals – conducting a whirlwind tour of SA and pointedly not engaging with any Black leaders who were not in favour of economic sanctions. Your contention that the Blacks overwhelmingly supported sanctions in SA is not exactly true. A majority did, but it was not overwhelmingly so. Apart from which, what would the average Black peasant have understood about economics. I say that as a statement of fact, not as a racial slur.

    Reagan’s veto was overturned as more than 2 thirds of congress voted in favour of sanctions.

    However, what really put the squeeze on the SA economy was the recalling of foreign loans, primarily from US financial institutions.

    Student sit-ins and private boycotts? Balderdash!

    The USSR, Cuba or other African states had no bearing whatsoever on political change in SA. After the South African involvement in the Angolan war had ended, we had zero dealings with any of these countries, be it economic, military or anything else.

    As for the ANC or other Black liberation groups in SA, their combat abilities (an oxymoron) were quite ineffective – several terrorist attacks which killed people indiscriminate of race, age or gender -
    notwithstanding.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. @Justsaying
    A reminder that Ronald Reagan vetoed successive UN security resolutions condemning the apartheid state and resisted or slowed down attempts to impose sanctions, measures that were overwhelmingly approved by Black South Africans. It was American student sit-ins and private boycotts that went a long way toward combating and finally bringing formal apartheid to its knees. Credit must also go to ANC's armed resistance supported by other African states, Cuba and the Soviets, but not the West, who were busy propping their puppet Jonas Savimbi's insurgency against the MPLA government in Angola.

    I would add that armed resistance made ending apartheid much tougher. Especially resistance supported by any communist state.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @SunBakedSuburb
    Yes, I am familiar with the history of the Christian crusades in the Middle East and the subjugation of Native Americans.

    Your idea of a protective state for White South Africans is a good one and is necessary. Better yet, U.S. authorities should allow White South Africans into this country and grant them some kind of legal status. This will piss off American Blacks and White liberals, which is a good thing.

    U.S. authorities should allow White South Africans into this country and grant them some kind of legal status. This will piss off American Blacks and White liberals, which is a good thing.

    This has to be one of the dumbest ideas I’ve seen on Unz (but I do block a lot of commenters so..)

    The whites in SA are the people who created this catastrophe. They had the power to prevent it, to stop the insane over-population of natives before they became a demographic time bomb, to forcibly expel them, etc. Instead, the people who should have known better than anyone on the planet the true nature of the natives, chose to give up their authority over what they’d built and hand it freely to the natives. And your idea is to bring them here? Thinking they’ll piss off white SJWs and negroes?

    What we should be doing is encouraging Wakanda by repatriation and restoration of our American negroes to the real Wakanda in SA. It’s a “first world nation” “built by Africans” isn’t it? So encourage them to go and keep building it. Let them do whatever they wish with the idiot whites who created that mess, who cares? Maybe some American and European whites will learn from the spectacle.

    Wakanda is South Africa

    #blaxit

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "The whites in SA are the people who created this catastrophe. They had the power to prevent it, to stop the insane over-population of natives before they became a demographic time bomb, to forcibly expel them."

    Actually, the ancestors of whites in South Africa are responsible. They invaded and invited the world.

    They. Must. Go. Back.

    "What we should be doing is encouraging Wakanda by repatriation and restoration of our American negroes to the real Wakanda in SA."

    How about YOU go on this crusade yourself, rather than insist others do the dirty work for you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @bomag

    Why there is nobody asking Belgium to take up the responsibility to fix the mess they left behind?
     
    Probably because the "mess" is independent of Belgium actions.

    but before the American led NATO invasions there were orderly societies despite they did not fit the West’s taste
     
    They had as many problems then as now. It is a mistake to imagine the past as utopia. A society's fundamental capability gets expressed over time.

    You might want to read,

    “King Leopold’s Ghost.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Disordered
    Do Europeans still moan about Julius Caesar's ghost? Attila's ghost? Napoleon's ghost?
    Perhaps one can say Mohammed's ghost or Hitler's ghost do still hang around - but, these are invoked more by current situations. Other former colonies know how to bury the past better and don't mind former atrocities as much - there is the Commonwealth as a (relatively) better example.

    It's clear the distrust has historical roots - the more recent, the more painful - but more importantly, it is compounded by phenotype and cultural differences. Latin Americans are still friendly to Europe, sometimes even more than to the US - how could they not, their elites are white-ish settlers. And if you read of the conquistador treatment of Amerindians, you'd find it hard to explain why brown and black Hispanics care to even speak Castilian at all. And yet they do.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. It hardly matters what the state of the SA constitution is. The people who could protect the various tribes from themselves have left the country.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  145. Rules for leaders and aspiring leaders in a voter democracy:

    (a) Don’t appear on TV with your hand shaking as if you have the palsy or have recently had a stroke (PWB).

    (b) Don’t fall face-first into a van (HRC).

    I developed these rules myself.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  146. Corvinus says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Can you explain to me where in Africa you see development ?
    If there was, is, why do nearly all Africans try to migrate to Europe ?

    The reason Africa does not develop might be what an African in a German TV docu said 'die Weissen können nicht einfach herumsitzen', translation 'the whites are unable to hang around'.

    What we see with the migrants is that they can.
    After being here for eight years they still do not speak the language, do not work, but do state that they want to work.

    Writing this I'm remembering that, long ago, a DDR man who had succeeded in going to then W Germany.
    He was asked what he found of W Germany, he said 'had I known I had to work so hard here, I would have stayed'.

    “Can you explain to me where in Africa you see development?”

    Africa has no where but to go up.

    http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2017/04/19/economic-growth-in-africa-is-on-the-upswing-following-a-sharp-slowdown

    https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/amyjadesimi/2017/03/14/how-chinas-60-billion-for-africa-will-drive-global-prosperity/&refURL=https://www.google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/

    “If there was, is, why do nearly all Africans try to migrate to Europe?”

    Nearly all? No, some Africans try to migrate to Europe, for the same reasons Europeans migrated to the United States.

    “The reason Africa does not develop might be what an African in a German TV docu said ‘die Weissen können nicht einfach herumsitzen’, translation ‘the whites are unable to hang around’.”

    Actually, Africa is developing. See the above two links.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Disordered
    African is on the upswing for the same reason the rest of the world is on the upswing. Bounce back from great recession, Chinese investment (which is a slippery slope), higher exports and remittances from foreigners. All external factors - the internal structure is still unequal and full of crime and corruption. The World Bank and the IMF said similar platitudes during Latin America's gilded 1990s, how deregulation and foreign investments had suddenly turned Latins into One Of Us... Socialismo Siglo 21 then happened.

    Furthermore, the Europeans who moved to the Americas had plenty of land and resources for the taking; and they had the knowledge and tech advantage to do so, while the mother countries (while reaping in the gold and coffee and potatoes et al brought by colonial authorities) eventually did better when they realized empire was expensive and the local population had unmet needs. The Third Worlders moving today just grab their things and leave on Western-built airplanes and boats - they might send money back, but their home country is only a cultural memory (for better and worse, this has effects on its own, but I digress). Therefore, their home countries experience capital and brain drain. And considering demographic and political trends (unlike in Western Europe, the death of empire coincided with industrialization, smaller families, and low immigration), the effects will be quite different as what happened to Europe during the Age of Discovery. While European countries were indeed sending their dregs and/or entrepreneurs to the Americas, these countries were much more stable than current African nations today. And the scales were much smaller. People forget that presently this is the most numerous human population ever, and thus we face much worse challenges stemming population trends. True, there's more Africans with cellphones now, and probably there's more European multinationals and even the odd McDonald's in the capital cities - does that mean the Africans are One Of Us? If so... why not move there? They do have nicer weather... At the very least, I appreciate the American expats who put their money where their mouth is... I don't deny brown/colored races can progress, I just deny how people lazily think we just have to repeat and reverse history and everything will be alright... we are supposed to know better, right?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. Corvinus says:
    @Stan d Mute

    U.S. authorities should allow White South Africans into this country and grant them some kind of legal status. This will piss off American Blacks and White liberals, which is a good thing.
     
    This has to be one of the dumbest ideas I’ve seen on Unz (but I do block a lot of commenters so..)

    The whites in SA are the people who created this catastrophe. They had the power to prevent it, to stop the insane over-population of natives before they became a demographic time bomb, to forcibly expel them, etc. Instead, the people who should have known better than anyone on the planet the true nature of the natives, chose to give up their authority over what they’d built and hand it freely to the natives. And your idea is to bring them here? Thinking they’ll piss off white SJWs and negroes?

    What we should be doing is encouraging Wakanda by repatriation and restoration of our American negroes to the real Wakanda in SA. It’s a “first world nation” “built by Africans” isn’t it? So encourage them to go and keep building it. Let them do whatever they wish with the idiot whites who created that mess, who cares? Maybe some American and European whites will learn from the spectacle.

    Wakanda is South Africa

    #blaxit

    “The whites in SA are the people who created this catastrophe. They had the power to prevent it, to stop the insane over-population of natives before they became a demographic time bomb, to forcibly expel them.”

    Actually, the ancestors of whites in South Africa are responsible. They invaded and invited the world.

    They. Must. Go. Back.

    “What we should be doing is encouraging Wakanda by repatriation and restoration of our American negroes to the real Wakanda in SA.”

    How about YOU go on this crusade yourself, rather than insist others do the dirty work for you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Disordered
    Go back where?
    You should know that the Western liberal establishment hates poor and displaced whites more than anyone.

    Apartheid was unsustainable, but the reverse policies inflicted now will do wonders to propel its nostalgia factor.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    You didn’t mention the decades of forced expropriation by the white-socialist apartheid government under the Land Act and the Group Areas Act. During the 1960s and 1970s, Sophiatown, Pageview and District Six were all ethnically cleansed by the apartheid government, and their black, coloured and Indian inhabitants were displaced and sent to ethnic ghettos so that poor whites could live in those places. Those are the best-known examples, but there are many, many more.

    Group rights were put into the SA Constitution at the behest of Afrikaner interests, so they could preserve their “volk”.

    You would also know that opening a pro-forma murder docket is not the same as charging someone with murder when they kill an intruder.

    And your photo at the top is of black Democratic Alliance supporters (presumably inserted to scare your readers): they actually support a white controlled party that, since 2016, controls Johannesburg, Pretoria, Cape Town, and Port Elizabeth (4 of the 5 largest cities in South Africa).

    There’s plenty wrong with South Africa, but blatant intellectual dishonesty won’t help inform observers about what’s really going on there.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  149. Meimou says:
    @Beckow
    I think Rwanda and a few smaller, resource-rich black countries are relatively ok. A friend worked as a doctor in Botswana; extreme under-development, but he liked it.

    Past is messy and any group can weave a story selecting only facts that suit them. The apartheid was established to keep different groups living apart, with whites on the top. The problem was not as much the apartheid, as the one-sided deal that the ruling whites offered to the blacks. Whites took the best land, water resources, minerals, a lot more land than their numbers. That's what happens when a 'deal' is done with one side having all the power. Today Israel is trying to force similar deal on the Palestinians. Over time demographics undermines most one-sided deals.

    Boers and British in S Africa would had been better off being more realistic. Take the Cape, some inland compact areas where they had majority, bring in displaced whites from Zimbabwe, Angola, etc... draw defensible borders. Give the blacks something substantial, valuable, something they can claim - maybe Natal, Rand or the area around Port Elisabeth. That required a sacrifice by many whites and instead naive idealism took over. Now they are f...ed.

    Lesson? Don't aspire to more than you can handle, political gluttony is usually fatal.

    The lesson is no never give up power. The Boers didn’t bite off more than can chew. They gave up power.

    Give the blacks something substantial, valuable, something they can claim – maybe Natal, Rand or the area around Port Elisabeth.

    They will no doubt do great things with it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. Beckow says:

    They will no doubt do great things with it.

    Why would we care? Boers had to either give up power or keep their power in a smaller area. I don’t think anyone believes that it was demographically sustainable for Boers to keep it all…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  151. @CalDre

    I take it you’re opposed to the flood of third-world immigration to Europe and America and agree that it should be reversed?
     
    Absolutely. But there is exception for people invited in. So illegals must go. But it is unjust to expel those invited, or forced over.

    That said, I am all for making payments and giving one-way tickets for certain people to renounce their citizenship.

    Incidentally, most of what is now South Africa was unpopulated when the white man came and made it productive.
     
    Yes, this is common refrain of the invaders. Sorry, not biting. Just basic logic tells you there was no good land unoccupied in the 1700s in Africa. No doubt it was more sparsely populated than today, but so was Europe.

    Not true. The Khoi San indigenous peoples were nomads whose territory ranged from Southern Angola to the Cape of Good Hope. They were hunter gatherers who did not grow food crops of any kind and constructed minimalist grass huts for shelter.

    The Negroid Bantu peoples started to move south long after the Dutch landed in the Cape and imported farmers from Holland to provide food stocks for their trading ships rounding the Cape sailing to and from the East Indies.

    The land was extremely poor for farming and many gave up and asked to return to Holland or go to the East Indies. The few who remained traded with the Khoi and some intermarried thus the origins of the Afrikaner and the Afrikaans language which is basic Dutch combined with African languages and a smattering of English. It is the only language that can be read and understood by two different languages.

    As with their language so progressed their farming methods. Within a short space of time they learned to tame this inhospitable land and turned it into a land of bounty, in much the same way the Israelis have done.

    The Bantu peoples settled in the Eastern Cape and Natal bringing with them their cattle and practiced subsistence farming, moving on to new pastures when the land became exhausted. They built no permanent structures but did establish large villages comprising of single storey mud huts.

    They traded with the new African tribe called Afrikaaners for food and trinkets and thus began the Bantu population explosion in tandem with the massive expansion of commercial farming.

    No one stole any land from anyone!

    Post 1994 the new democratic government began to buy white farms on the agreed willing seller willing buyer system agreed in the constitutional negotiations. These farms were handed over to supporters of the ruling party who sold off anything movable and either left the farms to go to rack and ruin or in a few cases leased the farm back to a white farmer, often the original owners. There have of course been a few success stories but not enough to give substance to any prospect of sufficient food production in the event all the white farmers abandon South Africa.

    Take the unfortunate Zimbabwe paradigm. Mugabe simplistically considered that replacement of the few white farmers with thousands of people with no farming skills on small parcels of land would work. It didn’t, Zimbabwe went from being a net exporter of food to a major importer, mainly from South Africa.

    The one area in Zimbabwe’s agricultural revolution that did flourish was tobacco which was easy to grow on the small holdings but nowhere near the levels previously produced.

    The new leaders of Zimbabwe, President Manangagwa did not mince words when he told his people that he was giving back the farms to their previous owners. He said and I quote him , “If the white man had never come to Africa, the black people would still be dressed in animal skins and living in huts”.

    Many of the expelled Zimbabwean farmers were grabbed by Angola, Zambia Nigeria and myriad other countries. Zambia for instance was an importer of food, now it exports food to Zimbabwe. Angola, who also imports massive quantities of food from South Africa, is less dependant.

    Which brings me to my last point. It’s not just the people of South Africa that will suffer starvation if the white farmers leave, it will be the whole of Southern Africa. Every country in Southern Africa will be affected. Botswana being a desert country imports most of it’s food from South Africa, there’s no alternative source of food for an expanding urban population that’s lost its ability to live off the land.

    The platitude that white farmers should be dispossessed and forced to work for the new black farmers is not realistic. There’s also the very probable repercussion that they will revolt with support from the most unexpected quarters.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    "The Negroid Bantu peoples started to move south long after the Dutch landed in the Cape and imported farmers from Holland to provide food stocks for their trading ships rounding the Cape sailing to and from the East Indies. "

    That is simply untrue, the Xhosa, which are part of what you call the "Negroid Bantus" were occpupying the land, the southeastern part of South Africa (Eastern Cape), long before the Dutch settled and had contacts with the Khoisans.
    It can be seen today in their genetics (they are part Khoisan) and in their language (presence of "clicks" which can only be found in Bantus languages found in southern Africa.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. Okechukwu says:

    By land theft, I’m assuming you mean by white settlers, right?

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtl170
    These farms did not exist before white settlers. They have been the ones who have invested blood, sweat and tears for over 300 years to make the land productive. For the ANC and its cronies, who have contributed absolutely nothing to this development, to snatch these farms away is theft.

    Pres. Trump and other defenders of Western Civilization should arm these farmers to protect themselves, and sanction the ANC if necessary.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. jtl170 says:
    @Okechukwu
    By land theft, I'm assuming you mean by white settlers, right?

    These farms did not exist before white settlers. They have been the ones who have invested blood, sweat and tears for over 300 years to make the land productive. For the ANC and its cronies, who have contributed absolutely nothing to this development, to snatch these farms away is theft.

    Pres. Trump and other defenders of Western Civilization should arm these farmers to protect themselves, and sanction the ANC if necessary.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. anon[473] • Disclaimer says:
    @Denis Coghlan
    Not true. The Khoi San indigenous peoples were nomads whose territory ranged from Southern Angola to the Cape of Good Hope. They were hunter gatherers who did not grow food crops of any kind and constructed minimalist grass huts for shelter.

    The Negroid Bantu peoples started to move south long after the Dutch landed in the Cape and imported farmers from Holland to provide food stocks for their trading ships rounding the Cape sailing to and from the East Indies.

    The land was extremely poor for farming and many gave up and asked to return to Holland or go to the East Indies. The few who remained traded with the Khoi and some intermarried thus the origins of the Afrikaner and the Afrikaans language which is basic Dutch combined with African languages and a smattering of English. It is the only language that can be read and understood by two different languages.

    As with their language so progressed their farming methods. Within a short space of time they learned to tame this inhospitable land and turned it into a land of bounty, in much the same way the Israelis have done.

    The Bantu peoples settled in the Eastern Cape and Natal bringing with them their cattle and practiced subsistence farming, moving on to new pastures when the land became exhausted. They built no permanent structures but did establish large villages comprising of single storey mud huts.

    They traded with the new African tribe called Afrikaaners for food and trinkets and thus began the Bantu population explosion in tandem with the massive expansion of commercial farming.

    No one stole any land from anyone!

    Post 1994 the new democratic government began to buy white farms on the agreed willing seller willing buyer system agreed in the constitutional negotiations. These farms were handed over to supporters of the ruling party who sold off anything movable and either left the farms to go to rack and ruin or in a few cases leased the farm back to a white farmer, often the original owners. There have of course been a few success stories but not enough to give substance to any prospect of sufficient food production in the event all the white farmers abandon South Africa.

    Take the unfortunate Zimbabwe paradigm. Mugabe simplistically considered that replacement of the few white farmers with thousands of people with no farming skills on small parcels of land would work. It didn't, Zimbabwe went from being a net exporter of food to a major importer, mainly from South Africa.

    The one area in Zimbabwe's agricultural revolution that did flourish was tobacco which was easy to grow on the small holdings but nowhere near the levels previously produced.

    The new leaders of Zimbabwe, President Manangagwa did not mince words when he told his people that he was giving back the farms to their previous owners. He said and I quote him , "If the white man had never come to Africa, the black people would still be dressed in animal skins and living in huts".

    Many of the expelled Zimbabwean farmers were grabbed by Angola, Zambia Nigeria and myriad other countries. Zambia for instance was an importer of food, now it exports food to Zimbabwe. Angola, who also imports massive quantities of food from South Africa, is less dependant.

    Which brings me to my last point. It's not just the people of South Africa that will suffer starvation if the white farmers leave, it will be the whole of Southern Africa. Every country in Southern Africa will be affected. Botswana being a desert country imports most of it's food from South Africa, there's no alternative source of food for an expanding urban population that's lost its ability to live off the land.

    The platitude that white farmers should be dispossessed and forced to work for the new black farmers is not realistic. There's also the very probable repercussion that they will revolt with support from the most unexpected quarters.

    “The Negroid Bantu peoples started to move south long after the Dutch landed in the Cape and imported farmers from Holland to provide food stocks for their trading ships rounding the Cape sailing to and from the East Indies. ”

    That is simply untrue, the Xhosa, which are part of what you call the “Negroid Bantus” were occpupying the land, the southeastern part of South Africa (Eastern Cape), long before the Dutch settled and had contacts with the Khoisans.
    It can be seen today in their genetics (they are part Khoisan) and in their language (presence of “clicks” which can only be found in Bantus languages found in southern Africa.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @EliteCommInc.
    If you spend 200 (being generous here) plus years failing to educate, and financializing the majority of your muchmore brutalizing them, it's a safe bet that should the power dynamics shift, there may be consequences.

    And I suspect that dynamic would be the case regardless of skin color.

    The thing is, not only everything has been given back, but the guilt is so great, that the much grander amount of wealth created by white trade is being given back to the formerly enslaved. Would the Zulu have ever exploited diamonds? Without the use of natural resources the Western way, would these Africans afford cellphones? Would they even be able to make them or use them without Westernized education? Food for thought.

    Furthermore, if we talk about racial resentments, why not go back to every single racial dispute in history? Why shouldn’t the West try a crusade again to free North Africa and the Levant from Mohammed? In short, what is the status quo that will make everyone happy? If you say, each race to their ancestral homelands, then why Africans and Asians that already rule nearly all of their countries, why do they need to invade Europe?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @Corvinus
    "The whites in SA are the people who created this catastrophe. They had the power to prevent it, to stop the insane over-population of natives before they became a demographic time bomb, to forcibly expel them."

    Actually, the ancestors of whites in South Africa are responsible. They invaded and invited the world.

    They. Must. Go. Back.

    "What we should be doing is encouraging Wakanda by repatriation and restoration of our American negroes to the real Wakanda in SA."

    How about YOU go on this crusade yourself, rather than insist others do the dirty work for you.

    Go back where?
    You should know that the Western liberal establishment hates poor and displaced whites more than anyone.

    Apartheid was unsustainable, but the reverse policies inflicted now will do wonders to propel its nostalgia factor.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. @Corvinus
    "Can you explain to me where in Africa you see development?"

    Africa has no where but to go up.

    http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2017/04/19/economic-growth-in-africa-is-on-the-upswing-following-a-sharp-slowdown

    https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/amyjadesimi/2017/03/14/how-chinas-60-billion-for-africa-will-drive-global-prosperity/&refURL=https://www.google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/

    "If there was, is, why do nearly all Africans try to migrate to Europe?"

    Nearly all? No, some Africans try to migrate to Europe, for the same reasons Europeans migrated to the United States.

    "The reason Africa does not develop might be what an African in a German TV docu said ‘die Weissen können nicht einfach herumsitzen’, translation ‘the whites are unable to hang around’."

    Actually, Africa is developing. See the above two links.

    African is on the upswing for the same reason the rest of the world is on the upswing. Bounce back from great recession, Chinese investment (which is a slippery slope), higher exports and remittances from foreigners. All external factors – the internal structure is still unequal and full of crime and corruption. The World Bank and the IMF said similar platitudes during Latin America’s gilded 1990s, how deregulation and foreign investments had suddenly turned Latins into One Of Us… Socialismo Siglo 21 then happened.

    Furthermore, the Europeans who moved to the Americas had plenty of land and resources for the taking; and they had the knowledge and tech advantage to do so, while the mother countries (while reaping in the gold and coffee and potatoes et al brought by colonial authorities) eventually did better when they realized empire was expensive and the local population had unmet needs. The Third Worlders moving today just grab their things and leave on Western-built airplanes and boats – they might send money back, but their home country is only a cultural memory (for better and worse, this has effects on its own, but I digress). Therefore, their home countries experience capital and brain drain. And considering demographic and political trends (unlike in Western Europe, the death of empire coincided with industrialization, smaller families, and low immigration), the effects will be quite different as what happened to Europe during the Age of Discovery. While European countries were indeed sending their dregs and/or entrepreneurs to the Americas, these countries were much more stable than current African nations today. And the scales were much smaller. People forget that presently this is the most numerous human population ever, and thus we face much worse challenges stemming population trends. True, there’s more Africans with cellphones now, and probably there’s more European multinationals and even the odd McDonald’s in the capital cities – does that mean the Africans are One Of Us? If so… why not move there? They do have nicer weather… At the very least, I appreciate the American expats who put their money where their mouth is… I don’t deny brown/colored races can progress, I just deny how people lazily think we just have to repeat and reverse history and everything will be alright… we are supposed to know better, right?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. @EliteCommInc.
    You might want to read,



    "King Leopold's Ghost."

    Do Europeans still moan about Julius Caesar’s ghost? Attila’s ghost? Napoleon’s ghost?
    Perhaps one can say Mohammed’s ghost or Hitler’s ghost do still hang around – but, these are invoked more by current situations. Other former colonies know how to bury the past better and don’t mind former atrocities as much – there is the Commonwealth as a (relatively) better example.

    It’s clear the distrust has historical roots – the more recent, the more painful – but more importantly, it is compounded by phenotype and cultural differences. Latin Americans are still friendly to Europe, sometimes even more than to the US – how could they not, their elites are white-ish settlers. And if you read of the conquistador treatment of Amerindians, you’d find it hard to explain why brown and black Hispanics care to even speak Castilian at all. And yet they do.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ilana Mercer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.