Is South Africa on the path to becoming the next Zimbabwe?

When I was thinking about African colonism in the later stages it occured to me that it is comparable to a hypothetical conquest of an intergalactic empire.

Let's imagine we are conquered by an Alien gold-skinned race that likes to annex civilizations in order to expand their usury-driven financial markets, have new markets for their products and consumers and workers who continue building their technology. Now let's also assume that they slaughtered some humans during the conquering process and they still execute everyone who is resisting violently. But since the gap in technology and also ethics of European civilization and Africa was as massive as it would be with us and an intergalactic civilization, we can also assume that the golden skinned race heals all diseases like cancer, gives us limitless free energy, also it causes a decrease of internal human wars and crime. The only thing that is in essence bad in the golden-skinned Alien empire is that we are no longer in charge on Earth and we have no voting rights, are classified as second class citizens even while the golden-skinned-ones are only some 10-IQ points smarter, so some of us are significantly smarter than them.

Still - we have access to a sudden fantastic lifestyle, can travel the entire intergalactic universe with new hyper-drives, we can move freely and we can jobs that we have not even dreamed of.



So essentially - lifestyle and freedom metrics, medicine and science has improved on all levels for the 99% with the only problem that we are not in charge. Would you rebel against them? I for one would not, if the earth is better off with their leadership:



Why should I rebel? I would simply propose for humans to organize, adapt many of that golden race principles, increase our average IQs even more, self-improve and maybe one time rival their advanced system by creating an even more superior world. I personally would go and become an intergalactic explorer. Being a middle employee on a starship would still be better than living in our globalist-funded prison-planet (their future plans are much more stifling than what we have now).

That is why many Africans even now would want the colonizers back in charge, because they see that they are doing a worse job on their own. The Japanese only took a good look at us and thought: "Hold my sake, we need only a couple decades to catch up with you guys."

Quote

(03-11-2018 10:19 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  I personally would go and become an intergalactic explorer.

And change your name to Ijon Tichy?

You could write a book about your adventures afterwards.

Quote

These people are no different than the reconquistas and other La Raza type groups that believe the southwestern US was “stolen” from Mexico and they’d all be rich if it weren’t for whitey.

Quote

(03-11-2018 11:00 AM)Fisto Wrote:  These people are no different than the reconquistas and other La Raza type groups that believe the southwestern US was “stolen” from Mexico and they’d all be rich if it weren’t for whitey.

Well they wouldn't be rich, they'd probably be just like the rest of Mexico, a developing country, middle level, but why is "stolen" in quotes?

We literally saw someone that was weaker than us and had a lot of sparsely populated, potentially economically productive land, and beat them up and took it from them. How is that not stealing? If I see something of yours that I like and beat you up and take it, that's stealing. And it's not in quotes. Same thing we Americans did earlier to the natives and same thing the the Spanish did to the Natives, and then later the Mestizos did to the Natives that were still independent.

When you beat someone up and take their stuff, that's called stealing. I'm not seeing why the quotes are there...

Countries steal from other countries and people all the time. Is it not stealing because we personally benefit from it via access to a wide swath of land to live in today as Americans? For example, in the conquered Mexican territories, many of the deeds to land were not recognized by the U.S. The deeds owned by individuals, not the state. The land was taken without compensation. That's stealing on an individual level, above and beyond that on the national level due to the war between the U.S. and Mexico. Same as the Spanish did to the Natives and the Mestizos did to the Natives afterwards.

It's weird, putting quotes under the words "stolen." These are all thefts. The strong abused the weak, same as has happened throughout history. That's just the way things are, if you can't defend something or have someone to defend it for you via the state, your grasp on it will only last until someone stronger decides to steal it.

But it's not under quotes.

Unless you think strong people/nations own everything.

In that case, yeah, it's not stealing, then you would be right, it would be "stealing." Because the stronger person/nation owns everything anyways.

Which is actually closer to the truth...but then you're playing with the language when it benefits you, because the weaker party will definitely not agree with your quotes, and you're in for a long struggle.

Take this South African example. You seem to be rooting for the white farmers. But how does that make any sense under your position? If might makes right and Americans didn't steal the Southwest, and now the blacks can take the land from the white farmers by force of numbers, then by your definition, if they do, they wouldn't be stealing it, and you'd say it's silly that the whites think their land is being "stolen." Because might makes right. And now the might is tilting towards the blacks in that area.

Unless your rule is that it's not stealing when us Europeans do it, it's only stealing when tan people do it. But then you're advocating some kind of race-based justice system and language definition. Very similar to what the colonizers did.

And what led to their current struggles in South Africa.

Quote

Oh I left out the important part, their plan is to keep invading illegally and otherwise to “reclaim” their “stolen” land.

If they ever did, they’d do the exact same as in Africa.

By the way, I find it funny that a guy with the name “Spaniard” is lecturing people on “stealing”.

What a hypocrite. How did Mexicans come to speak Spanish again?

Quote

(03-11-2018 11:28 AM)Fisto Wrote:  Oh I left out the important part, their plan is to keep invading illegally and otherwise to “reclaim” their “stolen” land.

If they ever did, they’d do the exact same as in Africa.

By the way, I find it funny that a guy with the name “Spaniard” is lecturing people on “stealing”.

What a hypocrite. How did Mexicans come to speak Spanish again?

I'm not lecturing you.

I'm examining what's behind your logic.

Is it the law makes right?

Or is it might makes right?

Or is it white makes right?

You're all over the place, picking what's convenient to you.

Which, it is what it is, I'm not claiming some kind of purity.

But let's just be honest about it and not pretend we're adhering to some kind of ideology where we are just and fair and "the other" is not.

Quote

(03-11-2018 11:40 AM)Spaniard88 Wrote:  

(03-11-2018 11:28 AM)Fisto Wrote:  Oh I left out the important part, their plan is to keep invading illegally and otherwise to “reclaim” their “stolen” land.

If they ever did, they’d do the exact same as in Africa.

By the way, I find it funny that a guy with the name “Spaniard” is lecturing people on “stealing”.

What a hypocrite. How did Mexicans come to speak Spanish again?

I'm not lecturing you.

I'm examining what's behind your logic.

Is it the law makes right?

Or is it might makes right?

Or is it white makes right?

You're all over the place, picking what's convenient to you.

Which, it is what it is, I'm not claiming some kind of purity.

But let's just be honest about it and not pretend we're adhering to some kind of ideology where we are just and fair and "the other" is not.

Those Mexicans have zero claim over the United States.

End of story.

That’s my logic.

Quote

(03-11-2018 10:19 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  The Japanese only took a good look at us and thought: "Hold my sake, we need only a couple decades to beat you guys."

Fixed it for you, haha.

I've read some of the accounts of foreigners in Japan before it modernized, and many that lived there for extended periods viewed the Japanese as more culturally advanced, if not more technologically advanced, than European society at the time.

Many came back fascinated with what they had seen, and feeling a bit backwards in comparison. It's still hard not to feel that way about many of our own societies when visiting Japan. The level of progress those folks have achieved in so many areas, both cultural and technological, boggles the mind.

It's too bad they haven't solved their declining birthrate problem, but given Japanese ingenuity over millenia, I'd bet on them finding a solution. I really hope they do.

Quote

(03-11-2018 11:19 AM)Spaniard88 Wrote:  Take this South African example. You seem to be rooting for the white farmers. But how does that make any sense under your position? If might makes right and Americans didn't steal the Southwest, and now the blacks can take the land from the white farmers by force of numbers, then by your definition, if they do, they wouldn't be stealing it, and you'd say it's silly that the whites think their land is being "stolen." Because might makes right. And now the might is tilting towards the blacks in that area.

Unless your rule is that it's not stealing when us Europeans do it, it's only stealing when tan people do it. But then you're advocating some kind of race-based justice system and language definition. Very similar to what the colonizers did.

And what led to their current struggles in South Africa.

Your terminology is similar to the Sovereign Citizen movement and calling driving travelling, thus not needing a driving license.

The funny part about South Africa is that most current South African tribes did not even live there in 1890, they just moved and multiplied. In fact it was constant warfare, so giving it back even to the tribes who lived there 200 years ago is not possible.

Stealing requires some kind of legal claim, buildup and massive treaties. Most of the land including most of California was arid desert and it still is. The majority of southern California is close to useless without modern irrigation systems.

Yes - history is might, but this is not in the form that we are "rooting" for Whites. These are simple statements that California under Mexican rule would have been a semi-shithole while California under US rule developed into something far better. The same goes for South Africa. Yeah - you can kick Whitey out and return to some kind of Congo civil war. No problem... We are rooting for civilization.

Generally our history recognizes some countries of having achieved a grander level and they regard those societies as superior - that is why the conquest of Rome is regarded so highly, while the huns and mongols and the Northern European barbarians who sacked Rome are not. No one is looking back at the moronic Euro-barbarians who sat on Roman ruins thinking: "Wow - those wonderful fucktards were so brave and grand for winning against a power like Rome." If the Chinese or Japanese had taken Europe back then, then this would have been an improvement.

-------------

Though Japanese were not regarded as technological superiors in the 19th or early 20th century. Their culture was viewed as pristine, but also barbaric with public beheadings, brutal treatments of peasants, suicide cult etc. It's certainly true that they were more advanced on almost all levels before that when the early Portuguese came to Japan, but that is a different story and happened centuries before.

Besides - we know that Whites are more violence prone than North Asians - even if you discount for IQ this is true.

Quote

(03-11-2018 01:44 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(03-11-2018 11:19 AM)Spaniard88 Wrote:  Take this South African example. You seem to be rooting for the white farmers. But how does that make any sense under your position? If might makes right and Americans didn't steal the Southwest, and now the blacks can take the land from the white farmers by force of numbers, then by your definition, if they do, they wouldn't be stealing it, and you'd say it's silly that the whites think their land is being "stolen." Because might makes right. And now the might is tilting towards the blacks in that area.

Unless your rule is that it's not stealing when us Europeans do it, it's only stealing when tan people do it. But then you're advocating some kind of race-based justice system and language definition. Very similar to what the colonizers did.

And what led to their current struggles in South Africa.

Yes - history is might, but this is not in the form that we are "rooting" for Whites. These are simple statements that California under Mexican rule would have been a semi-shithole while California under US rule developed into something far better. The same goes for South Africa. Yeah - you can kick Whitey out and return to some kind of Congo civil war. No problem... We are rooting for civilization.

Generally our history recognizes some countries of having achieved a grander level and they regard those societies as superior - that is why the conquest of Rome is regarded so highly, while the huns and mongols and the Northern European barbarians who sacked Rome are not. No one is looking back at the moronic Euro-barbarians who sat on Roman ruins thinking: "Wow - those wonderful fucktards were so brave and grand for winning against a power like Rome." If the Chinese or Japanese had taken Europe back then, then this would have been an improvement.

That's definitely a prism one can see things through.

For me:

1. An order based on some concept of justice/laws: Not realistic, the strong, in some cases also the more technologically advanced civilization, won't feel bound by the law, making it meaningless. Of the three here, though, this one seems to be the most stable.

2. An order based on might makes right: Unstable, power changes hands, and also, those victimized will spend their time looking for ways to become strong enough to victimize the victimizer.

3. An order based on some kind of race hierarchy: Handicaps the civilization that uses it by confining certain members to roles for which they are overqualified for, depriving the civilization of their talents, creating long term inefficiencies versus societies that utilize all of their human talent as efficiently as possible.

Humanity has not found a way to solve these problems, to create order between nations and between the peoples within. As such, we have the current state of affairs, which is actually pretty wonderful, for the most part, compared to the state of affairs we had in the past. We're somehow holding it together, people are much less likely to die a violent death, for example, nowadays than they were in the past.

These are tough challenges, and the train of humanity will keep moving forward at the same time we're building the train tracks.

Interesting concepts to explore, for sure.

Quote

Facts for your debate, the Zulus committed a genocide of 2 million people just as the dutch and the brits really began immigrating. They did this without modern weapons and they killed quote wiki "men, women, children and even dogs".

Quote

^Not to excuse what the Zulus did but the Romans killed millions of Germans, the Germans killed a bunch of Jews and Jews kill plenty of Arabs etc etc.

On the other hand there was plenty of land that the Zulus werent living on. And I guess we as Africans werent doing much with the land we had. I guess Europeans felt that a grass hut village shouldnt stand in the way of civilisation. The greater good and all that stuff.

Quote

(03-11-2018 02:41 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  Facts for your debate, the Zulus committed a genocide of 2 million people just as the dutch and the brits really began immigrating. They did this without modern weapons and they killed quote wiki "men, women, children and even dogs".

Yeah.

The world's getting better, and has been for a while, for the average person.

This is despite a lot of the sentiment in online clickbait articles.

I read some article about Vikings being fond of looting monasteries because of the gold therein, plus an axe to grind against Christianity for Christianity's transgressions against the Nordics, and also, get this, because the monks were educated, and there was a strong market in the middle east for castrated, learned men that could be used as tutors (slaves).

Like...damn.

I would not want to be that monk.

I'm with Zel, I'm glad some peoples were made to chill out, even if it took a lot of violence to get there.

I haven't read up on this Zulu genocide, but if the Dutch came in there and brought some order to the place, even if that order took some violence, then yeah, that's wonderful in that respect, if it brought about a greater good.

Goes back to what Zel was saying about civilizing a place.

It's complex.

Quote

The ridiculous thing about this proposition is that whites halted the advance of conquest or stealing or "stealing" or "might makes right" or whatever all by themselves.

Nobody else stopped us. WE stopped us. If I were a Mexican my thinking would be "I'm glad the Anglos or the Aryans or the Spanish or the Portugese not only refused to wipe us out but put on the brakes and allowed us to build a nation".

How about "slavery was bad, but it was also white people that ended it EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD, and now I get to live in America instead of a mud hut being eaten alive by parasites in Africa."

How about "the holocaust was bad, but it was also white people who saved us AND gave us a whole nation, a HOMELAND, something not even our God managed to provide us with in all of history!"

Nope. Instead we have no shortage of dirt-stupid fucks and mentally ill "geniuses" who are determined to go back to "might makes right".



Okay. Let me know when the Mexican Space Program is ready to field its satellite killers and the fourth armoured hooptie brigade is ready to take the field. The last time a white racial supremacist started a war it was only ended because there were other whites to stop him. How do those dumb fucks and mentally ill geniuses think a similar scenario is going to work out in this day and age?

Quote

(03-11-2018 11:19 AM)Spaniard88 Wrote:  

(03-11-2018 11:00 AM)Fisto Wrote:  These people are no different than the reconquistas and other La Raza type groups that believe the southwestern US was “stolen” from Mexico and they’d all be rich if it weren’t for whitey.

Well they wouldn't be rich, they'd probably be just like the rest of Mexico, a developing country, middle level, but why is "stolen" in quotes?

We literally saw someone that was weaker than us and had a lot of sparsely populated, potentially economically productive land, and beat them up and took it from them. How is that not stealing? If I see something of yours that I like and beat you up and take it, that's stealing. And it's not in quotes. Same thing we Americans did earlier to the natives and same thing the the Spanish did to the Natives, and then later the Mestizos did to the Natives that were still independent.

When you beat someone up and take their stuff, that's called stealing. I'm not seeing why the quotes are there...

No, that's actually called robbery: stealing + assault. And the Native Americans/Indians/tone age ninja turtles did it to one another with impunity for hundreds if not thousands of years previously, competing over apparently-scarce resources. I can only conclude the reason nobody ever scored a comprehensive victory over anybody else and brought an early Pax Americana or Pax Northus Americana Continentus necessarily was because they all sucked equally at war. If any particular tribe of Indians were any good at making war on the others, they wouldn't have had to make it on each other for hundreds of years. Instead they killed each other randomly and then things stabilised back into a Talebian Mediocristan.

That's before you get to the fact that in pre-white history in the Americas, the quotation marks as relate to war roost heavily around phrases like "vengeance-motivated" or "blood feud" as explaining why the noble savages went to war against each other.

"Blood feud" or "vengeance" as a motivation for outright war is even more reprehensible than war for theft. At least the motivation of theft has something honest to it: you have some shit I want, and I'm going to take it by force. Embedding a tomahawk in somebody's head because his great-grandfather banged your great-grandfather's wife is nothing but bullshit honour. Hilariously, it's a pretty potent demonstration of "might makes right", because these assholes practiced it: you dishonoured my famry, so I will kill you, and that makes me honourable, that makes shit right.

Just because the Europeans were better at war than the native Americans they ran into doesn't make the native Americans any more innocent or pure. That's the language of the noble savage myth. It's the same thinking that says that just because the top-rated team in the league absolutely slaughters the lowest-ranked team in matches that the lowest-ranked team is somehow more noble and honourable than the top-ranked one.

Just because the native Americans sucked at war, technology, and thought also doesn't make them any nobler. They had the same or superior positional advantages as anyone in Europe: a massive population (fifty million, as the Harvardians wail), a continent which couldn't be touched by major interlopers for a few thousand years, a river system that allowed trade, access to fucking coastlines, Diverse Cultural Tribes ™ ... and in all that time not one motherfucker even came up with an alphabet until they started to copy the white man (Sequoyah's Cherokee alphabet in 1820.) Fucking even the Vikings reached the American mainland a couple hundred years before Columbus, that didn't make any of those motherfuckers wonder what lay across The Big Lake In The East?

Quote

Fun facts about Shaka Zulu:
1. He was a bastard.
2. He killed more Zulus than any of his enemies.
3. You know how Tommy Sotomayor talks about single black mothers and their disturbingly dysfunctional relationships with their sons? That was Shaka and his mother.
4. When his mother died, for over a year he permitted no crops to be planted. Any woman who gave birth was killed along with her husband. Any cows that gave birth were killed so the calves would know what it was like to lose their mother.
5. To satisfy his scientific curiosity he had 700 pregnant women dissected.
6. Many people hail him as some kind of hero despite the fact that his own people killed him because he was too fucking crazy.

Quote

^Did you watch the tv series Shaka the Zulu? Was it popular all around the world?

Quote

Quote

(03-11-2018 11:40 AM)Spaniard88 Wrote:  I'm not lecturing you.

I'm examining what's behind your logic.

Is it the law makes right?

Or is it might makes right?

Or is it white makes right?

You're all over the place, picking what's convenient to you.

Which, it is what it is, I'm not claiming some kind of purity.

But let's just be honest about it and not pretend we're adhering to some kind of ideology where we are just and fair and "the other" is not.

Bravo Spaniard88 you are a man after my own heart.

My biggest issue with this sub and members like Fisto, Samson, Zescorpion and the Australian cowboy guy has always been their moral inconsistency and lack of honesty about their intentions. By all means let them choose a side but at least not sugarcoat it behind rationalisation like IQ and efficiency.

The right way to hold any position is to have a set of standards and judge an individual, group or nation's collective actions based on those standards.

I for example, as a black African hold no hate towards white people for what they did to Africa, what they are doing to Africa currently, slavery, the genocide of the natives of the Americas, Australia &Caribbean, Apartheid or the holocaust.

It was a different time and a different world. The world was a brutal place and human life was cheap. One can not apply 21st century spoiled westerner moral values (if you can even call it that) to judge those deeds. Whites were no worse than any other race or group. Arguably even slightly more benevolent. According to my set of standards, everything is fair in love and war. The world up until 100 years or so ago was a very cruel place and no country or race had a moral obligation to ensure the well being of another.

Based on this standard, I also conclude that the Boers losing their land without compensation is fair game. So is the invasion of Europe by migrants and Southern united states invasion by Meso-Americans. Fair game.

Are poor or even middle class people from shithole countries as Donald Trump aptly coined it expected to forego an incredibly higher standard of life and economic opportunity for themselves and their kids because Europe belongs to Europeans?

Are black South Africans supposed to let a foreign people keep he majority of fertile land when with a few constitutional and legal strokes they can have everything for themselves with almost no immediate repercussions just because whites built the country?

If you answer to any those questions is a yes, then you should have no qualms about accepting the fact that Europeans had no right to Australia, Africa or the Americas in the first place and what they did was morally reprehensible.

You can't defend white land grabbing and cry foul when the land grabbers are black or Mexican.

That makes you a racist (which is fine since I don't expect someone to care more about another than his own) but worse and more importantly an irrationalist who has no place in intelligent discussion.

So what is it? (directed at the crybaby brigade I named earlier in this post)

A. Is all fair in war? Meaning the white invasion of the Americas, Africa and Australia is fair. But so is the uncompensated land grabbing of white lands by blacks in SA.

Or

B. Do you subscribe to a higher moral standard that ideally should prevent the strong and capable from taking advantage of the weak and incompetent? In which case you should condemn both the illegal invasion of Europe by middle easterners but also the White American invasion of the American southeast from Mexico.

You can't have both.

Otherwise just admit you're rooting for team white. Of which there is nothing to be ashamed of by the way. Just say I want whites to win because I'm white.

Just how I as a black man am on team black. But recognize the best way to advance team black, is for team white to be coaching it.

No need to sugarcoat the whole thing with bullshit IQ charts, South African crime videos (I can pull up hillbillies of Appalachia on youtube just as easily) and some obscure study "proving" that the ancient Egyptians were Caucasian like that idiot in another thread did.

Quote

The law makes right?
Might makes right?
White makes right?

If nothing else, whether 'right' or not. Might wins rather often.

The white farmers need to plan on the outcome whereby no one comes to their aid.
To the point where they need to plan on fighting & dying as free men or dying on their knees as slaves.

Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

Quote

(03-12-2018 04:45 AM)Not a Second Hander Wrote:  My biggest issue with this sub and members like Fisto, Samson, Zescorpion and the Australian cowboy guy

Excuse me! You must mean crocboy guy!

Quote

(03-12-2018 04:45 AM)Not a Second Hander Wrote:  ...

Bravo Spaniard88 you are a man after my own heart.

My biggest issue with this sub and members like Fisto, Samson, Zescorpion and the Australian cowboy guy has always been their moral inconsistency and lack of honesty about their intentions.

...

You mean since 9 minutes ago?

Piss off until you have 50 posts. You're not allowed to talk politics yet.

Or just tell us which banned member you are, failing that which current member who doesn't have the guts to use his primary account to voice his opinions.

Quote

I expect ridiculous Black vs White mantras from blacks, because obviously it's all the same. Does not matter whether north European blondes sacked and destroyed the superior culture of Rome - it's all the same if Muslims and blacks do the same to Europe one day.

Hey - grasshuts and ruins are equal to aqueducts and houses with floor heating. Space-faring or mud-huts - it's all the same. Genocidal barbarism and Christian compassion - it's all the same. Slavery or rule, law and order along certain ethical guidelines = all the same.

IQ is bollocks - sure. Just replace the Japanese with Somalis and you get identical results - no problem.

Not a Second Jerk-hander: - you are the race baiter, you are calling for some mythical race war the moment someone insults your feelings that deviate from reality, you reduce it to simplistic arguments.

I get it - it can be painful to watch all of current civilization and admit that almost all of it came from Whites. Why don't Asians not have those thoughts? They know that they can do it as well given the correct system and time. And so can blacks, but no - you gotta tear down European countries thinking that you can just move to Europe and destroy it all or have delusions of creating Wakanda there.





And your idea of African atrocities having happened 100 years ago - some of them are happening now and you would be having millions of tribal dead each year were it not for the UN and US forces preventing things before they get out of hand.

Truth is that the majority of Whites including most so derided members here don't mean anything bad towards black folk. We would gladly help Africans create a real-life Wakanda without any irony. We just don't want the West destroyed like the former barbarian Europeans destroyed Rome.

Team black my ass. If some Nubian-lookalike intergalactic space race came around, then I would accept their leadership if it was superior to ours.

Quote

(03-12-2018 04:45 AM)Not a Second Hander Wrote:  The world up until 100 years or so ago was a very cruel place and no country or race had a moral obligation to ensure the well being of another.

Funnily enough, there was a certain predominant pigmentation who, as a group, had recognised that moral obligation quite some decades before and were taking steps to bring it about en masse. Said pigmentation essentially was the first in history to start outlawing slavery of all people from around the 1800s or so, as opposed to "no slavery if you happened to come from a rich family" or "no slavery so long as you weren't a foreigner", which other predominant pigmentations practiced. Indeed in some parts of the world, some of the latter pigmentations are still practicing it with impunity.

Try Niall Ferguson's Empire. The British Empire essentially did more for democracy and individual freedom than most civilisations back to roughly the time of the Romans.

Quote

@Hander. I am an African. South Africans dont want the land. They want what is on the land. If Malema and company were given fertile land with no farms on it they wouldnt know what to do with it. So its not the same as whites who stole unused land and did something productive with it.

Quote