South Africa: Blogger arrested!

reply to post by bobs_uruncle

From what I hear 'multiculturalism' means forced integration. That will not work anywhere. I don't think it's meant to work, it's just meant to create chaos.

And so, our little cyber-space freedom disappears, on alternatuive news, and what we like to read.
Though news stories are 100 percent correct, they may not be "news".
Crimes are only committed against darker minorities. Truth may only be spoken to "white" power. I feel Edward Said turn in his grave.
White people in Africa with a 300-year line of descent are overlooked for jobs. Black-on-white crime is ignored, even if the police rapists made anti-white statements. It was first on za.sucks. Now in "Sunday Times"!
"Cops blamed in road rape horror" (Sunday Times, November 15 2009, p.5).
It is finished.

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by bobs_uruncle

 

Well, let's consider Europe, say by the Renaissance (1600?).
Europe, and especially the British Isles were the last outpost of conquest. However, by then they had absorbed:
- the wheel (probably from fertile creasant)
- wheat, hops, barley (from mid-east)
- domesticated horses, cows, pigs, chickens (ibid)
- metal working (ibid)
- gun-powder (Chinese)
and post-1492:
tomato, potato, peppers, turkey, chilli, pineapple, Tequila (ooh), coca, maize, chocoalate, tobacco - nobody can say we are not multi-cultural!

Every country in the world has products from other countries, having or using those products does not make a country multicultural. What makes a country multicultural is an insurgence of immigration which imports culture and laws to a host country. The host country then has two choices, force assimilation of the immigrants so that existing laws and rules can be retained or promote multiculturalism which will cause laws and rules to be changed. Assimilation maintains a country's identity through its shared customs, traditions and laws. Multiculturalism destroys a country's identity by creating islands of culture and special interest groups. Assimilation requires standards by which everyone must operate, education is a good example. Multiculturalism, operates on the equalization of diversification in culture, so standards must change or slide to the lowest denomination, education is another good example where standards are lowered to not offend race groups.

Multiculturalism is a disease created by sick and twisted minds and its outcome is always control through consensus driven (fabricated) political positions. It's used in business and is seen in how 10% ownership can control a huge corporation. Governments are corporations too.

There is no example you can provide.

Cheers - Dave

Originally posted by halfoldman
And so, our little cyber-space freedom disappears, on alternatuive news, and what we like to read.
Though news stories are 100 percent correct, they may not be "news".
Crimes are only committed against darker minorities. Truth may only be spoken to "white" power. I feel Edward Said turn in his grave.
White people in Africa with a 300-year line of descent are overlooked for jobs. Black-on-white crime is ignored, even if the police rapists made anti-white statements. It was first on za.sucks. Now in "Sunday Times"!
"Cops blamed in road rape horror" (Sunday Times, November 15 2009, p.5).
It is finished.

Yes, they are stripping the truth and the facts to leave only feel good opinions. I am disgusted by what the IMF and UN have done to South Africa. But if this is the way of the world and this activity is considered reasonable and just, I say give all of North America back to the North American Indians. Give all the continents back to their "rightful" owners. Take those countries away from the people that built them up, just like what has happened in South Africa.

If they can do it to SA because it's "right" then they can do it everywhere else. One rule fits all !

Cheers - Dave

reply to post by bobs_uruncle

A comparison between the Native Americans/and or aborigines is not warrented. This might be so when discussing Khoisan rights.

censorbugbear-reports.blogspot.com...

reply to post by halfoldman

There were some abuses amongst the Afrikaners of blacks - that was proven and shown 10 years ago at the TRC hearings (although all the top dogs got a golden handshake and a "gooodbye".)
There is little doubt though that both informally, and formall blacks believe they are "reclaiming" a land by killing whites. The death of 3 000 white farmers was a betrayal of our political settlement.
There is also little doubt that when "White Pig" is written on the wall that one is dealing with black-on-white genocide.

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by bobs_uruncle

 

A comparison between the Native Americans/and or aborigines is not warrented. This might be so when discussing Khoisan rights.

censorbugbear-reports.blogspot.com...

Just my humble opinion....

It is true that many different tribes covered North America and the Khoisa, if I remember right, were the only tribe resident in Southern SA. I would not presume to believe that the Khoisa or any others should be able to claim a land area, unless they lived on it. Therefore, uninhabited land in SA which was lived on by the early settlers, should be claimed as their own land.

In an analogy, say some island off the coast of Africa had no inhabitants and Canada settled the land and built infrastructure. The island, even though close to Africa, would not be African property as Africans did not live there, it would be a Canadian property or territory. The same applies in the reverse, if Africans settled an uninhabited island off the coast of Canada, it would become an African territory or property. One rule has to fit all.

At the time of settling Africa by the Europeans, Africa was an "undiscovered" and borderless continent with the exception of the northern semi-developed countries like Egypt. That being the case, land mass within the borderless areas could reasonably be considered to be appropriated and apportioned to those who discovered and/or settled those areas, similar to squatters rights (of which the Afrikaaners have 300 years of squatters rights).

What is going on in SA now with AA, BEE and a host of other racist programs is simply obscene. It is the forced transfer of wealth based on nothing other than an opinion and a piece of paper. They suck it out of the middle class, the corrupt politicians do some skimming and the bulk of the wealth ends up in Oppenheimer et al's coffers.

Isn't Oppenheimer related to the Rothschilds? nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more....

Cheers - Dave

[edit on 11/15.2009 by bobs_uruncle]

"Give all the continents back to their "rightful" owners. Take those countries away from the people that built them up, just like what has happened in South Africa."

If they can do it to SA because it's "right" then they can do it everywhere else. One rule fits all !

Cheers - Dave

Yeah let's do that, and then they can all all bugger off out of Europe, and stop polluting that with their Nigerian drug culture too!!!
Here, the Western Cape belonged to the Khoi (Hottentots) and San (Bushmen): the black immigrant tribes never lived here at colonization, and the "coloured" people here would love to send them right back across the Fish River.
You certainly love to over-simplify things.

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by halfoldman

 

There were some abuses amongst the Afrikaners of blacks - that was proven and shown 10 years ago at the TRC hearings (although all the top dogs got a golden handshake and a "gooodbye".)
There is little doubt though that both informally, and formall blacks believe they are "reclaiming" a land by killing whites. The death of 3 000 white farmers was a betrayal of our political settlement.
There is also little doubt that when "White Pig" is written on the wall that one is dealing with black-on-white genocide.

Just my humble opinion...

I think the TRC established that there were about 800 politically motivated killings between 1948 and 1994 (56 years). Between 1994 and 2009 (15 years) there have been well over 20,000 politically motivated killings and possibly as many as 40,000 killings that can be considered hate crimes.

This is what happens when petty despots and the inmates take over the asylum. What's that about 22,000 times the number of killings? And I am not even taking common murder into the mix. Rapes are up 10,000 times, AIDS is rampant. If someone gets raped in SA, they have a 1:1.000012 change of getting AIDS, great odds huh? That means that maybe 12 people out of a million rapes will not get AIDS, but 999,988 people will get AIDS. And the health system, once a great model for the world, now toast. Lucky FIFA fans! Don't get a cut! You might get XTB or AIDS just going to the hospital, better learn to field stitch and get some sutures.

In 1990 when I got out, I told all my friends there to make a plan and leave. I know it's hard, but all the scenarios I have looked at for staying end in death.

Cheers - Dave

[edit on 11/15.2009 by bobs_uruncle]

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by bobs_uruncle

 

A comparison between the Native Americans/and or aborigines is not warrented. This might be so when discussing Khoisan rights.

censorbugbear-reports.blogspot.com...

Just my humble opinion....

It is true that many different tribes covered North America and the Khoisa, if I remember right, were the only tribe resident in Southern SA. I would not presume to believe that the Khoisa or any others should be able to claim a land area, unless they lived on it. Therefore, uninhabited land in SA which was lived on by the early settlers, should be claimed as their own land.

In an analogy, say some island off the coast of Africa had no inhabitants and Canada settled the land and built infrastructure. The island, even though close to Africa, would not be African property as Africans did not live there, it would be a Canadian property or territory. The same applies in the reverse, if Africans settled an uninhabited island off the coast of Canada, it would become an African territory or property. One rule has to fit all.

At the time of settling Africa by the Europeans, Africa was an "undiscovered" and borderless continent with the exception of the northern semi-developed countries like Egypt. That being the case, land mass within the borderless areas could reasonably be considered to be appropriated and apportioned to those who discovered and/or settled those areas, similar to squatters rights (of which the Afrikaaners have 300 years of squatters rights).

What is going on in SA now with AA, BEE and a host of other racist programs is simply obscene. It is the forced transfer of wealth based on nothing other than an opinion and a piece of paper. They suck it out of the middle class, the corrupt politicians do some skimming and the bulk of the wealth ends up in Oppenheimer et al's coffers.

Isn't Oppenheimer related to the Rothschilds? nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more....

Cheers - Dave

[edit on 11/15.2009 by bobs_uruncle]

Wow, re-reading, you do make a lot of good points. It's a bit convoluted. Let me just get some things clear:
- Africa was always known -part of its function was to supply slaves to the Americas, but this happened far north of SA, in West Africa.
- North America - the fact is the Indians kept their numbers limited to the environment
- Perhaps at the coastal strip there were similarities (just the Khoi had cattle): just one region was run by the Dutch East India Company, and the other by the Virginia Comapny.
The black tribes in SA were only confronted much later. They got their land, and still own it today. They need serious help, because they don't know what to do with it, and soon we (they) will face starvation.
We had reserves and those things, and kept warring tribes apart, and put billions into their development. The fact is: they were never productive farmers, and even the land given now lies fallow.
The white boers made this country blossom for all, and created the best housing and hospitals for black people in the entire Africa.
Black people from all across Africa are dying to cross our borders and live here, yet the ANC has done nothing to maintain or upgrade things.
All they do is steal and be corrupt. They changed our hospitals into torture chambers. And when I look at the constant failures, I think: We idiots handed over the best country in Africa to underveloped people who didn't even have the wheel 150 ago. What did we expect?

reply to post by halfoldman

And now I still hear how the ideas of Thabo Mbeki were "brilliant".
He murdered 300, 000 people with his Aids denialism, and now he's telling us there's no "problem" in Darfur! He also told the world that there was no problem in Zimbabwe. What sage advice from an intellectual dwarf: just don't mention that, or you're a racist!
Drugs, booze and retarted stupidity make for much suffering.
Oh no, I'm a neo-liberalist "racist". Fine, as long as I'm not what that Mbeki is (insane?).

Originally posted by halfoldman

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by bobs_uruncle

 

A comparison between the Native Americans/and or aborigines is not warrented. This might be so when discussing Khoisan rights.

censorbugbear-reports.blogspot.com...

Just my humble opinion....

It is true that many different tribes covered North America and the Khoisa, if I remember right, were the only tribe resident in Southern SA. I would not presume to believe that the Khoisa or any others should be able to claim a land area, unless they lived on it. Therefore, uninhabited land in SA which was lived on by the early settlers, should be claimed as their own land.

Isn't Oppenheimer related to the Rothschilds? nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more....

Cheers - Dave

[edit on 11/15.2009 by bobs_uruncle]

Wow, re-reading, you do make a lot of good points. It's a bit convoluted. Let me just get some things clear:
- Africa was always known -part of its function was to supply slaves to the Americas, but this happened far north of SA, in West Africa.
- North America - the fact is the Indians kept their numbers limited to the environment
- Perhaps at the coastal strip there were similarities (just the Khoi had cattle): just one region was run by the Dutch East India Company, and the other by the Virginia Comapny.
The black tribes in SA were only confronted much later. They got their land, and still own it today. They need serious help, because they don't know what to do with it, and soon we (they) will face starvation.
We had reserves and those things, and kept warring tribes apart, and put billions into their development. The fact is: they were never productive farmers, and even the land given now lies fallow.
The white boers made this country blossom for all, and created the best housing and hospitals for black people in the entire Africa.
Black people from all across Africa are dying to cross our borders and live here, yet the ANC has done nothing to maintain or upgrade things.
All they do is steal and be corrupt. They changed our hospitals into torture chambers. And when I look at the constant failures, I think: We idiots handed over the best country in Africa to underveloped people who didn't even have the wheel 150 ago. What did we expect?

Just my humble opinion...

I totally agree, but you have to remember that deKlerk on the advice (read extortion) of the IMF gave full and complete capitulation to the ANC. For that he was paid in the blood of all those people that have died, been raped or brutalized since 1994 and of course he received 1/2 a nobel prize. He should be tried for treason along with the other scumbag, Mandela, the IMF's poster boy for terrorism. The boers created an incredible SA from the dust but it has been taken away because of greed and manipulation. As in Hegel's theory, create or amplify a problem (apartheid), correct the problem (through force, worldview manipulation using a pre-made icon, Mandela), make a new reality (ANC, a corrupt entity in place to destroy the country for a few rand so the country's resources can be siphoned off). Thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis.

Cheers - Dave

[edit on 11/15.2009 by bobs_uruncle]

reply to post by bobs_uruncle

Excellent post.
I don't believe that either De Klerk or Mandela had the full spectrum. The true double-agents were not as obvious.

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by halfoldman

 

And now I still hear how the ideas of Thabo Mbeki were "brilliant".
He murdered 300, 000 people with his Aids denialism, and now he's telling us there's no "problem" in Darfur! He also told the world that there was no problem in Zimbabwe. What sage advice from an intellectual dwarf: just don't mention that, or you're a racist!
Drugs, booze and retarted stupidity make for much suffering.
Oh no, I'm a neo-liberalist "racist". Fine, as long as I'm not what that Mbeki is (insane?).

Just my humble opinion...

Actually, watch "Endgame," it has William Hurt in it I think. I got a little into it and it looks like the premise is that Anglo-American pulled all the strings for the Rothschilds/IMF and international bankers. Funny that it is finally coming out. In 1989, the IMF threatened to flood the market with diamonds to collapse the SA economy. So SA bought up the overflow (billions of dollars). Of course el Presidante had just oiled the machine, he left SA a little extended. When the IMF threatened to flood the market with gold, that was too much. SA capitulated and released Mandela so the destruction could begin.

Mbeki is just another yappie despot dog in a little run, a tool, he is no more than a puppet fed his lines. Mbeki couldn't find his hands if he was sitting on them and the IMF told him where they were. Nothing will change in SA and even if the Afrikaaner could take it all back, the UN would be sending in troops to make sure SA was corporate friendly for the IMF once again. So all you'd see is a new puppet government after a lot of bloodshed. You have to make positive gains or it just isn't worth the trouble.

I left SA in late 1990 when the writing was on the wall (in 5000pt Arial bold font). It was hell leaving because I really loved the place, but also because the Canadian Administrative Consul sold me down the line through inaction and negligence. Because of what I knew, who I knew and what I had done for the military, he hung me out to dry. The actual conditions of my family getting out of SA from him were, "misses xxxx, if you and your children are still alive next week and Dave is dead, I will personally come down to Johannesburg and get you out of South Africa." Aren't conditions fun ;-) Needless to say I used some MI contacts to change names and bought my tickets the night before leaving on a Sunday and even then they caught up with me on Sabina Airlines in Brussels.

Cheers - Dave

First off.. How do we know its a hate thing. ( racist thing) If the site is down we can't go to it and see for ourselves. The site may have good reasons why this one faction is against the other and they just happen to be two different skin color types, so the "spin" on it is that it's a racist thing.

Has any of you ever frequented the site in question? Do you know First Hand exactly what the issues were?

(I am just trying to understand all this)

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
First off.. How do we know its a hate thing. ( racist thing) If the site is down we can't go to it and see for ourselves. The site may have good reasons why this one faction is against the other and they just happen to be two different skin color types, so the "spin" on it is that it's a racist thing.

Has any of you ever frequented the site in question? Do you know First Hand exactly what the issues were?

(I am just trying to understand all this)

Just my humble opinion...

There were a lot of what might be construed as racist and derogatory statements. BUT, if some group is doing consistently stupid asinine things a certain amount of normal profiling takes place. If you approach a dog and get bit and then approach a different dog and get bit and on and on, eventually you start to presume that all dogs bite. I tried without success to curb the derogatory stereotypical statements, mainly because the authors of the site had more than valid points and information. Unfortunately it was colored by what one might consider as racial slurs.

The SA Sucks blog/website covered the day to day horrific events in South Africa. The torture murders, the farm killings, child rapes and murders and it was graphic, many times showing the pictures of victims stabbed multiple times, children and adults hung or executed (shot, both large and small caliber), burned with boiling water and cigarettes. They concentrated on black on white racially motivated crime (there is little if any white on black crime). I used to write for them on occasion and I also used to look in on the site daily, because I lived there for a number of years. But the site was morbid even for me, although not a curiosity, I am no stranger to death.

When the mainstream media used to tell us how terrible SA was back in the 80's it was all bulls**t, I was there. When the mainstream media tells us now how it's all roses and koom by ya, it's all bulls*t, my friends are there and I trust them. I relied on sites like SA Sucks to find out how things were going down there as I still have a few friends in SA.

Eli and Uhuru were only targeted because of political and corporate gain. FIFA 2010 happens next year and the guvmunt of SA and all those corporate sponsors, the tentacle organizations of the IMF, want to make a "killing." What the people going to FIFA don't realize is how literal a killing it will be and the guvment and corporations don't care.

Cheers - Dave

"Welcome to SA. Please note, critisizing the government is racist and will get you arrested."

We should put those up as signs in our airports. lol

Does South Africa even have laws protecting freedom of speech? Was this blogger breaking the laws of South Africa? I don't know the answers to these questions, but it seems to me that if he was doing something illegal, then he is subject to arrest - even if we in the US would consider that behavior a right. Many countries prohibit certain types of speech, period. No First Amendment rights for them. So break the law, get into trouble.

I'm not saying those laws (if they exist) are just or should exist; only that if they *do* exist, then the government is within its rights to arrest those who break them.

South Africa has a long, ugly history of apartheid, which was institutionalized abuse of the Black majority by the White minority. It wouldn't shock me to find that expressions of White supremacy were unwelcome in South Africa, maybe even illegal.

As Baretta would say, "Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time".

Uhuru Guru has been posting for years. Racist is probably an accurate description of both his views and the website in general. Most certainly some of his readers are extreme.

However, he also acted as an alternative news site. The genocide was never white on black, it continues to be mostly farmers, whose homes are invaded, and they are killed. The farm that remain fall into disuse, and and appropriated farms fail. South african farmers are leaving for places like the congo, and mozamique. The governments there are more supportive, as they understand the need for for food.

The political circus is so Stalinesque, where the many accusations of wrongdoing are immediately denied, and the courts are played for fools. The country has been consistently destroyed over the last 15 years. There is no hope left. Water, electricity, sanitation, local government, national govt, the police, the courts, the healt system, are all so broken as to be useless. hey ARE however taking billions each year in many forms of tax, which never reach their destinations. Being lost in consulting fees, arms deals, and corruption.

This is reality. One that is vehemently denied by the ANC. With 2010 round the corner, many of the cadres have much money to be made. And by speaking the truth, their investment is threatened.

Big up on the conneciton to the Rothschilds and Oppenheimers, they do still own the wealth. The transformation is a political fairy tale. This destruction of infrastructure is a reality.

People forget the origions of SA. It was a group of mostly dutch folk, who were striving to get way from bankster owned Europe and various empires, and wanted to live under a biblical, free, self determined government. WHich they did very successfully for a very long time. Defeating both the warlike locals and the british empire.

Another footnote is that the afrikaaners face both overwhelming numbers in the locals, and overwhelming force from the british. They were the first victimsf concentrations camps, and the inventors of guerrila wafare. They have never wanted more than to live in peace.

They were played by the CIA during the bush wars, and since then, and the terrorist Mandela was the man who took the money over the good of his country.

Originally posted by chiron613
"Does South Africa even have laws protecting freedom of speech? Was this blogger breaking the laws of South Africa? I don't know the answers to these questions, but it seems to me that if he was doing something illegal, then he is subject to arrest - even if we in the US would consider that behavior a right. Many countries prohibit certain types of speech, period. No First Amendment rights for them. So break the law, get into trouble.

I'm not saying those laws (if they exist) are just or should exist; only that if they *do* exist, then the government is within its rights to arrest those who break them.

South Africa has a long, ugly history of apartheid, which was institutionalized abuse of the Black majority by the White minority. It wouldn't shock me to find that expressions of White supremacy were unwelcome in South Africa, maybe even illegal."

As Baretta would say, "Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time".

Ironically Mbeki has always refused support for Jubilee 2000, or the law suits against US and global companies that propped up apartheid and benefitted from cheap black labor. This will change under Zuma, and those who really did the "crime" may be exposed.
Just to add shortly: we supposedly have freedom of speech, but hate speech, or speech that encourages violence can be reported as a "crime". Uhuru Guru was harassed, but never charged with anything.
Many would argue that the ANC has broken the rules on "hate-speech" almost daily as a race-card device to deflect from their constant incompetancy and scandals. Whites were even blamed for the outrageous handling of the Caster Semenya scandal. It was said that "anti-transformation whites" went to the foreign media, meanwhile the international bodies already knew ASA's pathetic attempt to cheat. Nothing much gets done about the daily anti-white hate speech however. This is in a context where the racist ANC would rather have eg. virtually untrained and illiterate black cops, rather than to employ white inspectors with several decades of experience. The racist affirmative action policies are really cutting of the SA nose to spite the face.
Zuma's defining ditty is "Get me my machine gun", and the slogans of the ANC include: "One settler, one bullet", and "Kill the boer, the farmer".