PDA

View Full Version : 'No More Business with Whites'



Aptrgangr
Saturday, October 18th, 2008, 10:35 AM
'No more business with whites'

16/10/2008 09:25 - (SA)

Buks Viljoen, Beeld

Nelspruit - The Ehlanzeni District Municipality (EDM) in Nelspruit has decided that white people will no longer be allowed to do business with the council.

A racial uproar is looming in the Mpumalanga capital after this decision was taken by the council's senior managers at a lekgotla last week.
The lekgotla was chaired by Hugh Mbatha, the council's municipal manager, and attended by members of the council's mayoral committee.
The decision was officially worded: "Stop the appointment of white consultants, contractors and any other service providers and empower black consultants, contractors and other businessmen." (...)


'No more business with whites': South Africa: Politics: News24 (http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/Politics/0,,2-7-12_2410540,00.html)

Teuton
Saturday, October 18th, 2008, 10:43 AM
Concentration camps for whites is what's next.:D

There isn't much choice for whites anymore but to emigrate, very sad.:~(

Well, the 400 years of whites being here was fun while it lasted.:(

Thrymheim
Saturday, October 18th, 2008, 02:12 PM
time to leave before it becomes another Zimbabwe?

skyhawk
Saturday, October 18th, 2008, 02:51 PM
Well, the 400 years of whites being here was fun while it lasted.:(

It might have been fun for the whites there but it certainly hasn't been fun for the black people and animal species ( and before anyone says it , they are different species in my book )

Ĉmeric
Saturday, October 18th, 2008, 03:25 PM
It might have been fun for the whites there but it certainly hasn't been fun for the black people and animal species ( and before anyone says it , they are different species in my book )

South Africa still has the most advanced economy in Africa & South African Blacks have the highest standard of living among Negroes in Africa, all thanks to the genius of the Europids living in that country. Because of Western technology & the political stability of European governance, the Negroes experienced the highest standard of living in their history, along with a population explosion. The chaos that is the Congo, Liberia ,Zimbabwe etc & is on the rise in South Africa, is sub-Saharan Africa in its natural savage state. Before the arrival of the Europeans, the wanton violence that Africans showed one another kept most of southern Africa an underpopulated wilderness, much like North America when the first English settlers arrived. By driving out the last Whites from Africa, the Africans are committing racial suicide (not a bad thing for evolution) because without the White man to maintain order, the Africans will murder one another into extinction.

Old Winter
Saturday, October 18th, 2008, 03:59 PM
It might have been fun for the whites there but it certainly hasn't been fun for the black people and animal species ( and before anyone says it , they are different species in my book )

Fair enough, but lets look at the facts:

Zimbabwe: Racist whites wanted back in charge

The hungry children and the families dying of AIDS here are gut-wrenching, but somehow what I find even more depressing is this: Many, many ordinary black Zimbabweans wish that they could get back the white racist government that oppressed them in the 1970’s.

“If we had the chance to go back to white rule, we’d do it,” said Solomon Dube, a peasant whose child was crying with hunger when I arrived in his village. “Life was easier then, and at least you could get food and a job.”

Mr. Dube acknowledged that the white regime of Ian Smith was awful. But now he worries that his 3-year-old son will die of starvation, and he would rather put up with any indignity than witness that.

An elderly peasant in another village, Makupila Muzamba, said that hunger today is worse than ever before in his seven decades or so, and said: “I want the white man’s government to come back. … Even if whites were oppressing us, we could get jobs and things were cheap compared to today.”

His wife, Mugombo Mudenda, remembered that as a younger woman she used to eat meat, drink tea, use sugar and buy soap. But now she cannot even afford corn gruel. “I miss the days of white rule,” she said.


True this source you can get to the NY times source without having to register first:
http://www.altermedia.info/double-standards/zimbabwe-racist-whites-wanted-back-in-charge_566.html


About the animals and nature i suggest you look at this documentary:

Africa Addio / Farewell Africa (English Subtitles) (full version)
Be warned, its very graphic 18+, not for children!!!

'Africa Addio' / 'Farewell Africa' (shot in 1964; released in 1966) is a documentary film about the decolonization of Africa, made by the Italian film directors Gualtiero Jacopetti and Franco E. Prosperi.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4540134202583442015&q=africa+addio&ei=RDESSPOSFoeUiwLCga2RAg

After the decolonization of Africa animals where slaughtered everywhere, it was the white rule wich protected them and made nature conservation area's where it was forbidden for both black and white to enter there.

BeornWulfWer
Saturday, October 18th, 2008, 04:14 PM
“I’m glad my great-grandpa got on that boat.”

Muhammad Ali

skyhawk
Sunday, October 19th, 2008, 12:23 AM
South Africa still has the most advanced economy in Africa & South African Blacks have the highest standard of living among Negroes in Africa, all thanks to the genius of the Europids living in that country. Because of Western technology & the political stability of European governance, the Negroes experienced the highest standard of living in their history, along with a population explosion. The chaos that is the Congo, Liberia ,Zimbabwe etc & is on the rise in South Africa, is sub-Saharan Africa in its natural savage state. Before the arrival of the Europeans, the wanton violence that Africans showed one another kept most of southern Africa an underpopulated wilderness, much like North America when the first English settlers arrived. By driving out the last Whites from Africa, the Africans are committing racial suicide (not a bad thing for evolution) because without the White man to maintain order, the Africans will murder one another into extinction.

I disagree with your reflections on the history of Africa and think that the lives of most Africans would be better today had their continent not been taken over by Europeans who have systematically exploited both its mineral resources and the peoples of Africa , the wealth of which has either found its way into the coffers of western nations and ex pats/colonials with scant concern for the development of living conditions for the indigenous peoples of Africa.

I think there is a growing wish , bourne out of necessity , amongst African nations to resist the continuing western exploitation of the continent and its people and in that I wish them luck. I think people, regardless of their ethnicity , have an instinct for freedom and thus I tend to support those that, bravely imo , fight to achieve liberation

Whilst it is easy for you to see the violence of the African man it appears you may struggle to see the violence commited by Europeans of the past and present. I quick look at European history , never mind adventures abroad , will confirm for you the savagery of the battles between the nation states of Europe. People are violent , it's not an African thing only.

Loyalist
Sunday, October 19th, 2008, 01:03 AM
I disagree with your reflections on the history of Africa and think that the lives of most Africans would be better today had their continent not been taken over by Europeans who have systematically exploited both its mineral resources and the peoples of Africa , the wealth of which has either found its way into the coffers of western nations and ex pats/colonials with scant concern for the development of living conditions for the indigenous peoples of Africa.

Given that there are tribal groups in Africa today that still haven't risen to the level of technological advancement Europeans reached 2,000 or so years ago, it would seem that Africa could only benefit from European intervention. Their failure to adapt to our way of life, however, simply reflects the inherent limitations of their race. This inferiority also manifests itself in the African dispoara around the world, where their low intellectual capabilities and perpetual lack of civility results in high crime, poverty, and unemployment rates, poor performance in schools, gang (and thus, tribal) activities, and a host of other undesirable characteristics. It is no coincidence that South Africa and Rhodesia, under white rule, enjoyed the highest standards of living on the continent. Similarly, it is no coincidence all that went down the toilet literally overnight, as the Negroes conned their way into power. That argument about European exploitation of the continent at large is utter nonsense; other regions, including Europe itself, have been invaded, conquered, and exploited, but it never hindered progress or retarded the move forward.

Teuton
Sunday, October 19th, 2008, 09:21 AM
I agree with AEmeric, Loyalist andDietshammer.


I urge anyone who thinks different to take a little trip here and see.:P

Vingolf
Sunday, October 19th, 2008, 03:42 PM
I think people, regardless of their ethnicity , have an instinct for freedom
How would you define *freedom*, then? Why have different nations/ethnicities developed radically different societies and cultures if they all share the same basic *instinct for freedom*?


Whilst it is easy for you to see the violence of the African man it appears you may struggle to see the violence commited by Europeans of the past and present.
Leftist *whataboutisms*, da capo...


I quick look at European history , never mind adventures abroad , will confirm for you the savagery of the battles between the nation states of Europe.
Organized, rational warfare and blind, irrational violence are still distinguishable...

Kriegersohn
Tuesday, October 21st, 2008, 08:39 AM
I disagree with your reflections on the history of Africa and think that the lives of most Africans would be better today had their continent not been taken over by Europeans who have systematically exploited both its mineral resources and the peoples of Africa , the wealth of which has either found its way into the coffers of western nations and ex pats/colonials with scant concern for the development of living conditions for the indigenous peoples of Africa.

I think there is a growing wish , bourne out of necessity , amongst African nations to resist the continuing western exploitation of the continent and its people and in that I wish them luck. I think people, regardless of their ethnicity , have an instinct for freedom and thus I tend to support those that, bravely imo , fight to achieve liberation

Whilst it is easy for you to see the violence of the African man it appears you may struggle to see the violence commited by Europeans of the past and present. I quick look at European history , never mind adventures abroad , will confirm for you the savagery of the battles between the nation states of Europe. People are violent , it's not an African thing only.

I'm not quite sure that you see the whole picture, some countries there have traded "western exploitation" for the new, envogue Chinese exploitation. The only thing different is the "softer" touch of the exploiter (as you put it). The base point of the matter is that where ever economies and infrastructure were left in place by the colonial government degraded over time...usually a very short time. Uganda and Zimbabwe are best prime examples. Most of the infrastructure of both of those countries lasted only ten to fifteen years (at best) after the end of European rule...others faired far worse. Given that as a template, SA still has some time left. Only a total shift in the power structure can change the decline of that country.

BeornWulfWer
Tuesday, October 21st, 2008, 10:07 AM
The Africans have new slave masters now.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/27/article-1063198-02CF0F4100000578-247_468x393.jpg

PETER HITCHENS: How China has created a new slave empire in Africa (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1063198/PETER-HITCHENS-How-China-created-new-slave-empire-Africa.html)

skyhawk
Monday, November 3rd, 2008, 01:32 AM
How would you define *freedom*, then? Why have different nations/ethnicities developed radically different societies and cultures if they all share the same basic *instinct for freedom*?

Freedom from the tyrannies of authority that constrain everyday life.

Yes we have developed different societies from eachother and they are the constructs of cultural differences , history ,politics , etc etc but to be sure , in every one of those different societies you will find that the instinct for freedom has had much influence in shaping the above.

You can see it from Martin Luther to Nelson Mandella from Gandhi to Gerrard Winstanley.




Leftist *whataboutisms*, da capo...I know this is a convenient cop out you like to employ Vingolf but to condemn the violence of others whilst ignoring the violence of your own leaves you open to the charge of hypocrisy



Organized, rational warfare and blind, irrational violence are still distinguishable...Ha ha , nice attempt at civilizing the horrors of warfare :D Our violence is " rational " their violence is " irrational "......mmmm....... I think you may have been indoctrinated by elitist claptrap


I'm not quite sure that you see the whole picture, some countries there have traded "western exploitation" for the new, envogue Chinese exploitation. The only thing different is the "softer" touch of the exploiter (as you put it). The base point of the matter is that where ever economies and infrastructure were left in place by the colonial government degraded over time...usually a very short time. Uganda and Zimbabwe are best prime examples. Most of the infrastructure of both of those countries lasted only ten to fifteen years (at best) after the end of European rule...others faired far worse. Given that as a template, SA still has some time left. Only a total shift in the power structure can change the decline of that country.

I think you make a valid point about China and Africa, Kriegersohn. That is why I wished them ( africans ) luck and I'm sure their going to need it. But the Chinese influence there is relatively new and thus doesn't account for the conditions in the African nations of today whos makeup is down to the centuries of governance and rule from Europe.

As for how these nations have performed since their assumed release from colonial rule ........ well........... giving people the keys to the house but not the combination to the safe doesn't constitute " independence" to me.

Vingolf
Monday, November 3rd, 2008, 09:32 AM
Yes we have developed different societies from eachother and they are the constructs of cultural differences , history ,politics , etc etc but to be sure , in every one of those different societies you will find that the instinct for freedom has had much influence in shaping the above.
Could you provide some non-Western examples of such countries/societies? The individuals you mentioned (Martin Luther, Nelson Mandella, Gandhi) are irrelevant. It is not clear whether their driving force was what you call *the instinct for freedom*. They lived in and/or were educated in western or westernized societies, and they are in several respects not representative for their ethnies.


Freedom from the tyrannies of authority that constrain everyday life.
Sounds very Marxistoid. What kind of authority and tyranny are you referring to?

... to condemn the violence of others whilst ignoring the violence of your own leaves you open to the charge of hypocrisy
It is not hypocritical to discuss X when the subject of the discussion is X. It is, however, hypocritical to derail the discussion about X, constantly introducing *whataboutistism*. Moral crusades usually make the crusaders feel good, but they have very little to do with the subject X being discussed. Your feigned sympathy for the *oppressed* tribes of non-European descent, is probably reducible to either 1) disguised egoism (it turns you on and makes you feel good), or 2) in-group altruism/activism bearing a grudge against everything with a touch of *Germania*.


Ha ha , nice attempt at civilizing the horrors of warfare. Our violence is " rational " their violence is " irrational "
So, according to skyhawk, there is no difference between organized warfare and blind violence?


I think you may have been indoctrinated by elitist claptrap
Indeed, a mortal sin according to the twisted, leftist compass... I refrain from making a statement on your indoctrinations...

skyhawk
Monday, November 3rd, 2008, 01:07 PM
Could you provide some non-Western examples of such countries/societies? The individuals you mentioned (Martin Luther, Nelson Mandella, Gandhi) are irrelevant. It is not clear whether their driving force was what you call *the instinct for freedom*. They lived in and/or were educated in western or westernized societies, and they are in several respects not representative for their ethnies.

I don't understand what you mean in the first part of the above. There are many examples of non western societies throughout history and in the present day.

Not everything is down to ethnicity , Vingolf ,and the names I mentioned are not " irrelevant " to this discussion and it is either through arrogance or ignorance that you have failed to see that. Let me explain.........

The instinct for freedom ............

Martin Luther ( not to be mistaken with Martin Luther King ) sought freedom from the authority of the church of his time which monopolized contact/communication with god.

Gandhi sought independence for India from the authority of British rule.

Likewise Mandella sought to free black South Africans from the authoritarian rule of a white minority.

Gerrard Winstanley , a digger in the time of the English civil war , sought to free himself and compatriots from reliance on the state authorities by the utilization of common land.

How are the above not relevant to a debate on freedom from authority ?




Sounds very Marxistoid. What kind of authority and tyranny are you referring to?

If you knew a little more about Marxism you would know that the statement I made is from the anarchist end of the spectrum. ( also left wing )

As for what kinds of tyranny and authority I am refering to see the above explaination of the people I mentioned . But there are many more besides.



It is not hypocritical to discuss X when the subject of the discussion is X. It is, however, hypocritical to derail the discussion about X, constantly introducing *whataboutistism*. Moral crusades usually make the crusaders feel good, but they have very little to do with the subject X being discussed. Your feigned sympathy for the *oppressed* tribes of non-European descent, is probably reducible to either 1) disguised egoism (it turns you on and makes you feel good), or 2) in-group altruism/activism bearing a grudge against everything with a touch of *Germania*.

Well you are entitled to your opinion. :D



So, according to skyhawk, there is no difference between organized warfare and blind violence?

There is no difference between the European wars for resource gain and African tribal wars for the same , no.
Are you suggesting that there is ?
Or that people in " organized war " don't indulge in " blind violence " ?
Or that mechanized violence is somehow superior to non mechanized violence ?

I really don't see your point

Vingolf
Monday, November 3rd, 2008, 08:24 PM
There are many examples of non western societies throughout history and in the present day.
Such as?


Gandhi sought independence for India from the authority of British rule. Likewise Mandella sought to free black South Africans from the authoritarian rule of a white minority.
Because of their *instinct for freedom*, according to your definition?


If you knew a little more about Marxism you would know that the statement I made is from the anarchist end of the spectrum. ( also left wing )
Do you consider yourself an anarchist?


There is no difference between the European wars for resource gain and African tribal wars for the same , no.
The question was: is there a difference between organized warfare and blind violence?


Or that mechanized violence is somehow superior to non mechanized violence ?
It is superior from a military point of view, but that's irrelevant to this discussion.

skyhawk
Monday, November 3rd, 2008, 10:59 PM
Such as?

Well there are the Sumerians , the Egyptians , the Chinese , the Mayans , etc etc



Because of their *instinct for freedom*, according to your definition?

Why not ? Seems feasible enough to me.



Do you consider yourself an anarchist?

Let's just say I have a lot of time for the ideology.


The question was: is there a difference between organized warfare and blind violence?

You will have to give me a definition of " blind violence. "



It is superior from a military point of view, but that's irrelevant to this discussion.

If that means that it kills more people......yep................ I agree that it is superior

Vingolf
Monday, November 3rd, 2008, 11:32 PM
Well there are the Sumerians , the Egyptians , the Chinese , the Mayans , etc etc
So, according to you, *the instinct for freedom* has had much influence in shaping the Sumerian, Egyptian, Chinese and Mayan societies??


Why not ? Seems feasible enough to me.
Sounds rather simplistic to me.


You will have to give me a definition of " blind violence. "
This discussion started with your claim that *the savagery of the battles between the nation states of Europe*, equals *the violence of the African man*. In the context of this thread, the African violence often tends to be random, irrational and non-organized. Modern European warfare is highly organized, never random and rational in a Weberian-Clausewitzian sense.

Nagelfar
Wednesday, November 5th, 2008, 12:03 AM
The Africans have new slave masters now.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/27/article-1063198-02CF0F4100000578-247_468x393.jpg

PETER HITCHENS: How China has created a new slave empire in Africa (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1063198/PETER-HITCHENS-How-China-created-new-slave-empire-Africa.html)

Where europids don't keep hold on things, sinids will. At least for the foreseeable future.

Kriegersohn
Thursday, November 6th, 2008, 08:58 AM
You can see it from Martin Luther to Nelson Mandella from Gandhi to Gerrard Winstanley.

It is interesting that you mention Gandhi, as his experience in South Africa was the main turning point for him. The treatment of the Indians by the English, particularly during the Second Boer War, changing much of his thinking on Indians within the British Empire. I am curious how you feel about Gandhi's belief that "Whites" should rule Southern Africa...


I think you make a valid point about China and Africa, Kriegersohn. That is why I wished them ( africans ) luck and I'm sure their going to need it. But the Chinese influence there is relatively new and thus doesn't account for the conditions in the African nations of today whos makeup is down to the centuries of governance and rule from Europe.

As for how these nations have performed since their assumed release from colonial rule ........ well........... giving people the keys to the house but not the combination to the safe doesn't constitute " independence" to me.

All of the colonies had civil administrations that included natives. More times than not it was African populist/nationalist governments that arose afterwards culling these civil servants that problems began. They had both the "keys to the house" and the "combination of the safe" and chose to dismantle and tear down the very elements of infrastructure that gave them stability. Also taken into account, tribal antagonisms that had been kept in check by European colonial authorities began to re-emerge causing greater conflict. The transition in Asia and the Indian sub-continent was far smoother as much of the base infrastructure was left *intact*. Just a couple of thoughts...