New South African president wants to seize land from white farmers without compensation

law is only good if folks are willing to fully enforce it, by the letter and in spirit.

 

So what? People like to live with their own kind. Diversity erodes social cohesion. This is true whether or not it is racist.

Racism != Untruth.

 

Except for immigration law, it goes without saying.

 

so go back to Europe.

not welcoming black neighbors cause they would "reduce your property value", is pretty ****ing sick.

 

You don't care about falling property values?

 

I'm not sure how to respond... there's a lot in your post that is familiar (you really hate Trump), but there are also facets of your commentary that I do agree with.

Admittedly, it's difficult for me to follow the allegory of cuts to American Social Security to the situation in South Africa, per se, but I do understand that revisionism in a country's foundational document, like our Constitution, can, and does occur. Our own Constitution has been amended as you know no less than 27 times. But even if a constitution (anybody's constitution) is legally amended to allow confiscation for no vital national interest, and with no compensation, how is that fair at all?

To put a finer focus on my concern for Whites in South Africa, no, I'm not worried about some 'constitutional' process there. Instead, because of announced positions that Ramaphosa and radicals have taken, with the aim of seizing property owned by White South Africans, purely because they are White, I see it feasible that he could simply ignore that country's Constitution, use a 'kangaroo court' (or a docile legislature) to give him extraordinary powers, and inflict his 'vision' on White citizens there. This is essentially what Adolf Hitler did to German Jews after the German Reichstag gave him an "Enabling Act" (Ermächtigungsgesetz) in 1933. You know how that ended....

I'm not sure I share your optimistic view that other 'vested interests', including other South African tribes, would oppose Ramaphosa's prospective land-grab purely because they might 'be next'. A lot of German 'vested interests' looked smugly away when the Nazis started raising hell with the Jews, and it wasn't until much later that the dragnet was expanded in its scope to include many other components of the German population.

 

you dont care about treating people like human beings and not merely a financial liability????????????????????????????

there is no excuse for such demeaning racism.

 

Well, I offer none.

But at the end of the day, none of this is going to produce an African civilization.

 

good that you finally come clean

 

Finally? I don't think there has been any doubt as to my position for a while now.

One merely has to look at the facts to see that Blacks are not up to the task of building a civilization except in comic books.

 

...........

 

What you are envisioning is a complete breakdown of law and order in South Africa and it being replaced by a dictator who has some kind of militaristic power over the people. That is a scenario that has occurred in many places around the world and could happen in South Africa just as it could happen here in America.

For that kind of breakdown of law and order to occur there needs to be more than just a handful of radicals like Malema. There needs to be a complete collapse of the society itself with the economy, the police, the military and ordinary citizens abandoning everything of value and descending into a state of near anarchy for this imaginary dictator to seize the kinds of power you are talking about.

Yes, that complete breakdown can and does occur. It happened quite recently in Venezuela so that makes a great case study. What preceded the collapse in that nation? The conservatives immediately point their fingers at the socialism of Chavez but that was a symptom, not the original cause. There would have been no socialism had the elite 1% rigged the democracy to fatten their own bank accounts and impoverish hardworking Venezuelans. FTR this is the exact same problem we have in America today. That is why I have my doubts about our long term future.

However the topic is South Africa and we need to examine what parallels, if any, exist. The economies are dissimilar in that South Africa is not an oil producing nation. In fact the mineral wealth of gold and diamonds is all but exhausted so it has to rely upon a much more diversified economy such as agriculture and mining of iron and coal. It has added manufacturing and now exports cars. There is no spigot of oil that was the source of revenue for Venezuela. Without that source the corruption of the government appears to have come from other areas where government contracts are the public trough that the elite are using to enrich themselves. The Zuma regime was rife with shady schemes and it has brought a great deal of disrepute upon itself and the ANC. That is one reason why it is not trusted by both black and white South Africans. What is trusted are the courts because they have ruled in favor of the South African people on a consistent basis. Zuma signed a contract with the Russians to build a nuclear power plant that was grossly overpriced and it was established that he would pocket millions in kickbacks from the deal. The courts ruled that contract was null and void because it had not been done in accordance with the law of the land. It was effectively cancelled outright.

So the collapse of South Africa to allow the rise of a dictator is possible but unlikely as long as the independent judiciary acts as a check and balance on the party in power. It has worked in America up to this point in time and it appears to be doing the same over there as far as I can tell from what I am reading. Things can and do change but right now, with the ousting of Zuma and the loss of trust in the ANC government the power to make the Constitutional changes necessary is just not there and there is no charismatic leader on the horizon either.

 

That you refuse to acknowledge the evidence does not alter the evidence in any material way. Africa has had several civilizations and you cannot change those facts.

 

Your erroneous opinion is duly noted and treated accordingly.

 

WTF is an "erroneous opinion" and how can an opinion be erroneous?

I've expected better of you

 

And none of them could read or write. So they were not civilizations.

 

It is entirely possible to have an opinion based upon a fallacy and therefore it is factually erroneous.

 

Yet another utterly factless assumption with zero substantiation.

 

Show me one that could read or write. (Except for the Ethiopians.)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nsibidi

 

And what civilization use Nsibidi?

 

Probably the Nok given the timelines and artifacts but the language persisted and could have been used by others too.

 

And which "civilization" wrote Nsibidi?

 

How come you don't know?

 

Your fallacy has been exposed because you stipulated that without writing there was no civilization. Now that you have been provided with evidence of writing you are trying to shift the goalposts. That is a disingenuous deflection because you cannot acknowledge that your erroneous pretext has been refuted and nullified.