South Africa: Land Seizure, Plight of the Boers

[New Luckyland]

That reads as disengenuous to me because "Also adding near-blatant death threats." clearly does not refer to some third party.

It must be frightening to you to see these political shifts. I am trying to understand what is going on in your country. I do not have a lot of sympathy for white landowners who seek to hold onto the priviledges they aquired from apartheid. I have a great deal of sympathy for whites in South Africa who are afraid of an anti-white backlash. Bolshy white landowners are not their friends in this.

...If I thought you were making death threats I would have done something other than just mention it in my post. I would have reported you to the mods since death threats are against the rules.

As it is, I don't think you made death threats, and you didn't, so that's not an issue.

I've told you what my meaning was, and that's all I can do.

I love you too, you silly sausage. Let us all just forget this nonsense about you accusing me of threatening your life.

You know that in time we will all be able to laugh it all off. Would you care for a macaroon?

[Albrenia]

...If I thought you were making death threats I would have done something other than just mention it in my post. I would have reported you to the mods since death threats are against the rules.

As it is, I don't think you made death threats, and you didn't, so that's not an issue.

I've told you what my meaning was, and that's all I can do.

I love you too, you silly sausage. Let us all just forget this nonsense about you accusing me of threatening your life.

You know that in time we will all be able to laugh it all off. Would you care for a macaroon?

*squint*

My life?

I never mentioned me. I'm neither Scottish nor South African. I don't even own land to steal.

The only thing you've done to me personally is imply I'm a racist because I don't support land theft based on skin colour. Kind of funny considering recent events, to be honest.

[New Luckyland]

I love you too, you silly sausage. Let us all just forget this nonsense about you accusing me of threatening your life.

You know that in time we will all be able to laugh it all off. Would you care for a macaroon?

*squint*

My life?

I never mentioned me. I'm neither Scottish nor South African. I don't even own land to steal.

The only thing you've done to me personally is imply I'm a racist because I don't support land theft based on skin colour. Kind of funny considering recent events, to be honest.

I just think you're a cunt. But don't let that stand in the way of honest debate.

[Albrenia]

*squint*

My life?

I never mentioned me. I'm neither Scottish nor South African. I don't even own land to steal.

The only thing you've done to me personally is imply I'm a racist because I don't support land theft based on skin colour. Kind of funny considering recent events, to be honest.

I just think you're a cunt. But don't let that stand in the way of honest debate.

Cool. Eh... now where were we in said debate?

[New Luckyland]

*squint*

My life?

I never mentioned me. I'm neither Scottish nor South African. I don't even own land to steal.

The only thing you've done to me personally is imply I'm a racist because I don't support land theft based on skin colour. Kind of funny considering recent events, to be honest.

I just think you're a cunt. But don't let that stand in the way of honest debate.

Sorry, too funny not to say.

[Albrenia]

I just think you're a cunt. But don't let that stand in the way of honest debate.

Sorry, too funny not to say.

No worries here. I've been called worse.

[Hayo]

Why not implement a rural land tax, and then use that money to fund inequality-reducing social programs? That seems like it would be more effective than forcibly redistributing land.

[Albrenia]

Why not implement a rural land tax, and then use that money to fund inequality-reducing social programs? That seems like it would be more effective than forcibly redistributing land.

Indeed. Something like the inheritance tax imposed on the nobility in the UK might work too. Then nobody gets robbed, at least not until after they're too dead to care.

[USS Monitor]

*squint*

My life?

I never mentioned me. I'm neither Scottish nor South African. I don't even own land to steal.

The only thing you've done to me personally is imply I'm a racist because I don't support land theft based on skin colour. Kind of funny considering recent events, to be honest.

I just think you're a cunt. But don't let that stand in the way of honest debate.

I think you're flaming. *** Warned ***

[New Luckyland]

I just think you're a cunt. But don't let that stand in the way of honest debate.

I think you're flaming. *** Warned ***

That bothered me too which is why I backtracked. I can get emotional.

[Oil exporting People]

It's almost as if generations of oppression and colonialism have consequences.

Indeed; the more colonized a country was, the more successful it ended up once decolonization occurred. The problem for the Africans was that they weren't kept under the Europeans for long enough.

[Irona]

It's almost as if generations of oppression and colonialism have consequences.

Indeed; the more colonized a country was, the more successful it ended up once decolonization occurred. The problem for the Africans was that they weren't kept under the Europeans for long enough.

If that's true then why is Angloa, which had Portuguese settlements as early as the 1500's, in a worse position than Egypt.

[Oil exporting People]

If that's true then why is Angloa, which had Portuguese settlements as early as the 1500's, in a worse position than Egypt.

Because Communism is a hell of a drug.

[Ors Might]

I don't mean the word you used, I mean one of the main champions of what's happening in South Africa is saying things like "I'm not calling for us to kill them all, not yet" and singing songs which glorify that sort of violence. Sorry if I was unclear about that. No freaking out occuring.

As for giving people the right to buy the land they work, that doesn't sound like theft then. No problem with that on the face of it.

That reads as disengenuous to me because "Also adding near-blatant death threats." clearly does not refer to some third party.

It must be frightening to you to see these political shifts. I am trying to understand what is going on in your country. I do not have a lot of sympathy for white landowners who seek to hold onto the priviledges they aquired from apartheid. I have a great deal of sympathy for whites in South Africa who are afraid of an anti-white backlash. Bolshy white landowners are not their friends in this.

Ah yes, those age old privileges of having a home and not being dirt poor. Glad to see the South African government fighting against those dastardly white people.

[Blasted Craigs]

So, after the silence and willful denial of media, finally someone is doing a documentary on the plight of the Boers in South Africa.
Not to be confused with the documentary Farmland(About farming in the U.S.), Farmlands is about the Boers, and the atrocities they face.
I for one, am glad somebody, even if it is only an independent documentary filmmaker, is telling the story of the atrocities Boers face.
The trailer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONs1gpwkCrk
About white displacement camps, that are entirely funded by volunteers (It's essentially a squatter camp) It's a camp for whites, because poor whites often face violence including assault, murder and rape, and are denied any government help, any traditional faith based help, hell, are also denied medical treatment when wounded at hospitals when injured.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq0GReiZyKc
About Suidlanders, preppers preparing to try to run when open genocide happens. (These are the white farmers with some money in Africa, preparing to save their families when the country goes to hell.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ7o1cxqBPU
So, what do you think?
1-Is this much ado about nothing, nothing to see here?
2-Or is this an issue the world has been ignoring?
3-Hell, do you find this documentary offensive? If so, why?

My answers.
1-This is a real issue, and IMHO it's long since time people acknowledge it is an issue.
2-Answered in 1st answer.
3-I do, but not because it makes a certain group look bad. It's offensive because it shows how the world governments ignored the plight of these people with a self satisfied smug look of disdain. (Rejecting Boer refugees because claims of abuse and violence due to the color of their skin is "Based on racist propaganda".

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/white-south-african-familys-refugee-bid-rejected-allegedly-boosted-case-with-white-supremacist-information

[Blasted Craigs]

Oh, and for the moderators, although I saw a thread about the plans of the ANC to take the land of white farmers with no compensation, I saw nothing about this video. And this discussion is about the plight of the Boers, and how it is covered by this video, while simultaneously ignored by mainstream media. So, I made a new thread.

[Farnhamia]

Oh, and for the moderators, although I saw a thread about the plans of the ANC to take the land of white farmers with no compensation, I saw nothing about this video. And this discussion is about the plight of the Boers, and how it is covered by this video, while simultaneously ignored by mainstream media. So, I made a new thread.

And I merged them because it is related and we can make this a "South African Situation" thread.

[Blasted Craigs]

Oh, and for the moderators, although I saw a thread about the plans of the ANC to take the land of white farmers with no compensation, I saw nothing about this video. And this discussion is about the plight of the Boers, and how it is covered by this video, while simultaneously ignored by mainstream media. So, I made a new thread.

And I merged them because it is related and we can make this a "South African Situation" thread.

Ok....
So, from now on, should i look a for a thread based on region or country, and any discussion based on that region, post in that thread? I thought that was considered hijacking the thread?
Basically, if I wanted to discuss the aid situation in Puerto Rico, and also whether it should be a state, or the actions of one of it's mayors, It should all go into one Puerto Rican situation thread?
Not being rude, just want to make sure I don't hijack a thread or derail the thread. Basically, I was trying to avoid hijacking this thread. But, if posting in this thread about the documentary isn't hijacking, cool.
I post irregularly, and try my best to follow forum rules as I understand them. Mainly asking so I don't get in trouble for hijacking a thread in the future.

[Farnhamia]

And I merged them because it is related and we can make this a "South African Situation" thread.

Ok....
So, from now on, should i look a for a thread based on region or country, and any discussion based on that region, post in that thread? I thought that was considered hijacking the thread?
Basically, if I wanted to discuss the aid situation in Puerto Rico, and also whether it should be a state, or the actions of one of it's mayors, It should all go into one Puerto Rican situation thread?
Not being rude, just want to make sure I don't hijack a thread or derail the thread. Basically, I was trying to avoid hijacking this thread. But, if posting in this thread about the documentary isn't hijacking, cool.
I post irregularly, and try my best to follow forum rules as I understand them. Mainly asking so I don't get in trouble for hijacking a thread in the future.

I'm not going to give you an iron-clad rule on that because there isn't one. It's a matter of judgment. Honestly, before making a thread on current events, I would scout at least the first five pages of the forum, if not more. Or perhaps use a time reference: if there haven't been new posts in more than four weeks, it's grave-digging, so make a new thread. I just looked and the thread on Page 5 had their last posts during the first week of March. I often feel that thread-starters look at the first page and that's it. As a last resort, come to the Moderation forum and ask. That will delay your ability to start the new thread but you will get an answer. More answers than you want, probably.

[Blasted Craigs]

Ok....
So, from now on, should i look a for a thread based on region or country, and any discussion based on that region, post in that thread? I thought that was considered hijacking the thread?
Basically, if I wanted to discuss the aid situation in Puerto Rico, and also whether it should be a state, or the actions of one of it's mayors, It should all go into one Puerto Rican situation thread?
Not being rude, just want to make sure I don't hijack a thread or derail the thread. Basically, I was trying to avoid hijacking this thread. But, if posting in this thread about the documentary isn't hijacking, cool.
I post irregularly, and try my best to follow forum rules as I understand them. Mainly asking so I don't get in trouble for hijacking a thread in the future.

I'm not going to give you an iron-clad rule on that because there isn't one. It's a matter of judgment. Honestly, before making a thread on current events, I would scout at least the first five pages of the forum, if not more. Or perhaps use a time reference: if there haven't been new posts in more than four weeks, it's grave-digging, so make a new thread. I just looked and the thread on Page 5 had their last posts during the first week of March. I often feel that thread-starters look at the first page and that's it. As a last resort, come to the Moderation forum and ask. That will delay your ability to start the new thread but you will get an answer. More answers than you want, probably.

Actually, it helps. I'll admit, the purely emotional response at the moment was it felt like it is an attempt to sweep the thread under the rug, but that is why rationally I asked for answers to explain it. Basically, if I understand correctly, it is up to the moderator, and a judgment call. So, i shouldn't get any flak one way or another, and I'm not really violating any forum rules. That's good to know. Like I said, I post irregularly, and wanted clarification. You gave it, and all snarkiness aside, I thank you for taking the time to explain it, instead of letting me stay in a position feeling slightly slighted.
Also, you gave me steps to take where if I want to take the time, I can get a forewarning about if a thread will be merged or exist as an independent thread. And actually, what I usually do is a search on the forum for the topic, to see if it has been discussed, and if not, post a new thread. But yes, I don't usually read every page of a thread to see if the topic is covered, just use the search function.
But, to close, thanks for the reply Farn. I think you are the moderator I have the most interaction with when I ask for clarification on something, and it's usually pretty quick. So, again, even though I may ever so slightly disagree on the decision, thanks for the reply.

[Oil exporting People]

Because Communism is a hell of a drug.

Then why are you a Nat-Syn?

> Not knowing the difference between the two

The Spanish Azul Division would like a word with you.

[Senkaku]

Because Communism is a hell of a drug.

Then why are you a Nat-Syn?

That's just the word he uses so he doesn't have to call himself a Nazi, don't let the syndie bit fool ya

[Greed and Death]

We should probably start selling the Boars guns then.

[Proctopeo]

Then why are you a Nat-Syn?

That's just the word he uses so he doesn't have to call himself a Nazi, don't let the syndie bit fool ya

You're thinking of Oil Exporting People from the Kaiserreich timeline.

[Oil exporting People]

That's just the word he uses so he doesn't have to call himself a Nazi, don't let the syndie bit fool ya

I'd ask you to prove that assertion, but considering your level of intellectual rigor is to run to the Mods, I'd be wasting my time.