South Africa: Land Seizure, Plight of the Boers

[United Muscovite Nations]

Some people never grow a heart, others only grow it when everything is crashing down faster and faster on them.
Is it worth the risk?

Considering that it would be compounded by selfish reasons, yeah they would grow a heart really fast.

Or, NATO intervention is still on the table then.

UN Peacekeepers can't fire on combatants unless they themselves are under attack; they can't kill in defense of civilians. This was a major problem in the Rwandan Genocide.

Canadian UN Peacekeepers during Bosnia said "Fuck that" and open fired on people anyway.

But Peacekeepers can't actually be sent in to stop a genocide, they have no legal right to.

[Herskerstad]

Considering that it would be compounded by selfish reasons, yeah they would grow a heart really fast.

Or, NATO intervention is still on the table then.


Canadian UN Peacekeepers during Bosnia said "Fuck that" and open fired on people anyway.

But Peacekeepers can't actually be sent in to stop a genocide, they have no legal right to.

Technically, one of the four justifications a nation can legally utilise to invade another is the carrying out of ethnic cleansing.

Not that the UN is a nation or that anyone would, but, it is a legal justification for war that the UN can sanction.

[Kazarogkai]

So your whole logic on why this is OK is a picture of Sharpeville?

Because white policemen shot some black protestors in 1961, it's OK for white farmers to be turned out of their homes and driven off farms that are vital to the country's agricultural sector?

This is literally the definition of a non sequitur.

I was giving a single example of the shit that they have done in the past to the local natives. To list every single one we would be here all freaking day. I was relating that the crimes, from which they are numerous including but not limited to the stealing of the various lands which they now live upon, of the past will be rectified when the time is due. Aka when the perpetrator has lost the whip(right of might) and the victim has now gained said whip. Said perpetrator shouldn't be surprised if said situation does occur they end up on the receiving end of a good ole flogging. Ultimately they shouldn't complain since they are the ones who started the fire so to speak. What you put out will eventually be bought back unto you eventually. And when I say you I mean the collective whole of the people in question since individuals for all intents and purposes are superfluous and the only thing that exists and matters are varying collectives of sorts. That is karma, a small but significant piece of the eternal law.

[Kubumba Tribe]

So your whole logic on why this is OK is a picture of Sharpeville?

Because white policemen shot some black protestors in 1961, it's OK for white farmers to be turned out of their homes and driven off farms that are vital to the country's agricultural sector?

This is literally the definition of a non sequitur.

I was giving a single example of the shit that they have done in the past to the local natives. To list every single one we would be here all freaking day. I was relating that the crimes, from which they are numerous including but not limited to the stealing of the various lands which they now live upon, of the past will be rectified when the time is due. Aka when the perpetrator has lost the whip(right of might) and the victim has now gained said whip. Said perpetrator shouldn't be surprised if said situation does occur they end up on the receiving end of a good ole flogging. Ultimately they shouldn't complain since they are the ones who started the fire so to speak. What you put out will eventually be bought back unto you eventually. And when I say you I mean the collective whole of the people in question since individuals for all intents and purposes are superfluous and the only thing that exists and matters are varying collectives of sorts. That is karma, a small but significant piece of the eternal law.

True, but they present day white South Africans aren't the cause of the racist legacy of South Africa.
What the ANC should be doing is encouraging native South Africans to create businesses.

[Dooom35796821595]

So your whole logic on why this is OK is a picture of Sharpeville?

Because white policemen shot some black protestors in 1961, it's OK for white farmers to be turned out of their homes and driven off farms that are vital to the country's agricultural sector?

This is literally the definition of a non sequitur.

I was giving a single example of the shit that they have done in the past to the local natives. To list every single one we would be here all freaking day. I was relating that the crimes, from which they are numerous including but not limited to the stealing of the various lands which they now live upon, of the past will be rectified when the time is due. Aka when the perpetrator has lost the whip(right of might) and the victim has now gained said whip. Said perpetrator shouldn't be surprised if said situation does occur they end up on the receiving end of a good ole flogging. Ultimately they shouldn't complain since they are the ones who started the fire so to speak. What you put out will eventually be bought back unto you eventually. And when I say you I mean the collective whole of the people in question since individuals for all intents and purposes are superfluous and the only thing that exists and matters are varying collectives of sorts. That is karma, a small but significant piece of the eternal law.

So if the white South Africans managed to seize power after an attempted genocide, and fully exterminate their black counterparts, that would be okay to you?

[Des-Bal]

True, but they present day people aren't the cause of the racist legacy of South Africa.
What the ANC should be doing is encouraging native South Africans to create businesses.

Well yeah but then what pretense would they have for stealing land?

[Kubumba Tribe]

I was giving a single example of the shit that they have done in the past to the local natives. To list every single one we would be here all freaking day. I was relating that the crimes, from which they are numerous including but not limited to the stealing of the various lands which they now live upon, of the past will be rectified when the time is due. Aka when the perpetrator has lost the whip(right of might) and the victim has now gained said whip. Said perpetrator shouldn't be surprised if said situation does occur they end up on the receiving end of a good ole flogging. Ultimately they shouldn't complain since they are the ones who started the fire so to speak. What you put out will eventually be bought back unto you eventually. And when I say you I mean the collective whole of the people in question since individuals for all intents and purposes are superfluous and the only thing that exists and matters are varying collectives of sorts. That is karma, a small but significant piece of the eternal law.

So if the white South Africans managed to seize power after an attempted genocide, and fully exterminate their black counterparts, that would be okay to you?

Are the "black counterparts" the ANC or every black South African?

[Biancavilla]

This worked wonders for Zimbabwe!

[Dooom35796821595]

So if the white South Africans managed to seize power after an attempted genocide, and fully exterminate their black counterparts, that would be okay to you?

Are the "black counterparts" the ANC or every black South African?

What would be acceptable to you? And why?

*edit* thought you were the poster, sorry.

[Kubumba Tribe]

True, but they present day people aren't the cause of the racist legacy of South Africa.
What the ANC should be doing is encouraging native South Africans to create businesses.

Well yeah but then what pretense would they have for stealing land?

Technically, it was the Europeans who stole African land. But I get what you're saying.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Are the "black counterparts" the ANC or every black South African?

What would be acceptable to you? And why?

*edit* thought you were the poster, sorry.

It's ok

[Ors Might]

Well yeah but then what pretense would they have for stealing land?

Technically, it was the Europeans who stole African land. But I get what you're saying.

This entire situation is irony incarnate.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Technically, it was the Europeans who stole African land. But I get what you're saying.

This entire situation is irony incarnate.

How? Because the oppressors are switched?

[The Parkus Empire]

Leftists are Jacobins, Jacobins support murder.

Jacobins where during the French Revolution. As such, your statement holds no relevance to SA being evil like this.

It's the same principle and logic

[Ors Might]

This entire situation is irony incarnate.

How? Because the oppressors are switched?

Essentially. More specifically I find it really funny in a dark sense that it’s the African government forcefully taking homes away from a much weaker people.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Jacobins where during the French Revolution. As such, your statement holds no relevance to SA being evil like this.

It's the same principle and logic

But entirely different setting.

[Taihei Tengoku]

So your whole logic on why this is OK is a picture of Sharpeville?

Because white policemen shot some black protestors in 1961, it's OK for white farmers to be turned out of their homes and driven off farms that are vital to the country's agricultural sector?

This is literally the definition of a non sequitur.

I was giving a single example of the shit that they have done in the past to the local natives. To list every single one we would be here all freaking day. I was relating that the crimes, from which they are numerous including but not limited to the stealing of the various lands which they now live upon, of the past will be rectified when the time is due. Aka when the perpetrator has lost the whip(right of might) and the victim has now gained said whip. Said perpetrator shouldn't be surprised if said situation does occur they end up on the receiving end of a good ole flogging. Ultimately they shouldn't complain since they are the ones who started the fire so to speak. What you put out will eventually be bought back unto you eventually. And when I say you I mean the collective whole of the people in question since individuals for all intents and purposes are superfluous and the only thing that exists and matters are varying collectives of sorts. That is karma, a small but significant piece of the eternal law.

caveman_morality.txt

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

So your whole logic on why this is OK is a picture of Sharpeville?

Because white policemen shot some black protestors in 1961, it's OK for white farmers to be turned out of their homes and driven off farms that are vital to the country's agricultural sector?

This is literally the definition of a non sequitur.

I was giving a single example of the shit that they have done in the past to the local natives. To list every single one we would be here all freaking day. I was relating that the crimes, from which they are numerous including but not limited to the stealing of the various lands which they now live upon, of the past will be rectified when the time is due. Aka when the perpetrator has lost the whip(right of might) and the victim has now gained said whip. Said perpetrator shouldn't be surprised if said situation does occur they end up on the receiving end of a good ole flogging. Ultimately they shouldn't complain since they are the ones who started the fire so to speak. What you put out will eventually be bought back unto you eventually. And when I say you I mean the collective whole of the people in question since individuals for all intents and purposes are superfluous and the only thing that exists and matters are varying collectives of sorts. That is karma, a small but significant piece of the eternal law.

So what did the farmers do to them to deserve this?

Specifically them not the twats in the 60's.

[Kazarogkai]

So if the white South Africans managed to seize power after an attempted genocide, and fully exterminate their black counterparts, that would be okay to you?

Unlikely for such a thing to occur but if it did then the law of whip and karma in general dictate that yes they may. Not nice but such is such.One should not commit genocide against another and expect it not to occur to you once the other has the power to commit it. Though mind you to those who think I call for genocide, I don't. I only call that with the power that they have acquired the previous victim very much has the right if they so desire to rectify the transgressions of the past to bring balance back to the way of things so to speak. In this case the main injustice committed was the stealing of land and with them their resources as such they have every right to use the proverbial whip so to speak to flog the previous perpetrator and with that gain back what was stolen and thereby bring about a restorative result.

So what did the farmers do to them to deserve this?

Specifically them not the twats in the 60's.

By benefiting from and receiving the spoils what the aforementioned "twats" in the 60s and 1800s and the 1700s and etc did. Don't throw down with the gang and not expect to get what they own. When you inherit say a house, you inherit the ghosts that come with it. Aka stop associating with shitty people and this won't happen to you, whether it be your family or not is no excuse.

[Ors Might]

So if the white South Africans managed to seize power after an attempted genocide, and fully exterminate their black counterparts, that would be okay to you?

Unlikely for such a thing to occur but if it did then the law of whip and karma in general dictate that yes they may. Not nice but such is such.One should not commit genocide against another and expect it not to occur to you once the other has the power to commit it. Though mind you to those who think I call for genocide, I don't. I only call that with the power that they have acquired the previous victim very much has the right if they so desire to rectify the transgressions of the past to bring balance back to the way of things so to speak. In this case the main injustice committed was the stealing of land and with them their resources as such they have every right to use the proverbial whip so to speak to flog the previous perpetrator and with that gain back what was stolen and thereby bring about a restorative result.

So what did the farmers do to them to deserve this?

Specifically them not the twats in the 60's.

By benefiting from and receiving the spoils what the aforementioned "twats" in the 60s and 1800s and the 1700s and etc did. Don't throw down with the gang and not expect to get what they own. When you inherit say a house, you inherit the ghosts that come with it. Aka stop associating with shitty people and this won't happen to you, whether it be your family or not is no excuse.

I don’t know if you’ve noticed but you can’t exactly choose to be white. Nor can you choose who your family members are. It’s a thing called biology.

[Kazarogkai]

I don’t know if you’ve noticed but you can’t exactly choose to be white. Nor can you choose who your family members are. It’s a thing called biology.

She would tell you otherwise:



Joking aside You can choose who you associate with though, which is what matters, especially if you are an adult. That and family is the ones you choose not the ones you are born with necessarily. Biology plays minimal role in such matters. And most importantly in this case the descendant in question chose to inherit the house so to speak and with it the ghosts. Lets give an example:

Say A man known as John owns a farm of about 40 Acres. Said farm and it's ownership were acquired via killing of a man named Gregory 40 years ago whose family have since declared they will one day have vengeance upon him. Now John has a "biological" son named Howard. Howard is now 20 years of age and as a result John desires to retire and give the land to Howard. Now at this point Howard has a choice knowing full well the history of the land in question to either

A accept the land grant from John and thereby accepting all the responsibilities that come with it
or
B Not take the land

Either way he is making a choice and accepting or not responsibility one way or the other. If he chooses to accept the land he either passively or not accepts the fact that Gregory's family can and one day probably will enact their revenge and it will occur onto him since he is holding the land. The land has a blood debt on it and anyone who acquires it other than Gregory's surviving family implicitly accept the fact that said debt might one day be called in whether they like it or not. When it does they have only themselves to blame. Don't take the land or other things with blood on them and this won't be a problem for you. The only way one can rectify the blood debt? Rectify the previous injustice that made said debt and restore what is lost to those who have been lost and their descendants before it's too late. That or you can fight the blood debt as is one's right to do. The power of the whip allows for such things. Justice won't be served sadly in that case but such is such. World isn't a fairy tale.

[Luminesa]

So if the white South Africans managed to seize power after an attempted genocide, and fully exterminate their black counterparts, that would be okay to you?

Unlikely for such a thing to occur but if it did then the law of whip and karma in general dictate that yes they may. Not nice but such is such.One should not commit genocide against another and expect it not to occur to you once the other has the power to commit it. Though mind you to those who think I call for genocide, I don't. I only call that with the power that they have acquired the previous victim very much has the right if they so desire to rectify the transgressions of the past to bring balance back to the way of things so to speak. In this case the main injustice committed was the stealing of land and with them their resources as such they have every right to use the proverbial whip so to speak to flog the previous perpetrator and with that gain back what was stolen and thereby bring about a restorative result.

So what did the farmers do to them to deserve this?

Specifically them not the twats in the 60's.

By benefiting from and receiving the spoils what the aforementioned "twats" in the 60s and 1800s and the 1700s and etc did. Don't throw down with the gang and not expect to get what they own. When you inherit say a house, you inherit the ghosts that come with it. Aka stop associating with shitty people and this won't happen to you, whether it be your family or not is no excuse.

So let me ask you this, the slaveowners in Kongo who sold slaves to European traders, should their descendants be killed?

[Ors Might]

I don’t know if you’ve noticed but you can’t exactly choose to be white. Nor can you choose who your family members are. It’s a thing called biology.

She would tell you otherwise:



Joking aside You can choose who you associate with though, which is what matters, especially if you are an adult. That and family is the ones you choose not the ones you are born with necessarily. Biology plays minimal role in such matters. And most importantly in this case the descendant in question chose to inherit the house so to speak and with it the ghosts. Lets give an example:

Say A man known as John owns a farm of about 40 Acres. Said farm and it's ownership were acquired via killing of a man named Gregory 40 years ago whose family have since declared they will one day have vengeance upon him. Now John has a "biological" son named Howard. Howard is now 20 years of age and as a result John desires to retire and give the land to Howard. Now at this point Howard has a choice knowing full well the history of the land in question to either

A accept the land grant from John and thereby accepting all the responsibilities that come with it
or
B Not take the land

Either way he is making a choice and accepting or not responsibility one way or the other. If he chooses to accept the land he either passively or not accepts the fact that Gregory's family can and one day probably will enact their revenge and it will occur onto him since he is holding the land. The land has a blood debt on it and anyone who acquires it other than Gregory's surviving family implicitly accept the fact that said debt might one day be called in whether they like it or not. When it does they have only themselves to blame. Don't take the land or other things with blood on them and this won't be a problem for you. The only way one can rectify the blood debt? Rectify the previous injustice that made said debt and restore what is lost to those who have been lost and their descendants before it's too late. That or you can fight the blood debt as is one's right to do. The power of the whip allows for such things. Justice won't be served sadly in that case but such is such. World isn't a fairy tale.

Justice isn’t nearly as cut and dry as you make it out to be. Yes the father did wrong and should have been punished for it. Yes, the son benefited from it. But you’re missing something vital. That land is just as much the son’s home as it was Howard’s. His claim is just as strong and as valid. Taking it from him by force is just as wrong as what the father did.

[Albrenia]

Blood Debts and Ancestral grudges are horrific concepts which make us all enemies of each other.

Screw that.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

So what did the farmers do to them to deserve this?

Specifically them not the twats in the 60's.

By benefiting from and receiving the spoils what the aforementioned "twats" in the 60s and 1800s and the 1700s and etc did.

Ok, so do Americans getting benefits and the spoils of war off of a destroyed Germany in the 1950's deserve to have there land taken away?