forum

White Farmers in South Africa

posted
Total Posts
23
Topic Starter
B1rd
MFW this was an email the "centre-left" Labor party in Western Australia sent to its supporters to raise money, because the Liberal MP was trying to help the persecuted White South Africans get into Australia.

"You'll never believe what Andrew Hastie is doing tonight. Andrew Hastie has joined a group of extreme right-wingers wanting to change Australia's humanitarian visa program to give special treatment to White South Africans. Tonight he is holding a public meeting in Canning to get support for ending the current non-disciminatory humanitarian visa system Can you help us get rid of Hastie by supporting the campaign to win the seat of Canning for Labor's Melisa Teede?"

mfw in the current political climate wanting to help White people from slaughter and persecution is extreme right-wing these days. The other story in the newspaper is a big shitstorm because some rugby player said, to paraphrase: "I think gay people are going to Hell (unless they repent"). If Right wingness was on the amerimutt scale then I must be somewhere around el goblino right now. Reading the newspaper is like a comedy lineup and sometimes it's just amusing.



Anyway, this can serve as a general thread about the situation of White farmers in South Africa, for people who want to talk about serious big-brains political topics. Personally I think it shows the importance of the Second Amendment, as it's a clear example of the majority oppressing the minority through Democratic means. This is why it's essential that citizens retain the power of violence, instead of all the power of violence being concentrated in the hands of the state and controlled by Democracy and corrupt politicians. I wonder if the situation will devolve into a civil war. Now that would be interesting turn of events given the fragile state of race relations in the world, I could imagine it being the proxy war to end all proxy wars.
ColdTooth
This thread reminds me the one time I tried to look like I knew what I was talking about, but really I didn't.
johnmedina999
Here's the lesson of the day: stop paying attention to political campaign ads lol

They're all the same. An informed fella does research and maybe donates to the best campaign, if you want to. There's no reason to have people email you.
Shohei Ohtani
delete
abraker
I have no idea what South African politics involves tbh
It will prob take to much time to understand too
So that's why I'll pretend I know what I am writing about.

African bipartisan right wing left labor rebublic's south established ideology of conglomerates within humanitarian societies who support extremist program campaigns on non discriminatory white population I have not a slightest clue what I am talking about, but look at all the fancy political words.
roshan117
yanno b1rd, i agreed with you...

...up until ur spiel bout the 2nd amendment



the government would just get much bigger and worse weapons to oppress the people
Comfy Slippers
I could imagine it being the proxy war to end all proxy wars.
Yea, that's what they said about cold war as well.

for people who want to talk about serious big-brains political topics.
Saudi and Iran need to stop being baka meanies.
DaddyCoolVipper
This thread is hilarious

I love how you "wanting to discuss the political topic" is just a camouflage for spreading propaganda. I see no evidence that you're informed on the situation, considering your go-to subject of discussion is the fucking Second Amendment of all things...

Also that line at the end about the implied race war what the fuck lol, ridiculous
DaddyCoolVipper

johnmedina999 wrote:

Here's the lesson of the day: stop paying attention to political campaign ads lol

They're all the same. An informed fella does research and maybe donates to the best campaign, if you want to. There's no reason to have people email you.
John is super right here btw
roshan117
also how would guns help in south africa

people would just use them to further oppress the white people, you really dont think before u write essays on here do you
DXPOHIHIHI
Daddy
Topic Starter
B1rd

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

This thread is hilarious

I love how you "wanting to discuss the political topic" is just a camouflage for spreading propaganda. I see no evidence that you're informed on the situation, considering your go-to subject of discussion is the fucking Second Amendment of all things...

Also that line at the end about the implied race war what the fuck lol, ridiculous
What a funny reaction. Sharing a humourous excerpt from the Newspaper is "propoganda"? You know I am allowed to have my own perspective on things and deviate from a dry academic discussion, even if the way I frame things is offensive to you. Having a racewar isn't likely but it's an interesting idea. And it's exactly situations like this where the Second Amendment and the relation of power of the state to the citizen is important.


roshan117 wrote:

also how would guns help in south africa

people would just use them to further oppress the white people, you really dont think before u write essays on here do you
Do you realise that White farmers are already being gunned down left and right? How is i disadvantageous to the White farmers to have guns to defend themselves? I mean sure, they have limited access to some weapons, but these are the scenarios where AR-15s would come in handy.

The Second Amendment doesn't just imply small arms to citizens, it implies a militia with military ordinance. America was in fact never meant to have a standing army. There is already an unofficial militia force of Whites in South Africa ready to act in case of the event of a civil war, and if they were allowed proper arms they'd have a lot better chances. But nonetheless, simple small arms in the hands of civilians does much to impede an oppressive state, because while you can't win against an army in an open battle with just rifles, it opens up a large range of guerrilla tactics.
DaddyCoolVipper

B1rd wrote:

This is why it's essential that citizens retain the power of violence, instead of all the power of violence being concentrated in the hands of the state and controlled by Democracy and corrupt politicians.
When you start pushing political ideology like this, I don't think propaganda is a particularly inaccurate term. Also tbf you started with a (deliberate?) misinterpretation of the quote:


"Andrew Hastie has joined a group of extreme right-wingers wanting to change Australia's humanitarian visa program"

This doesn't mean that Hastie -is- an extreme right-winger for wanting to do so, simply that they are pushing for the same goals as a group of extreme right-wing people (allegedly).

To be honest though I really agree with John, campaign ads are a lot of bullshit and they're neither word reading nor worth writing outraged articles about.


To make the topic more interesting; https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... cktake-q-a

Basically the land was stolen and given to the white people without compensation in the first place, so to put things very simply, this is one way of "justice".

Personally I don't agree with seizing land without compensation- it seems pretty fucked to me considering that the land was stolen from the native population a hundred years ago, but this at least shows that (as always with African politics) the subject is more nuanced than it might first appear
Topic Starter
B1rd
It is an inaccurate term, and you're just being a weasel with words. What I said is as much propoganda as any political opinion is propoganda, as propoganda simply means propagated ideas. But then you try to conflate it with the modern negative connotations of misleading or inaccurate information.

Yes, if he has joined the group of so-called extreme right-wingers, that in fact means it's implied he is and extreme right-winger. I didn't misintepret anything. It really doesn't behoove you to try to defend the radical leftists that think letting persecuted Whites into Australia is racist. Not only are they being attacked constantly, they are threatened with land expropriation and political violence. The whole situation reeks of the hypocrisy of the left, who esouse tolerance but don't actually care about people who aren't brown.

"Justice" is just an excuse, who knows what the colonialists did 100 years ago, but whatever it was we're not about to give the Americas and Australia back to natives and pack off to England. You don't persecute people for what their ancestors did. The situation is no more nuanced that blacks wanting whitey's land, and a populist politician leading a country to ruin with wealth and land redistribution policies.
Green Platinum
I think you are the only one here who interpreted it that way.

Considering how infamously anti-immigration Australian politics can be the "to give special treatment " comment is what I find particularly dubious. I doubt it is as altruistic and noble as you present it to be.
DaddyCoolVipper
Yeah, considering that the Australians somewhat routinely sink boats, killing refugees that attempt to enter their country illegally- and have fairly harsh policies when it comes to taking in refugees in general, suddenly making an exception for persecuted white people does come off as having a racist tone to it.
Topic Starter
B1rd
I don't know what you're talking about, we don't kill the boat people. They kill themselves by going seafaring in dingy vessels. And harsh policies is exactly what you need, because every boat person you let in, 10 more will come after. Rather, we've been way too lenient and taken too many refugees. But regardless, it's because of Australia's strong borders that we've been so much more successful than Europe with our "muliculturalism".


But White farmers should be discriminated in favour of simply because they have a track record of being beneficial to our country, which is true disregarding race. And this is important because nation states should not be philantropic entities; that's the realm of individuals, not politicians and voters who are often far disconnected from the negative consequnces of their do-gooding.
Green Platinum
Europe does pretty well for itself if that is your example of hell on earth due to multiculturalism you have to try harder.

The occasional attack is worth the payout of the cultural institutions and the freedom of tourism and life where I want to go. From my perspective it is the people who are ignorant and refuse cultural understanding doing the attacking anyway if we were is keep all cultures secluded we'd find some other pathetically petty reason to fight anyway.
Topic Starter
B1rd
How silly, migrants have committed terrorist attacks, have increased crime and rape by a massive amount and have been a drain on the economy and housing. Europe is a perfect example of how multiculturalism is a failure. You gain no "freedom"" by allowing hordes of people from third world countries into your country. And there is absolutely no benefit to having muslim and third world cultures in our Western nations.
Green Platinum
Yep and I'd take it because I love what foreign cultures have to offer me. Cuisine, Film, Music. You are basically advocating that you should let a couple of bad experiences ruin the rest of your life.
Comfy Slippers
As a conservative I agree with some of your arguments, but only partially. You're neglecting one thing b1rd. Far right tends to generalize and use extreme scenarios to further their white ethnostate beliefs. Germany, France, UK have all had their fair share of muslim and black population prior to the whole Syrian fiasco. It is only after the onset of daesh that we've seen western europe struggling with 'nasty immigrants'. In hindsight, it isn't the islamic population that's being problematic, it's the social pressure that they're enduring and the manipulative nature of far-right parties that are continually beating a dead horse. And, by no means am I an advocate of sharia law in western countries as I still find traditional values to be a key point in a culturally enriching society.

Then again, western powers kinda deserve this. Starting from Brits way back in the days of europes colonial period, all the way to the recent history with CIA and it's violations of international laws that is (allegedly) in the name of battling terrorism. It's only reasonable to think that west has done their fair share of dirty work. I mean, just take a look at pre-extremist middle eastern cities of 1950s. You all accomplished your goals of creating this now proclaimed shithole just for the sake of fucking oil. You reap what you sow
roshan117
o o o o i i i i l l l l
Topic Starter
B1rd

Comfy Slippers wrote:

As a conservative I agree with some of your arguments, but only partially. You're neglecting one thing b1rd. Far right tends to generalize and use extreme scenarios to further their white ethnostate beliefs. Germany, France, UK have all had their fair share of muslim and black population prior to the whole Syrian fiasco. It is only after the onset of daesh that we've seen western europe struggling with 'nasty immigrants'. In hindsight, it isn't the islamic population that's being problematic, it's the social pressure that they're enduring and the manipulative nature of far-right parties that are continually beating a dead horse. And, by no means am I an advocate of sharia law in western countries as I still find traditional values to be a key point in a culturally enriching society.

Then again, western powers kinda deserve this. Starting from Brits way back in the days of europes colonial period, all the way to the recent history with CIA and it's violations of international laws that is (allegedly) in the name of battling terrorism. It's only reasonable to think that west has done their fair share of dirty work. I mean, just take a look at pre-extremist middle eastern cities of 1950s. You all accomplished your goals of creating this now proclaimed shithole just for the sake of fucking oil. You reap what you sow
It was politicians that have caused all the problems in the middle east, not average people. And it's average people who suffer the consequences of this mass immigration, while the politicians are comfortable in their upper-class suburbs. So no it's definitely not up to us to take responsibility for the actions of politicians today and hundreds of years ago. Countries aren't people.

It's extremely obvious that if you take in a low of low-IQ immigrants they will cause trouble, increase crime, be a drain on the economy, et cetera. We've seen this in many countries, and we've seen it well before this current immigration crisis. It's no so much an ethnostate as having a common-sense approach and not letting in people who will fuck up your country.
Please sign in to reply.

New reply