₦airaland Forum

The point I was making is that South Africans have a higher per Capita income than the rest of Africa. A black owned business should thrive better than in other African countries.
South Africans need incentives to grow their own business and stop waiting for " reparations'.
Leadership failure always puts the blame on their colonizers.

tctrills:
Look, anyone who says 30 years is enough to make black South Africa Great and powerful after so many years of bondage may not be honest.
But we are only asking if black South Africa is on the right path.
We are asking about the choices they have made as a people these 30 years of freedom.
30 years is long enough to look back and ask questions.

How come youth unemployment has doubled instead of reduced? How come crime is exploding? How come the economy under the control of blacks is failing everyone?

30 years may not be enough to build the greatest nation on earth but what foundation are they building so far?

DeepSight:
There will always be something nauseating about people who -

1. Are immigrants but anti-immigration. You climb a wall and wish to stop others of your kind from doing same.

2. Hypocritically try to make themselves "white"

3. Repeatedly insult their homeland to score points in the minds of an establishment they are sucking up to.

This is emotional nonsense you have started with your gutter level understanding.

Being an immigrant does not mean you must support unlimited or badly controlled immigration.

many immigrants support stricter immigration because they understand the value of legal, orderly migration.

She s not anti-immigration simply because she criticizes mass immigration or failed integration.

It is like saying someone who entered a house legally is a hypocrite for wanting the door locked afterward. No serious country works that way.

Someone speaking good English is also accused of trying to be white in the US. So calling her trying to be white is just lazy racial policing. Racism is what you guys have as blood running in your veins.

Black person is only authentically black if she agrees with left-wing views on immigration, Britain, race, and Nigeria? That is your gutter-level reasoning here.

criticizing Nigeria is not insulting her homeland to score points. Many Nigerians criticize Nigeria every day because corruption, insecurity, bad governance, and institutional failure are real issues. Bayelsaowei is a champion of that. Why is it suddenly betrayal when Kemi says it?

Go after her policies. Fine. But she wants to be white and she is sucking up to the establishment is not an argument. Starmer is the establishment and she roasted him.

The establishment wants mass migration which is why opposition parties are sweeping Europe. It is just an attempt to shame a black woman for not speaking the way you want black people to speak.

cococandy:
I’ve always known who they are and that’s why I never bought into their lies about “protecting the kids”. When all they wanted was an excuse to harass the rainbow community. Facts after facts keep showing they’re the ones in favor of harming kids

but you favour killing unborn kids, not so?

benalvino3:
This is emotional nonsense you have started with your gutter level understanding.

Being an immigrant does not mean you must support unlimited or badly controlled immigration.

many immigrants support stricter immigration because they understand the value of legal, orderly migration.

She s not anti-immigration simply because she criticizes mass immigration or failed integration.

It is like saying someone who entered a house legally is a hypocrite for wanting the door locked afterward. No serious country works that way.

Someone speaking good English is also accused of trying to be white in the US. So calling her trying to be white is just lazy racial policing. Racism is what you guys have as blood running in your veins.

Black person is only authentically black if she agrees with left-wing views on immigration, Britain, race, and Nigeria? That is your gutter-level reasoning here.

criticizing Nigeria is not insulting her homeland to score points. Many Nigerians criticize Nigeria every day because corruption, insecurity, bad governance, and institutional failure are real issues. Bayelsaowei is a champion of that. Why is it suddenly betrayal when Kemi says it?

Go after her policies. Fine. But she wants to be white and she is sucking up to the establishment is not an argument. Starmer is the establishment and she roasted him.

The establishment wants mass migration which is why opposition parties are sweeping Europe. It is just an attempt to shame a black woman for not speaking the way you want black people to speak.

I dont have the desire to engage in detail. But note that Kemi, like anti-immigrationists in the USA, is not just against illegal immigration or even "uncontrolled immigration" whatever that means.

DeepSight:
I dont have the desire to engage in detail. But note that Kemi, like anti-immigrationists in the USA, is not just against illegal immigration or even "uncontrolled immigration" whatever that means.

Open your house for the public or shut up.

benalvino3:
Open your house for the public or shut up.

Non sequitur.

Your argument has nothing to do with immigration

DeepSight:
The blacks have been in charge in SA for just three decades and you are ready to condemn them as useless. What is thirty years in the life of a nation - especially one just starting from such a long period of suppression?

That is just shallow and stupid, nothing else to add.

Be honest with yourself. The modern western developed nation is not natal to sub-saharan Africans.

People of sub-saharan ethnicity can flourish in every position and at every point within a WDN, and those who grow up in that milea are no different in essence from indigenous westerners.

The problem is that at scale, sub-saharans do not have the wherewithal to create what is not native to them. It is clear-eyed reality.

Admit it, if we emptied the UK and filled it with Nigerians, it would decline rapidly until it was a facsimile of Nigeria. It wouldn't hold as is, and it wouldn't get better. Likewise if you emptied Nigeria and filled it with people who grew up in a WDN (of whatever ethnicity), within a decade it would be transformed beyond the levels and imagination of any current SSA nation. Gainsay that all you like!

SA will soon regress to the days of Shaka Zulu


TV

GracieX3:
Non sequitur.

Your argument has nothing to do with immigration

Your understanding has nothing to do with being a human.

It's not a non sequetur: it is about consent and capacity. You cannot demand endless openness from a country while refusing the same principle in your own private space. Borders are not hatred; they are basic governance. So open your house to the public or shut up

TV01:
Be honest with yourself. The modern western developed nation is not natal to sub-saharan Africans.

People of sub-saharan ethnicity can flourish in every position and at every point within a WDN, and those who grow up in that milea are no different in essence from indigenous westerners.

The problem is that at scale, sub-saharans do not have the wherewithal to create what is not native to them. It is clear-eyed reality.

Admit it, if we emptied the UK and filled it with Nigerians, it would decline rapidly until it was a facsimile of Nigeria. It wouldn't hold as is, and it wouldn't get better. Likewise if you emptied Nigeria and filled it with people who grew up in a WDN (of whatever ethnicity), within a decade it would be transformed beyond the levels and imagination of any current SSA nation. Gainsay that all you like!

SA will soon regress to the days of Shaka Zulu


TV

Let's use the USA as an example. How long did it take them to move from butchering natives, to the wild west, to slavery, to civil war and to current day developed country? About 250 years.


But you want black south Africans to do miracles in 30 years.

Remember, both UK and USA were built with slave labour

TV01:
The problem is that at scale, sub-saharans do not have the wherewithal to create what is not native to them. It is clear-eyed reality.

What do you mean by the bold. Be specific. Do you mean civilization?

Admit it, if we emptied the UK and filled it with Nigerians, it would decline rapidly until it was a facsimile of Nigeria. It wouldn't hold as is, and it wouldn't get better. Likewise if you emptied Nigeria and filled it with people who grew up in a WDN (of whatever ethnicity), within a decade it would be transformed beyond the levels and imagination of any current SSA nation. Gainsay that all you like!

This is actually very true in a sense and if you cannot spot or understand exactly why it is true and exactly why it says alot against the argument that developing nations of today should magically photocopy the development of developed nations, then you dont know anything and you dont pause to think.

SA will soon regress to the days of Shaka Zulu


TV

Of course, since in your mind they are incapable racially inferior savages. This statement, jocular or not, says a lot.

GracieX3:
Let's use the USA as an example. How long did it take them to move from butchering natives, to the wild west, to slavery, to civil war and to current day developed country? About 250 years.


But you want black south Africans to do miracles in 30 years.

Remember, both UK and USA were built with slave labour

History even tells us of great stagnancy for almost one thousand years in Europe which we call the middle ages today.

So should the Roman Masters of Britain have laughed and said - look! They cant do anything!

benalvino3:
Your understanding has nothing to do with being a human.

It's not a non sequetur: it is about consent and capacity. You cannot demand endless openness from a country while refusing the same principle in your own private space. Borders are not hatred; they are basic governance. So open your house to the public or shut up

Have you applied for a US or UK visa? Do you think it is easy? Who told you that liberals want open borders?


No one wants to give outsiders open access to their houses or borders.

Liberals want a fair immigration policy and fair hearings for deportations.

GracieX3:
Have you applied for a US or UK visa? Do you think it is easy? Who told you that liberals want open borders?


No one wants to give outsiders open access to their houses or borders.

Liberals want a fair immigration policy and fair hearings for deportations.

Simple.

DeepSight:
History even tells us of great stagnancy for almost one thousand years in Europe which we call the middle ages today.

So should the Roman Masters of Britain have laughed and said - look! They cant do anything!

Of course our resident MAGA cultist is ignorant of history.
He thinks whites just woke up and developed their countries.

GracieX3:
Have you applied for a US or UK visa? Do you think it is easy? Who told you that liberals want open borders?


No one wants to give outsiders open access to their houses or borders.

Liberals want a fair immigration policy and fair hearings for deportations.

No I have not been to the UK or US, I have only been to Aba from Port Harcourt

Liberals want open borders.

GracieX3:
Of course our resident MAGA cultist is ignorant of history.
He thinks whites just woke up and developed their countries.

Probably also imagines they invented gun powder or mathematics including algebra and calculus. For sure TV01 will imagine all that.

benalvino3:
No I have not been to the UK or US, I have only been to Aba from Port Harcourt

Liberals want open borders.

Liberals do not want open borders. In as much that Liberals are pro immigration, open borders is suicidal. With diseases like hantavirus and drugs......

DeepSight:
Probably also imagines they invented gun powder or mathematics including algebra and calculus. For sure TV01 will imagine all that.

Every set of people had their own inventions.

Africans had their own method of building with mud and sand, they had their arts and crafts with clay bronze and raffia.

Arabs/muslims/Persians did a lot with maths like algebra and algorithms. They also contributed to medicine and astronomy.

But our MAGA cultists only believe in white people of European ancestry

benalvino3:
They will misquote me and say that I support apartheid or I think apartheid is better. I don't support it, I don't think it's better but see what some South Africans are saying, it shows things are worse for them now.

This dishonest people on this thread will still do a bad job to misquote me


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJPjKkcWKfw

We can't hide it, South Africa has become a mess and disappointment under black leadership.
The blacks will end up causing more harm to themselves than the whites did under apartheid.

tctrills:
We can't hide it, South Africa has become a mess and disappointment under black leadership.
The blacks will end up causing more harm to themselves than the whites did under apartheid.

Who is more powerful.

1. The president and the Congress of a country
2. The richest cabal of a country


Who holds the money in south Africa? Those are the true leaders

GracieX3:
Every set of people had their own inventions.

Africans had their own method of building with mud and sand, they had their arts and crafts with clay bronze and raffia.

Arabs/muslims/Persians did a lot with maths like algebra and algorithms. They also contributed to medicine and astronomy.

But our MAGA cultists only believe in white people of European ancestry

If you dare tell our cultists that the environment plays a role, they will shout "excuses!" As though eskimos didnt build with ice.

GracieX3:
Who is more powerful.

1. The president and the Congress of a country
2. The richest cabal of a country


Who holds the money in south Africa? Those are the true leaders

This is an unnecessary distraction so I will not entertain it.

My question is, the blacks in south Africa are much more powerful than they were under apartheid. They have much more freedom than under apartheid. What have they improved for themselves and what foundations are they building?
Unemployment is increasing, drug use is at pandemic levels, violence is exploding. These were a decent people 30 years ago.
We know whites still hold most of the wealth but what have the blacks done with the little. They now have freedom and political power, how have they used it?

.

tctrills:
This is an unnecessary distraction so I will not entertain it.

My question is, the blacks in south Africa are much more powerful than they were under apartheid. They have much more freedom than under apartheid. What have they improved for themselves and what foundations are they building?
Unemployment is increasing, drug use is at pandemic levels, violence is exploding. These were a decent people 30 years ago.
We know whites still hold most of the wealth but what have the blacks done with the little. They now have freedom and political power, how have they used it?

Financial freedom. Whites who hold the most wealth in South Africa nko?

Power without money makes one a tool. You expect blacks to do miracles with a bad hand.

DeepSight:
What do you mean by the bold. Be specific. Do you mean civilization?

A modern western style nation is native to those nations and the peoples of the west. I am not saying civilisation is beyond other peoples or nations, or what civilisation\development should or would look like in those other peoples or nations.

What I am saying is that like the Japanese society is an outworking of their unique history and traditions (and in some respects is like WDN and can readily adapt and\or absorb aspects of them seamlessly if required), you can't expect all development by all peoples and nations to tend towards the WDN model.

Moreso, trying to forcibly impose it where it is contrary to natal inclinations and tendencies is a recipe for disaster - like an organ transplant gone wrong.

DeepSight:
This is actually very true in a sense and if you cannot spot or understand exactly why it is true and exactly why it says alot against the argument that developing nations of today should magically photocopy the development of developed nations, then you dont know anything and you dont pause to think.

The reason why is because it is not natal. Part of the inherent consciousness derived from faith, history, tradition and customs.

DeepSight:
Of course, since in your mind they are incapable racially inferior savages. This statement, jocular or not, says a lot.

As ever, drop your strawmen and faux outrage. Not racially inferior, but savagery certainly exists does it not? And where does that emanate from. Why can Fula pastoralists casually slaughter people who look not too dissimilar and are racially pretty much equivalent?


TV

TV01:
A modern western style nation is native to those nations and the peoples of the west. I am not saying civilisation is beyond other peoples or nations, or what civilisation\development should or would look like in those other peoples or nations.

What I am saying is that like the Japanese society is an outworking of their unique history and traditions (and in some respects is like WDN and can readily adapt and\or absorb aspects of them seamlessly if required), you can't expect all development by all peoples and nations to tend towards the WDN model.

Moreso, trying to forcibly impose it where it is contrary to natal inclinations and tendencies is a recipe for disaster - like an organ transplant gone wrong.


The reason why is because it is not natal. Part of the inherent consciousness derived from faith, history, tradition and customs.

As ever, drop your strawmen and faux outrage. Not racially inferior, but savagery certainly exists does it not? And where does that emanate from. Why can Fula pastoralists casually slaughter people who look not too dissimilar and are racially pretty much equivalent?


TV

I enjoin you to join the treaty I have signed with basilico for reasonableness for one week, because I want to go exhaustive on this topic.

DeepSight:
Probably also imagines they invented gun powder or mathematics including algebra and calculus. For sure TV01 will imagine all that.

Whether WDN invented gunpowder or not does not matter. Nor who invented it first. Gunpowder was not a pivotal invention. The inherent consciousness of WDN means they would have got there under their own steam eventually. It takes a certain kind of dullness to claim invention for math


TV

DeepSight:
I enjoin you to join the treaty I have signed with basilico for reasonableness for one week, because I want to go exhaustive on this topic.

...I am always reasonable . Plus I am unable to commit to being or not being here for any length of time. I can commit to bursting your bubble when I come across you plaintive victim wailing and racism\supremacist mewling .


TV

There’s something seriously wrong with the mindset that somehow tries to justify childhood marriage. The solution to kids having sex is not marriage .

“Oh look a child is engaging in sexual activity before they are mature enough to understand the consequences. Let’s make things worse by forcing them into marriage which further seals their premature sexual behavior and further complicate their lives with all the strains that come with marriage”.

You simply don’t have to respond to everything on this thread. It’s okay to be like “wow that is terrible” and move on. You don’t have to twist yourself into unreasonable shapes in order to find something ridiculous to say.

basilico:
I may be wrong .
Democrats want to ban marriages in total before 18.
We know a lot of teens get children before 18. What happens in such cases. Democrats provide them with abortion options , govt funded abortions.
I may mention religious cultures that betroth their children when young.
Strictly what would encourage paedophilia. Abortions or bans in under 18 marriages.
There are those who insist on their 17 year olds who are already sexually active to get married instead of aborting. Many democrats and republican children are sexually active by 18 , especially those with absentee parents.

Personally I would never let my children get married before at least 20 years. I have said it , reluctantly I would raise any child they bring home, Let's face it , .It's a problem no parent wants to face at all .
I think it's a stretch calling those who voted no paedophiles.

TV01:
...I am always reasonable . Plus I am unable to commit to being or not being here for any length of time. I can commit to bursting your bubble when I come across you plaintive victim wailing and racism\supremacist mewling .


TV

Forget the timeframe then, and commit to the other terms.

- - - - - - ->

1. A serious, balanced sober and rational attempt shall be made to convey points of view on general issues under discussion on this thread.

2. Extremist positions shall be avoided

3. Racist posts, race baiting, race triggering insults, shall be avoided

4. A moratorium on adopted entrenched perceptions of one another being expressed in order to aid focus and reasoning.

5. A commitment to honestly answer simple questions rather than deflect or ignore them.

6. Mutual respect and humility.

7. Discussants shall strive to be studious, thoughtful and scholarly in their output.

Deal?

DeepSight:
No, tell me this is fiction. Please I beg you.

Not fiction. And the funny thing is the bill was sponsored by a senate and a house republican. Meaning that the rest of them couldn’t have use the excuse that democrats were hiding something in the bill to avoid voting yes on it. That used to be their favorite excuse whenever a democrat sponsored legislation was introduced.

This time two decent republicans sponsored this bill and 36 of them voted no. Maybe those two republicans are RINOs because they don’t want to see kids get married.

Cc basilico. Every single persons who voted against ending chile marriage was a republican. You can go find more long balderdash to try to justify the nonsense. But we see you guys. If it quacks like a duck

Kudos to the two decent guys who sponsored the bill and those who voted yes.

cococandy:
Not fiction. And the funny thing is the bill was sponsored by a senate and a house republican. Meaning that the rest of them couldn’t have use the excuse that democrats were hiding something in the bill to avoid voting yes on it. That used to be their favorite excuse whenever a democrat sponsored legislation was introduced.

This time two decent republicans sponsored this bill and 36 of them voted no. Maybe those two republicans are RINOs because they don’t want to see kids get married.

Cc basilico. Every single persons who voted against ending chile marriage was a republican. You can go find more long balderdash to try to justify the nonsense. But we see you guys. If it quacks like a duck

Kudos to the two decent guys who sponsored the bill and those who voted yes.

Incredible.

Reminds me of the Nigerian Senate when many northern senators cried blue murder and voted against the Child Rights Act saying it was un-Islamic for barring marriage to underage girls.