Report: Troops Take Over Zimbabwe’s State Broadcaster

by Guest Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:14 am

Troops in Zimbabwe have reportedly taken over the country’s state broadcaster, and explosions have been reported in the capital city. The alleged incidents come amid a dispute between General Constantino Chiwenga, the leader of Zimbabwe’s army, and President Robert Mugabe. Chiwenga threatened to fight back against Mugabe after he ousted the country’s vice president. The U.S. State Department says it is “closely monitoring” the situation. Zimbabwe’s ambassador to South Africa has denied that a coup is underway, but Mugabe has been silent.

READ IT AT BBC NEWS

Night everyone

by Guest Wed Nov 15, 2017 9:00 am

Presumably the West will now attack Zimbabwe to rescue their golden boy of Africa

by Andy Wed Nov 15, 2017 9:02 am

You know him better than most Stench. You have had intimate relations with him.

by Guest Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:30 pm

Angry Andy wrote:You know him better than most Stench. You have had intimate relations with him.

Geography not your greatest strength I take it

by 'Wolfie Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:06 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Presumably the West will now attack Zimbabwe to rescue their golden boy of Africa

"their golden boy..." ???

Cecil Rhodes has been dead for a long time now, SmellyAfrikanerTrollski..

by Guest Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:34 pm

Western liberals put mugabe in power through regime change via sanctions.

Then they realised he was a monster but didn't care because a black monster is better than a white saint

by 'Wolfie Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:41 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Western liberals put mugabe in power through regime change via sanctions.

Then they realised he was a monster but didn't care because a black monster is better than a white saint

Nothing to do with "western liberals"...

Everything to do with capitalist bosses and their supplicant politicians mismanaging the situation..

by Guest Wed Nov 15, 2017 6:37 pm

Apparently Zimbabwe is a capitalist success story

by 'Wolfie Thu Nov 16, 2017 4:54 am

Mugabe's Zimbabwe showed us the results of unregulated "robber baron" capitalist "cronyism" at its best...

Kick out (or kill off..) any existing farmers who seemed to be making a go of it -- even those locals who were working successfully as sharefarmers, farm managers or even small farm owners;

Hand those farms over to inexperienced supporters and fellow thugs, mostly criminals and many of them who had come from a couple of neighbouring countries to support Mugabe's efforts..

And Zimbabwe/Rhodesia's agricutural production plummetted over 90% over the next couple of decades. Dragging Zimbabwe down from a "food bowl" exporter to a net food importer..

Pure "laissez faire" free market capitalism -- Robert Mugabe style...

by Guest Thu Nov 16, 2017 6:21 am

It's ok.

Only white farmers got killed and the land went back to the rightful owners

A good result. It's what the liberals wanted isn't it?? Zimbabwe under black ownership without whites??

Well they sure got what you white liberals wanted for them, not sure how thankful they are though, what with blacks being so ungrateful all the damn time

by 'Wolfie Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:39 am

smelly-bandit wrote:It's ok.

Only white farmers got killed and the land went back to the rightful owners

Afraid not, Smelly -- the land wasn't returned to the original owners (from whom British interests had stolen it..); nor even the native farm workers and managers there at the time -- but rather, Mugabe gave those farms to his criminal cohorts, most of whom weren't even indigenous to that country, either.

A good result. It's what the liberals wanted isn't it?? Zimbabwe under black ownership without whites??

No, it wasn't what any genuine "liberals" wanted Smelly..
You don't actually know any "liberals", do you Smelly !?!

Well they sure got what you white liberals wanted for them, not sure how thankful they are though, what with blacks being so ungrateful all the damn time

I'm not a "white liberal", supporting RW African dictators, SmellyDumbTwatski..
You really don't have a clue, do you !

by Guest Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:46 am

Lol

Mugabe a right wing dictator??

Didn't know Marxism was a RW ideology

Oh dear, the liberals really don't like having their failures dammed down their throats.

Well a good result, loads of whites dead and gone and black Zimbabwe a basket case.

It would appear that the great white liberal project failed to deliver.

Having buyers remorse??

I wonder if the white liberals who crowned mugabe King of Zimbabwe think their beloved blacks are better off under their chosen champion or if white rule was better??

No, come on smelly snap out of it, nothing is worse than white rule, not even having to eat grass and roots, just so long as it's only the blacks who have to eat it, white liberals in the West dine on cuisine whilst applauding the blacks on their Zimbabwean utopia

by 'Wolfie Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:54 am

Report: Troops Take Over Zimbabwe’s State Broadcaster 3489511464

There was no "great white liberal project"...

There has never been any sign of any socialist agendas in Zimbabwe..

There has never been any rational or reasoned management in Zimbabwe -- that disappeared when the extreme-RW Mugabe took control; handing control to gangsters and insurgents within his own gang..

Mugabe is not a "Marxist", no matter how much Smelly' may try to portray him as such...

Mugabe has always been an extreme-RW dictator, backed by a handful of multinational corporations who believed they could profit from dealing with a despotic dictator..

SmellyDumbTwatski's idiotic revisionist take on Zimbabwe's short history only goes to prove further how clueless he is in regards to politics and economic realities.

by Guest Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:02 am

an African nationalist, during the 1970s and 1980s he identified as a Marxist-Leninist although after the 1990s self-identified only as a socialist; his policies have been described as Mugabeism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mugabe

Never mind wolfie, when the fact get in the way just ignore them

by 'Wolfie Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:19 am

Report: Troops Take Over Zimbabwe’s State Broadcaster 1177314732

You really are one useless fucktard, Smelly'...

Tyranical and greedy corporation-backed despots can label themselves anything they want.. That doesn't necessarily make it so.

Mugabe always had more in common with other RW dictators, than he he ever did with genuine "Marxist", "Leninist", "Stalinist" or "Maoist" communist regimes..

Just look at you, Smelly -- you like to portray yourself as an intelligent and 'street smart' attack helicopter, and a self-proclaimed master of pisstakes -- but the sad reality proves otherwise. tongue

by Guest Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:22 am

So a white supremacist who calls himself a white supremacist could in reality be a ln equal rights campaigner.

Next time you call someone a racist ill remind you that just because you call them a racist doesn't mean they are

by 'Wolfie Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:52 am

smelly-bandit wrote:
So a white supremacist who calls himself a white supremacist could in reality be a ln equal rights campaigner.

Next time you call someone a racist ill remind you that just because you call them a racist doesn't mean they are

Actions speak louder than words, SmellySnowflakeDumbski...

And long-term posting patterns and attacks on others by such as yourself can usually prove what kind of a person you are..

I only call out the racists on here when I see them posting racially-based nonsense -- the sad fact that some of you fragile little snowflakes can't handle such real world truths says more about you, then it does about me !

by Guest Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:18 am

Lol

If Robert_Mugabe mugabe who calls HIMSELF a Marxist isn't a Marxist because it buggers up your argument then I don't think we should be paying too much attention to you when you accuse others of racism or anything else for that matter.

How to lose your credibility 101 lessons via wolfie

by Guest Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:14 pm

STEPHEN GLOVER: How obscene that even today Mugabe's many British apologists call him a 'freedom fighter'...

The forced removal from power of 93-year-old Robert Mugabe should be cause for celebration, since he has been one of the wickedest despots on earth, who in his 37-year rule brought the once prosperous country of Zimbabwe close to ruin.

But unfortunately he seems likely to be succeeded by his former collaborator and Marxist comrade-in-arms, Emmerson Mnangagwa, who until last week was Vice-President. This man is probably as brutal, nasty and tyrannical as Mugabe.

So it grieves me to say that the future for Zimbabwe — the former British colony of Rhodesia — looks as grim today as it did before the army coup against Mugabe. The head of the army, General Chiwenga, is another very unpleasant piece of work.

How did it happen that a country which was once a net exporter of food has been reduced to its pitiable state by self-serving and corrupt politicians who live like kings while some of their people starve, and 90 per cent are unemployed?

The answer to that question is that we, the British, nurtured and succoured Mugabe. He is our creation. Yet there is a widespread view, which must be debunked, that the man was not always a monster, and only became so when left to his own devices.

In the space of a few minutes on Radio 4 yesterday morning, Mugabe was three times described as a 'former freedom-fighter'. Then the Tory MP Nicholas Soames asserted that for a number of years after becoming leader of Zimbabwe in 1980 he had behaved quite well but changed later for the worse. Both notions are utterly wrong.

In truth, Mugabe was always a brute, and he was a terrorist not a 'freedom-fighter'. And almost from the moment he achieved power, he continued in his old ways of murdering his opponents.

But why should anyone be surprised? During the war against Ian Smith's white-minority Rhodesian government in the Seventies, Mugabe's troops were guilty of numerous terrorist atrocities

In particular, they targeted — which means they killed — white missionaries in the belief that such acts of terror would subjugate rural blacks to their cause. At least 33 missionaries and members of their families were murdered.

In one gruesome incident in June 1978, Mugabe's terrorists — not 'freedom-fighters' — axed, bayonetted and clubbed eight British missionaries and four of their children in eastern Rhodesia. Of five women, most were sexually assaulted before they were killed, and one was mutilated.

After Mugabe became prime minister following the Lancaster House Agreement brokered by the British government, he set about eliminating his enemies.In 1983, a campaign of terror was launched against the Matabele people in western Zimbabwe.

The 'crime' of the Matabele, in Mugabe's mind, was that many of them supported his Matabele rival, Joshua Nkomo. An estimated 20,000 people were slaughtered by Mugabe's Fifth Brigade, which had been trained by North Korea.

So when Nicholas Soames implies all was reasonably hunky-dory until Mugabe started confiscating white-owned farms around the year 2000, he is talking nonsense. I suppose he is seeking to defend his father, Christopher, who was briefly Governor of Rhodesia while the Lancaster House Agreement was implemented

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-5087349/Mugabe-s-British-apologists-call-freedom-fighter.html

by Guest Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:15 pm

Time for white western liberals to accept their guilt

by 'Wolfie Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:24 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:

Time for white western liberals to accept their guilt

Fuck off geranium...

No matter how many times you fucking nazi pricks keep spouting your lies, you can't change the basic facts..

* Mugabe has nothing to do with "white western liberals";

* Mugabe is not a "Marxist", a "socialist" nor a "left winger"..

* Citing a fellow nazi geranium writing in the most right-wing neo-nazi rag in Britain can not be considered a reputable reference to back your neo-nazi revisionism.

by Guest Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:38 pm

How many backs have been murdered by the white liberals golden boy mugabe??

How many whites have die in the name of black Marxism

Nazism killed millions

Socialism kills millions

But liberals are the true genocidal killers

by Original Quill Thu Nov 16, 2017 3:39 pm

sb wrote:Socialism kills millions

Really? Millions? How can an economic program kill anyone?

What kills people are men and gunpowder. It's nothing to do with economic plans.

by nicko Thu Nov 16, 2017 3:49 pm

Quite a few starved to death in socialist Russia under their economic planes, The same in a few other countries, didn't you know that?

by Raggamuffin Thu Nov 16, 2017 3:57 pm

Mugabe has been pursuing racist policies, so who cares? Whoever succeeds him should think about that.

by Guest Thu Nov 16, 2017 4:06 pm

Original Quill wrote:
sb wrote:Socialism kills millions

Really? Millions? How can an economic program kill anyone?

What kills people are men and gunpowder. It's nothing to do with economic plans.

Unless they are trumps economic plans tight??

by Original Quill Thu Nov 16, 2017 5:32 pm

nicko wrote:Quite a few starved to death in socialist Russia under their economic planes, The same in a few other countries, didn't you know that?

But that's the point: Russia was never socialist, but Bolshevik. Had the Mensheviks won out, they might have implemented a socialist regime. But alas, the Bolsheviks prevailed and a totalitarian system resulted.

sb wrote:Unless they are trumps economic plans tight??

Trump has no plans. He can't seem to get anything through Congress. Alas, he's a conservative, not a thinker.

And Russ...you need to bone up on your own Russian history. Oh that's right...you're former east German.

by Guest Thu Nov 16, 2017 6:24 pm

Original Quill wrote:
nicko wrote:Quite a few starved to death in socialist Russia under their economic planes, The same in a few other countries, didn't you know that?

But that's the point: Russia was never socialist, but Bolshevik. Had the Mensheviks won out, they might have implemented a socialist regime. But alas, the Bolsheviks prevailed and a totalitarian system resulted.

sb wrote:Unless they are trumps economic plans tight??

Trump has no plans. He can't seem to get anything through Congress. Alas, he's a conservative, not a thinker.

And Russ...you need to bone up on your own Russian history. Oh that's right...you're former east German.

You know that goebbels operated on the principle of repetition

by Guest Thu Nov 16, 2017 6:34 pm

Original Quill wrote:
sb wrote:Socialism kills millions

Really? Millions? How can an economic program kill anyone?

What kills people are men and gunpowder. It's nothing to do with economic plans.

Socialism has been the cause of Millions murdered, because socialism can only function, when its in Totalitarian form

To say Communism was not socialism, is basically the worst apologist bullshit answer going

by Original Quill Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:22 pm

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Really? Millions? How can an economic program kill anyone?

What kills people are men and gunpowder. It's nothing to do with economic plans.

Socialism has been the cause of Millions murdered, because socialism can only function, when its in Totalitarian form

To say Communism was not socialism, is basically the worst apologist bullshit answer going

You speak from ignorance, didge. Or, to be blunt, but kind, you don't know shit about socialism. To group 300-years of political/economic thinking together, and call it all the same, is shear ignorance.

Socialism has to do with neither the Soviet Union nor the Nazi Third Reich. That is all part of the propaganda lies told during the Cold War--which is where you get your ideas. Even Marx said before his death in 1883, the closest thing to what he had in mind was the United Kingdom. France had regressed since the Paris Commune (1871), and Germany and Russia weren't ready.

Marx believed in a form of evolution known as dialectical materialism. To him, economics was a science, not an artifice. Things had to happen naturally, and couldn't be created artificially. It was because Russia had yet to go through a real industrial stage that the Soviet Union was not ready. Lenin's answer was to force it by leap-frogging into an industrial stage equivalent to Britain.

Thus: the Bulshevik state--which Stalin took by the horns and man-handled (the economy) into modernity and industrialism. Stalin could never have done this with socialism, as socialism depended upon a natural evolution. Politically, it required an authoritarian, totalitarian system. That is the very antithesis of socialism. Russia's soviet system was more in keeping with the Czarist authoritarian scheme, and there's your link to the many deaths that occurred during that period.

China's Mao adopted the Leninist/Stalinist management system, only he adapted it to an agrarian society. Same problems; same results. Other regimes that have followed reflect further deterioration of the forced, totalitarian state.

Marx would have said: I told you so... Forcing industrialism was a lot like the old alchemists, who tried to transform lead into gold. When it's scientific, it has to happen according to the laws of nature. You can't force it.

The Soviets and China were more like the alchemists, than Marx. Just as lead won't turn into gold, totalitarianism won't result in socialism. You can't blame gold, for lead being lead; and you can't blame socialism, for totalitarianism being totalitarianism.

by Guest Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:47 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:

Socialism has been the cause of Millions murdered, because socialism can only function, when its in Totalitarian form

To say Communism was not socialism, is basically the worst apologist bullshit answer going

You speak from ignorance, didge. Or, to be blunt, but kind, you don't know shit about socialism. To group 300-years of political/economic thinking together, and call it all the same, is shear ignorance.
Didge wrote:ad hominem and drivel

Socialism has to do with neither the Soviet Union nor the Nazi Third Reich. That is all part of the propaganda lies told during the Cold War--which is where you get your ideas. Even Marx said before his death in 1883, the closest thing to what he had in mind was the United Kingdom. France had regressed since the Paris Commune (1871), and Germany and Russia weren't ready.
Didge wrote:More drivel, igrnoing historical facts, that Stalinism and Lenism, both derive from Marxism,
and have many socialist tenants in their ideologies

Marx believed in a form of evolution known as dialectical materialism. To him, economics was a science, not an artifice. Things had to happen naturally, and couldn't be created artificially. It was because Russia had yet to go through a real industrial stage that the Soviet Union was not ready. Lenin's answer was to force it by leap-frogging into an industrial stage equivalent to Britain.
Didge wrote:So you are basing this not on the many forms of socialism, but what you want it to be in order to present your apologist drivel

Thus: .

Yep I ended you there

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

Read the parts on ideologies

Its bad enough there is holocaust denialists.

I mean it would be like someone saying Hitlers Nazism, was not true national socialism and yet Nazism derives from National socialis. But hey, there is always people in the world that wish to deny the truth and facts, as they are apologists as you are quill..

by Original Quill Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:22 pm

Wikipedia, like you, suffers from adopting Cold War idioms. The errors keep compounding.

I don't own the problem.

by Guest Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:27 pm

Original Quill wrote:Wikipedia, like you, suffers from adopting Cold War idioms. The errors keep compounding.

I don't own the problem.

It lists links to many articles which rubbish your apologism

Let alone the fact I know you are taking rubbish, of which I have proved countless times on this topic

by Original Quill Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:13 pm

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:Wikipedia, like you, suffers from adopting Cold War idioms. The errors keep compounding.

I don't own the problem.

It lists links to many articles which rubbish your apologism

Let alone the fact I know you are taking rubbish, of which I have proved countless times on this topic

You don't know anything, substantively, about the subject. But you make a good point that the errors have crept into the language the common people use.

But that just means that there's no there, there. What good is it to talk about an idea that never was, or to shout at your own shadow? What are you going to do? Go about making colossal and costly blunders, to prove in the end there was no content? Or waste your time on websites shouting at people who know better than you.

Drop it, or learn for yourself. Here's some references: von Mises, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis; Hoppe, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism; Harrington, Socialism: Past and Future; and Harrington, Socialism. And for a chronological presentation, Geo. Lichtheim, A Short History of Socialism.

Good luck.

by Guest Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:27 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:

It lists links to many articles which rubbish your apologism

Let alone the fact I know you are taking rubbish, of which I have proved countless times on this topic

You don't know anything, substantively, about the subject.

Well on history I have repeatedly shown you up. That is your failing not mine and I also do not make poor apologist revisionist crap up as you constantly do. Your worst arguiment being that Roosevelt engineered Japan to attack the US. A conspiracly load of claptrap I easily disproved.

You want to disassociate the countless crimes by nations under socialism.

That is apologism and trying to deny the reality of the links with socialism

I have read many books on both polictical sides on socialism, you though only read what you want to read and thus never actually learn.

Hence your poor apoologism demonstrated here.

The reality here is that Stalin, Lenin formed Communism from Maxism and its principles.

It is your failing

by Original Quill Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:34 pm

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

You don't know anything, substantively, about the subject.

Well on history I have repeatedly shown you up. That is your failing not mine and I also do not make poor apologist revionist crap up as you constantly do.

You want to disassociate the countless crimes by nations under socialism.

I have read many books on both polictical sides on socialism, you though only read what you want to read and thus never actually learn.

Hence your poor apoologism demonstrated here.

The reality here is that Stalin, Lenin formed Communism for Maxism and its principles.

It is your failing

What on earth is "Maxism"? And when did Stalin and Lenin "form" communism? You're embarrassing yourself, didge.

You know nothing about history, as it's been revealed. What are you...a phlebotomist at some health center? That's a worthy enough occupation. Don't try to be what you are not.

by Guest Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:37 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:

Well on history I have repeatedly shown you up. That is your failing not mine and I also do not make poor apologist revionist crap up as you constantly do.

You want to disassociate the countless crimes by nations under socialism.

I have read many books on both polictical sides on socialism, you though only read what you want to read and thus never actually learn.

Hence your poor apoologism demonstrated here.

The reality here is that Stalin, Lenin formed Communism for Maxism and its principles.

It is your failing

What on earth is "Maxism"? And when did Stalin and Lenin "form" communism? You're embarrassing yourself, didge.

You know nothing about history, as it's been revealed. What are you...a phlebotomist at some health center? That's a worthy enough occupation. Don't try to be what you are not.

At yet more ad hominem

I meant marxism

Easily done, but is this all you can do, go off a typo?

Lol

Good luck with that

May I suggest night college, in order to gain some education on the subject

Good luck

by 'Wolfie Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:40 am

smelly-bandit wrote:
How many backs have been murdered by the white liberals golden boy mugabe??

How many whites have die in the name of black Marxism

Nazism killed millions

Socialism kills millions

But liberals are the true genocidal killers

Fuck off back to your basement, SmellyRacistTrollBumski'...

And take your revisionist crap with you...

by 'Wolfie Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:44 am

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Really? Millions? How can an economic program kill anyone?

What kills people are men and gunpowder. It's nothing to do with economic plans.

Socialism has been the cause of Millions murdered, because socialism can only function, when its in Totalitarian form

To say Communism was not socialism, is basically the worst apologist bullshit answer going

You're the one spouting bullshit over economic systems, Dodge...

I suggest you revisit 'Economics 101' -- basic definitions and principles..

by Original Quill Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:48 am

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

What on earth is "Maxism"? And when did Stalin and Lenin "form" communism? You're embarrassing yourself, didge.

You know nothing about history, as it's been revealed. What are you...a phlebotomist at some health center? That's a worthy enough occupation. Don't try to be what you are not.

At yet more ad hominem

I meant marxism

Easily done, but is this all you can do, go off a typo?

Lol

Good luck with that

May I suggest night college, in order to gain some education on the subject

Good luck

Blah, blah, blah, blah...

by Guest Fri Nov 17, 2017 1:11 pm

Anyway

Back to the issue

The liberals golden champion of black rule has turned out to be total fucking disaster.

Rich white liberals should be taxed heavily to pay the Zimbabwean people for their vile racism, for what else can it be??

The white liberals placed a genocidal maniac in power to kill blacks on their behalf, white liberals don't like getting their hands bloody, better to use a proxy for that,what could be more racist??

Fucking white liberal scum have a lot to answer for

by Guest Fri Nov 17, 2017 1:19 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:Anyway

Back to the issue

The liberals golden champion of black rule has turned out to be total fucking disaster.

Rich white liberals should be taxed heavily to pay the Zimbabwean people for their vile racism, for what else can it be??

The white liberals placed a genocidal maniac in power to kill blacks on their behalf, white liberals don't like getting their hands bloody, better to use a proxy for that,what could be more racist??

Fucking white liberal scum have a lot to answer for

He won a democratic election in 1980

So no Liberals placed him power.

I do love your revisionist history

So sadly that country has sufffered under racist whites in the past for decades and then racist blacks in the last few decades.

by Guest Fri Nov 17, 2017 1:22 pm

Didge wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:Anyway

Back to the issue

The liberals golden champion of black rule has turned out to be total fucking disaster.

Rich white liberals should be taxed heavily to pay the Zimbabwean people for their vile racism, for what else can it be??

The white liberals placed a genocidal maniac in power to kill blacks on their behalf, white liberals don't like getting their hands bloody, better to use a proxy for that,what could be more racist??

Fucking white liberal scum have a lot to answer for

He won a democratic election in 1980

So no Liberals placed him power.

I do love your revisionist history

So sadly that country has sufffered under racist whites in the past for decades and then racist blacks in the last few decades.

Liberals supported him, they sanctioned Rhodesia and forced they to concede.

Liberals put mugabe in power

by Guest Fri Nov 17, 2017 1:33 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Didge wrote:

He won a democratic election in 1980

So no Liberals placed him power.

I do love your revisionist history

So sadly that country has sufffered under racist whites in the past for decades and then racist blacks in the last few decades.

Liberals supported him, they sanctioned Rhodesia and forced they to concede.

Liberals put mugabe in power

So you think we should have supported Racist Rhodesia then?

Sadly the country changed from one set of racism, to another.

by Guest Fri Nov 17, 2017 1:45 pm

Didge wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

Liberals supported him, they sanctioned Rhodesia and forced they to concede.

Liberals put mugabe in power

So you think we should have supported Racist Rhodesia then?

Sadly the country changed from one set of racism, to another.

Racist Rhodesia??

Why were they racist??

Oh wait you're a liberal, being white for you is automatically being racist Rolling Eyes

by Guest Fri Nov 17, 2017 1:53 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Didge wrote:

So you think we should have supported Racist Rhodesia then?

Sadly the country changed from one set of racism, to another.

Racist Rhodesia??

Why were they racist??

Oh wait you're a liberal, being white for you is automatically being racist

Where did i claim being white is automatically being racist?

Why are you racist?

Simple because you think humans are seperated bilogically into seperate races and you think some are inferior.

Basically you were educated on ignorance

by Guest Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:11 pm

Didge wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

Racist Rhodesia??

Why were they racist??

Oh wait you're a liberal, being white for you is automatically being racist

Where did i claim being white is automatically being racist?

Why are you racist?

Simple because you think humans are seperated bilogically into seperate races and you think some are inferior.

Basically you were educated on ignorance

I'm not racist

I'm a realist who doesn't subscribe to the head in sand political correctness ideology you do.

Humans are biologically different, all of humanity accepts this fact.

Ever heard the term "ethnic minority" is a pc term used to describe people who aren't white

How about POC?? Liberals and SJW'S use that to describe non whites

Everyone knows that humanity is devided into different races, for God's sakes all you liberals do is bang on about your love of diversity.

And some races ARE inferior to others, why is black Africa so far behind everyone else?

Why are we seeing a plague creep it's way across Africa, because backward savages in Madagascar dig up their dead relatives each year and go dancing with them.

They ARE inferior, you want to pretend that dancing with corpses is the done thing??? Crack on, modern medicine will leave you far behind

by Guest Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:23 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Didge wrote:

Where did i claim being white is automatically being racist?

Why are you racist?

Simple because you think humans are seperated bilogically into seperate races and you think some are inferior.

Basically you were educated on ignorance

I'm not racist

I'm a realist who doesn't subscribe to the head in sand political correctness ideology you do.

Humans are biologically different, all of humanity accepts this fact.

Ever heard the term "ethnic minority" is a pc term used to describe people who aren't white

How about POC?? Liberals and SJW'S use that to describe non whites

Everyone knows that humanity is devided into different races, for God's sakes all you liberals do is bang on about your love of diversity.

And some races ARE inferior to others, why is black Africa so far behind everyone else?

Why are we seeing a plague creep it's way across Africa, because backward savages in Madagascar dig up their dead relatives each year and go dancing with them.

They ARE inferior, you want to pretend that dancing with corpses is the done thing??? Crack on, modern medicine will leave you far behind

Oh dear, yes all humans are individually different in very minor ways.

There is no such thing as biological races within humans

Well I am classed ther label white and am from two ethnic minority groups.

So your understanding of ethnic minority clearly needs educating.

Like for example Jews are an ethnic minority.

So are the Irish

Everyone knows that races within humans is a social construct

Well at one time in history Africa was more advanced than the west.

Tell me smelly how did you get to know the many things you know today?

Was it because you had access to an education?

An education that came in reality from a minor amount of individuals that have advanced societies?

So you just proved you are racist, by classing one set of people based on where they either live or have ancestry from.

So based on your reasoning and Aparthied, the Holocaust and countless other eras in history of white genocide and oppression. Surely your reasoning would make whites savage, yes?

You see it does not matter skin colour. Some no matter what varying skin tones can obtain power and abuse that with violence.

The reality is the more access to education people have, and the more you combat relative poverty, the better chances you have of decreasing crime and problems

How does your relative ignorance deal with the reality of those classed as Blacks, who are geniuses?

I mean surely this would be impossible based on your claim to those labelled black as being inferior?

by Guest Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:45 pm

No didge whites aren't savages.

Perhaps your outrage comes from not understanding what the word savage means??

White have killed lots of people, but so have Arabic Muslims, so did genghis khan. All empires kill people didge, we aren't talking about empires and who has the bigger body count.

We are taking about the racial differences between humans.

I can't stop you from pretending that you cannot see any difference between a Somalian and a Norwegian

Again I didn't say all blacks are inferior to all whites, I am saying that the black race is generally inferior to the white race

One just has to look at the achievements of both races to see this is fact

Black geniuses are nothing special, gifted individuals exist in all walks of life and across all the races, just as criminals do

Black geniuses however will no doubt have been educated under white institutions.

by Guest Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:53 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:No didge whites aren't savages.

Perhaps your outrage comes from not understanding what the word savage means??

White have killed lots of people, but so have Arabic Muslims, so did genghis khan. All empires kill people didge, we aren't talking about empires and who has the bigger body count.

We are taking about the racial differences between humans.

I can't stop you from pretending that you cannot see any difference between a Somalian and a Norwegian

Again I didn't say all blacks are inferior to all whites, I am saying that the black race is generally inferior to the white race

One just has to look at the achievements of both races to see this is fact

Black geniuses are nothing special, gifted individuals exist in all walks of life and across all the races, just as criminals do

Black geniuses however will no doubt have been educated under white institutions.

You think experiments on humans and babies in Auschwitz is not savage?

Arabs are also classed as Caucasions, thus a label of white, which is not boding your argument well then is it?

So what is the difference biologically between a Norwegian and a Somalian, other than skin definition and minor facial differnces. The later again different in any individual Somallian and Norwegian?

Achievements you say?

Slavery?

Is that an achievement?

So the bases for your argument is not what you and billions of people have done, but a few innovative people who helped further advance societies?

You then say generally inferior and do this off achievements you wish to claim for yourself and countless other billions of people?

So are you going to claim the Great Pyramid of Giza, as a white accomplishment or an Egyptian accomplishment?

How about the invention of electricity?

Was this down to white people or one or two individuals?

Do you see how utterly and absurd your reasoning is, where you want to hijack the achievements of a few innovative people and make a really dumb racist argument?

Now again, the only way those labelled black, could be inferior to what we class as white, would require all those black to be inferior in every single capacity on every thing. Biologically, mentally, artsically etc?

Can you back that claim?

by Sponsored content