Genetically Superior Race Based Political Party. Their Own Words

Is there a song about murdering Black people you are not allowed to sing?
No, but the old flag is banned. A flag is banned, but a song about genocide isn't.
Sounds bad.

Have you tried reversing the effects of generations of Apartheid about it?
We had a deal. They got political control of the country, in exchange, we got to keep our land and our wealth.
 
No, but the old flag is banned. A flag is banned, but a song about genocide isn't.

We had a deal. They got political control of the country, in exchange, we got to keep our land and our wealth.

Thats such an absurdly good and unfair deal that you look petty moaning about some guys and their mean words.
 
Thats such an absurdly good and unfair deal that you look petty moaning about some guys and their mean words.
It was a completely fair deal. We had the political power, which they wanted. In exchange for giving it to them, they agreed not to go after our land or wealth.
 
Imagine how any Afrikaner political party that said "Afrikaners have a superior genetic makeup" would be pilloried for it...
They would be, and justly so.
The Maori get away with it, because they are unlikely to ever reach a position where they could become dangerous. In a perfectly just world, they should not be getting away with it, but in the real one, people have priorities.

That said, you come off as someone who isn't angry that they do it, but someone who is angry you can not copy them, which does not elicit much sympathy.
So what? What does it mean?

I've never been even anywhere on the African continent so I need some interpretation.
Would it have hindered your interpretation, had the court ruled "it is OK to chant "Kill the Jew"?

You're explicitly demonstrating the double standards @Uncle Paul resents.

I would have expected better of you.
 
It was a completely fair deal. We had the political power, which they wanted. In exchange for giving it to them, they agreed not to go after our land or wealth.

That is abuse of power.
 
They would be, and justly so.
The Maori get away with it, because they are unlikely to ever reach a position where they could become dangerous. In a perfectly just world, they should not be getting away with it, but in the real one, people have priorities.

That said, you come off as someone who isn't angry that they do it, but someone who is angry you can not copy them, which does not elicit much sympathy.

Would it have hindered your interpretation, had the court ruled "it is OK to chant "Kill the Jew"?

You're explicitly demonstrating the double standards @Uncle Paul resents.

I would have expected better of you.

Dude, you're criticizing me in the second half for kinda doing what you are in the first half??????
 
Dude, you're criticizing me in the second half for kinda doing what you are in the first half??????
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Generations of Apartheid or no, chants "kill the X" are a quintessential hate speech and should be denounced as such, regardless of who or why protests about them. Don't you agree?

EDIT: Moreover, unlike the Maori in NZ, blacks in SA are actually in a position where they could start genocide against whites, if such incitement becomes prevalent, so for a Boer it is hardly a distant or theoretical concern.
 
Last edited:
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Generations of Apartheid or no, chants "kill the X" are a quintessential hate speech and should be denounced as such, regardless of who or why protests about them. Don't you agree?
Well, it looks like you're criticizing your own opinions re: the Maori here, so you tell me?

(Edit: I kinda agree in fact but I'm very unconcerned by it when there is a massive material divide and inequality)
 
Well, it looks like you're criticizing your own opinions re: the Maori here, so you tell me?

(Edit: I kinda agree in fact but I'm very unconcerned by it when there is a massive material divide and inequality)
See my edit above.
Genocide is no solution for inequality.
Nor is inequality an excuse for violence when you have political power to remedy it in any other way you choose.
 
See my edit above.
Genocide is no solution for inequality.
Nor is inequality an excuse for violence when you have political power to remedy it in any other way you choose.

I agree that violence due to local or general societal breakdown is bad, and I'd think that those most invested in the existence of society (holders of wealth and property) should feel an extra onus in maintaining it.

It would surely be very shortsighted of them to play for keeps.
 
I agree that violence due to local or general societal breakdown is bad, and I'd think that those most invested in the existence of society (holders of wealth and property) should feel an extra onus in maintaining it.

It would surely be very shortsighted of them to play for keeps.
True, they should be and it would be.
However, ultimate responsibility for how the nation is doing lies with those who hold political power.
 
True, they should be and it would be.
However, ultimate responsibility for how the nation is doing lies with those who hold political power.
In Australia mining billionaires hold the power, any time either major party attempts to implement a policy reducing their profits the next election the billionaires fund the other major party win the election by a landslide. The mining industry uses its money to hold onto more power and wealth while the parties don’t want to upset them. What I’m trying to say is wealth and materials lead to a group gaining more power, not necessarily through directly corrupt means
 
Back
Top Bottom