WARNING: This is Version 1 of my old archive, so Photos will NOT work and many links will NOT work. But you can find articles by searching on the Titles. There is a lot of information in this archive. Use the SEARCH BAR at the top right. Prior to December 2012; I was a pro-Christian type of Conservative. I was unaware of the mass of Jewish lies in history, especially the lies regarding WW2 and Hitler. So in here you will find pro-Jewish and pro-Israel material. I was definitely WRONG about the Boeremag and Janusz Walus. They were for real.
Original Post Date: 2008-01-10 Time: 00:00:00 Posted By: Jan
I was chatting to a Liberal friend of mine on the weekend about blacks and bringing blacks into white society.
I told my friend that in many ways while I have certain conservative value, I have a lot of what you might call, “Classic Liberal” views. I do not believe in forcing other people to do what I want. I’m talking about the blacks now. I don’t believe in telling the blacks how to run their lives. They must make their own decisions. (The Israeli Jews by the way have a similar attitude to the Muslims who surround them).
A long time back, in about 1985-1987, I had arguments with co-workers in South Africa – whites, about this issue. I do not believe it is right, from a spiritual standpoint to force blacks to conform to our society. My feeling is based on this concept: If God gave man free will, then man must be allowed to use it. It is not for me to tell blacks how to think. I can give them ideas, input and discussion, but the final decision is theirs. I feel that I would be interfering with the will of God.
That said, I am all for giving people incentives to change their behaviour. I’m more of a believer in the carrot than the stick – when it comes to my FRIENDS! But for my enemies, I’m all for using the stick a-plenty if need be!!!
I have however hinted at using witchcraft and psychological trickery to control the blacks. That probably makes me something of a hypocrit. But, it could save a lot of WAR, CRIME and SUFFERING!!! But that’s another topic.
My Liberal friend was telling me Helen Suzman’s old ideas and the ideas on which the DA is based. He is always telling me that Liberalism and Nationalism are mutually exclusive and that the DA’s abandonment of some of its Liberal principles in favour of including some Nationalism (e.g. group rights), is not something that sits well with him.
The bottom line of my Liberal friend’s arguments, and this is what underlies ALL LIBERALISM in the USA, Europe and the South African version as espoused by the DA and Helen Suzman is this: If you free blacks, and you let them have all the opportunities which whites have then blacks will start behaving and assimilating white culture.
I am willing to admit that this is possible for a small part of the black population. There is a portion of the black population, a small part of it, who do have the same IQ as whites, and they fit in easily and easily, even WILLINGLY adopt white concepts.
But then there are the masses.
My friend argued that in South Africa blacks had never had opportunities to be truly free and to exercise self-governance. In my discussion, I forgot to point out to him that the Homeland system DID allow blacks a fully-blown chance to rule themselves. But I forgot to mention that.
We then spoke about “Classical Liberalism”, which did not allow universal suffrage, but which has standards. In that version you allow people people to vote once they have proven themselves competant.
By the way, my Liberal friend told me that Helen Suzman’s original vision back in the 1950’s was that you allow blacks to enter the system more and more until they have proven themselves to be “responsible and competant” and then you give them universal suffrage. I then asked my Liberal friend if, by 1994, the blacks of South Africa had proven themselves to be responsible and competant? He answered “No”. (I did not even have to remind him of their violence and revolution – of his own accord he acknowledged that they had done nothing to prove their competance).
Anyhow… when he spoke of blacks being educated and allowed to move into society and then to be given the vote based on meritocracy, I said to him: “We tried that in Rhodesia and it did not work.”
In Rhodesia there was a concept called “Voters Roll B”. I think Voters Roll A was for whites. Voters Roll B was what you might call, “Black Meritocracy”. In Rhodesia, blacks who had a certain level of education, and certain other qualifications, could then enroll on Voters Roll B where they could vote during elections. This existed in Ian Smith’s time.
I remember reading once, that in Rhodesia there were several tens of thousands of blacks who actually qualified for Voters Roll B, but only a small fraction of those who qualified actually made use of it.
So I then told my Liberal friend that meritocracy might not actually work as easily as you think given what happened with Voters Roll B. Those blacks who could vote might hold back for various reasons.
So its not a given that meritocracy will have the results Helen Suzman and other Liberals theorised.
I then mentioned to him, that everybody wants to be God. Everyone wants to have peace – BUT ONLY ON THEIR OWN TERMS. The white man, when he is in charge, offers the black man peace – on his own terms (e.g. Apartheid or Voters Roll B). When the black man is in power, he offers the white man peace – but only on his own terms (e.g. Where the white man will always remain a minority).
So it could be that people are only “magnanimous” when they’re winning. And everyone first wants to win before they offer “peace”.
I suspect that this is actually the way of the world, and has always been so.
Perhaps one day, one hopes that blacks will be more sane, and will more openly admit their own shortcomings and then one could have peace.
But at this time, I don’t see peace on the cards for anyone.
I think the racial wrangle is far from over. I think this, the 21st century, is going to be the time when white people everywhere start struggling to get back some of the position they FREELY GAVE AWAY – too generously perhaps.