I just watched a very powerful documentary about the South African farm murders that have aroused a flurry of controversy in the legacy media in
the US lately. Frankly, I'm surprised YouTube allowed it, knowing how squeamish they are about violence. You are warned that there will be
horrific details about what criminals have done to whites AND blacks in
these farm attacks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjBu6VZWE7k [68 minutes]
This is not a new documentary - it was made in 2018 - but it got the journalist in serious trouble with the South African authorities when
she tried to leave, as she recounts in the closing minutes of the film.
This film will go a long way to demonstrating that this is not a new
problem: farmers and their employees have been getting tortured,
murdered, raped and killed for years now. It just hasn't crossed the
radar of most Westerners because our media follow other stories. (I also suspect they secretly wanted the world to believe that South Africans
all lived happily ever after when apartheid ended and didn't want to undermine that narrative.)
On 5/24/2025 9:57 PM, Rhino wrote:
I just watched a very powerful documentary about the South African
farm murders that have aroused a flurry of controversy in the legacy
media in the US lately. Frankly, I'm surprised YouTube allowed it,
knowing how squeamish they are about violence. You are warned that
there will be horrific details about what criminals have done to
whites AND blacks in these farm attacks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjBu6VZWE7k [68 minutes]
This is not a new documentary - it was made in 2018 - but it got the
journalist in serious trouble with the South African authorities when
she tried to leave, as she recounts in the closing minutes of the film.
This film will go a long way to demonstrating that this is not a new
problem: farmers and their employees have been getting tortured,
murdered, raped and killed for years now. It just hasn't crossed the
radar of most Westerners because our media follow other stories. (I
also suspect they secretly wanted the world to believe that South
Africans all lived happily ever after when apartheid ended and didn't
want to undermine that narrative.)
Has the end of a civil strife ever precipitated a 'happily ever after'?
On 2025-05-24 10:22 PM, moviePig wrote:
On 5/24/2025 9:57 PM, Rhino wrote:
I just watched a very powerful documentary about the South African
farm murders that have aroused a flurry of controversy in the legacy
media in the US lately. Frankly, I'm surprised YouTube allowed it,
knowing how squeamish they are about violence. You are warned that
there will be horrific details about what criminals have done to
whites AND blacks in these farm attacks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjBu6VZWE7k [68 minutes]
This is not a new documentary - it was made in 2018 - but it got the
journalist in serious trouble with the South African authorities when
she tried to leave, as she recounts in the closing minutes of the film.
This film will go a long way to demonstrating that this is not a new
problem: farmers and their employees have been getting tortured,
murdered, raped and killed for years now. It just hasn't crossed the
radar of most Westerners because our media follow other stories. (I
also suspect they secretly wanted the world to believe that South
Africans all lived happily ever after when apartheid ended and didn't
want to undermine that narrative.)
Has the end of a civil strife ever precipitated a 'happily ever after'?
Philosophical posturing aside, how many stories have YOU heard in our
legacy media about South Africa since apartheid ended? Why do you
suppose that is?
On Sat, 24 May 2025 23:28:36 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2025-05-24 10:22 PM, moviePig wrote:
On 5/24/2025 9:57 PM, Rhino wrote:
I just watched a very powerful documentary about the South African
farm murders that have aroused a flurry of controversy in the legacy
media in the US lately. Frankly, I'm surprised YouTube allowed it,
knowing how squeamish they are about violence. You are warned that
there will be horrific details about what criminals have done to
whites AND blacks in these farm attacks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjBu6VZWE7k [68 minutes]
This is not a new documentary - it was made in 2018 - but it got the
journalist in serious trouble with the South African authorities when
she tried to leave, as she recounts in the closing minutes of the film. >>>>
This film will go a long way to demonstrating that this is not a new
problem: farmers and their employees have been getting tortured,
murdered, raped and killed for years now. It just hasn't crossed the
radar of most Westerners because our media follow other stories. (I
also suspect they secretly wanted the world to believe that South
Africans all lived happily ever after when apartheid ended and didn't
want to undermine that narrative.)
Has the end of a civil strife ever precipitated a 'happily ever after'?
Philosophical posturing aside, how many stories have YOU heard in our
legacy media about South Africa since apartheid ended? Why do you
suppose that is?
Legacy media? Not many because it's not a concern to the daily lives
of their viewers and that is all that really matters to them. I did
know about as it was brought up over the years in other media like on
the social platforms. Not that it ever got enough attention to make a difference but it wasn't unmentioned.
Sat, 24 May 2025 23:28:36 -0400, Rhino <no_offline_contat@example.com>:
On 2025-05-24 10:22 PM, moviePig wrote:
On 5/24/2025 9:57 PM, Rhino wrote:
I just watched a very powerful documentary about the South African
farm murders that have aroused a flurry of controversy in the legacy >>>>media in the US lately. Frankly, I'm surprised YouTube allowed it, >>>>knowing how squeamish they are about violence. You are warned that >>>>there will be horrific details about what criminals have done to
whites AND blacks in these farm attacks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjBu6VZWE7k [68 minutes]
This is not a new documentary - it was made in 2018 - but it got the >>>>journalist in serious trouble with the South African authorities when >>>>she tried to leave, as she recounts in the closing minutes of the film.
This film will go a long way to demonstrating that this is not a new >>>>problem: farmers and their employees have been getting tortured, >>>>murdered, raped and killed for years now. It just hasn't crossed the >>>>radar of most Westerners because our media follow other stories. (I >>>>also suspect they secretly wanted the world to believe that South >>>>Africans all lived happily ever after when apartheid ended and didn't >>>>want to undermine that narrative.)
Has the end of a civil strife ever precipitated a 'happily ever after'?
Philosophical posturing aside, how many stories have YOU heard in our >>legacy media about South Africa since apartheid ended? Why do you
suppose that is?
Legacy media? Not many because it's not a concern to the daily lives
of their viewers and that is all that really matters to them. I did
know about as it was brought up over the years in other media like on
the social platforms. Not that it ever got enough attention to make a >difference but it wasn't unmentioned.
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
Sat, 24 May 2025 23:28:36 -0400, Rhino <no_offline_contat@example.com>:
On 2025-05-24 10:22 PM, moviePig wrote:
On 5/24/2025 9:57 PM, Rhino wrote:
I just watched a very powerful documentary about the South African
farm murders that have aroused a flurry of controversy in the legacy >>>>> media in the US lately. Frankly, I'm surprised YouTube allowed it,
knowing how squeamish they are about violence. You are warned that
there will be horrific details about what criminals have done to
whites AND blacks in these farm attacks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjBu6VZWE7k [68 minutes]
This is not a new documentary - it was made in 2018 - but it got the >>>>> journalist in serious trouble with the South African authorities when >>>>> she tried to leave, as she recounts in the closing minutes of the film.
This film will go a long way to demonstrating that this is not a new >>>>> problem: farmers and their employees have been getting tortured,
murdered, raped and killed for years now. It just hasn't crossed the >>>>> radar of most Westerners because our media follow other stories. (I
also suspect they secretly wanted the world to believe that South
Africans all lived happily ever after when apartheid ended and didn't >>>>> want to undermine that narrative.)
Has the end of a civil strife ever precipitated a 'happily ever after'?
Philosophical posturing aside, how many stories have YOU heard in our
legacy media about South Africa since apartheid ended? Why do you
suppose that is?
Legacy media? Not many because it's not a concern to the daily lives
of their viewers and that is all that really matters to them. I did
know about as it was brought up over the years in other media like on
the social platforms. Not that it ever got enough attention to make a
difference but it wasn't unmentioned.
BBC would have reported on South Africa and Reuters would have
distributed stories from South Africa. If someone in America were
looking for the stories, they could have found them easily enough, but
no, they wouldn't have been in American newspapers on a regular basis.
That was true under apartheid and post-apartheid.
moviePig is being an ass as per usual.
...
. . .
Exactly.
Knowing that the selection of news stories is based primarily on "if it >bleeds, it leads", it would be perfectly understandable if the average
news consumer who wasn't hearing about South Africa and its problems,
then assumed things must be going swimmingly, otherwise the problems
would be in the news. Yet we almost never got news from South Africa
even though some pretty dire things were going on.
I think it's reasonable to assume that the legacy media was quite aware
of what was going on in South Africa but worried that reporting on it
might play into what they might call "racist tropes", like the idea that
once blacks are in charge of a country, it inevitably becomes a shit
hole. That, of course, might give "fuel" to the idea that blacks *here*
are a major problem and start to unravel the progress made since the
Civil Rights era.
Now, though, the idea that South Africa was a multi-racial success story
is revealed to be a lie. The legacy media are AGAIN faced with yet more
anger from a public that feels betrayed by their lies of omission, just
as they feel betrayed by media efforts to cover up Biden's dubious
mental capacity.
The weird thing is that the documentaries I've seen indicate that South >Africa was actually working quite well in the 10 or 15 years after
apartheid ended;
it was only with the election of the third
post-apartheid president, Jacob Zuma, that the wheels began to come off.
Zuma ushered in an era of massive corruption and the destruction of the >country's institutions by replacing competent people with cronies who
were kicking back massive sums to Zuma and his inner circle.
If the media had actually reported any of this, it should have become
clear that black regimes are not inevitably corrupt since things were on
an upswing under the first two black presidents. Instead, the problems
begin when crooks like Zuma get elected and might well be reversed if >different, more ethical leaders are chosen. I think Ramaphosa was felt
to be more in this vein than Zuma but, so far, he has not done a stellar
job by any standard and actually lost the ANC majority in parliament for
the first time since the end of apartheid.
It's going to be interesting to see how the ANC reacts to the massive
setback they experienced at Trump's hands. Will they confront their
problems and clean up their act or will they react with anger and/or
denial and ramp up the repressions of whites? The media are clearly
making every effort to nitpick every slight inaccuracy in Trump's >presentation to make this all seem like a "nothing-burger" while utterly >failing to disprove the basic contention that South Africa is massively >racist against whites (and Indians and Coloured (mixed race) people.
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
. . .
Exactly.
Knowing that the selection of news stories is based primarily on "if it
bleeds, it leads", it would be perfectly understandable if the average
news consumer who wasn't hearing about South Africa and its problems,
then assumed things must be going swimmingly, otherwise the problems
would be in the news. Yet we almost never got news from South Africa
even though some pretty dire things were going on.
I think it's reasonable to assume that the legacy media was quite aware
of what was going on in South Africa but worried that reporting on it
might play into what they might call "racist tropes", like the idea that
once blacks are in charge of a country, it inevitably becomes a shit
hole. That, of course, might give "fuel" to the idea that blacks *here*
are a major problem and start to unravel the progress made since the
Civil Rights era.
I don't agree. The explanation for not covering South Africa is news judgment, what their readers were interested in. American newspapers
were already in their long decline and got rid of foreign correspondents
and foreign coverage.
When I was a kid, the afternoon paper, the Daily News, competed on being
THE American newspaper with an emphasis on foreign stories. They had an amazing 32 foreign correspondents -- full time, not freelancers -- at
the height. Their stories were regularly distributed by UPI and appeared elsewhere in papers that had little foreign coverage or didn't have correspondents in those countries.
I think at one point, they were second only to New York Times in the
number of foreign correspondents. btw, Washington Post was a third-rate
paper prior to Watergate.
Now, though, the idea that South Africa was a multi-racial success story
is revealed to be a lie. The legacy media are AGAIN faced with yet more
anger from a public that feels betrayed by their lies of omission, just
as they feel betrayed by media efforts to cover up Biden's dubious
mental capacity.
The weird thing is that the documentaries I've seen indicate that South
Africa was actually working quite well in the 10 or 15 years after
apartheid ended;
Maybe it was better than today, but I wouldn't say it with quite so much praise. A friend went there on a railway engineering project. Foreign visitors were routinely targeted by thieves and there was plenty of
concern about violent crime. When he was actually working with the
railroad or engineering staffers on the project, everything was fine,
but he still had to get to and from his hotel. The master contractor
ended up stiffing him on much of his consulting fee and expenses.
No. It was not a good place to do business unless your company was a
huge international engineering firm whose fees were routinely paid by
wire transfer. My friend was a freelancer.
it was only with the election of the third
post-apartheid president, Jacob Zuma, that the wheels began to come off.
Zuma ushered in an era of massive corruption and the destruction of the
country's institutions by replacing competent people with cronies who
were kicking back massive sums to Zuma and his inner circle.
If the media had actually reported any of this, it should have become
clear that black regimes are not inevitably corrupt since things were on
an upswing under the first two black presidents. Instead, the problems
begin when crooks like Zuma get elected and might well be reversed if
different, more ethical leaders are chosen. I think Ramaphosa was felt
to be more in this vein than Zuma but, so far, he has not done a stellar
job by any standard and actually lost the ANC majority in parliament for
the first time since the end of apartheid.
It's going to be interesting to see how the ANC reacts to the massive
setback they experienced at Trump's hands. Will they confront their
problems and clean up their act or will they react with anger and/or
denial and ramp up the repressions of whites? The media are clearly
making every effort to nitpick every slight inaccuracy in Trump's
presentation to make this all seem like a "nothing-burger" while utterly
failing to disprove the basic contention that South Africa is massively
racist against whites (and Indians and Coloured (mixed race) people.
They didn't receive a massive setback from Trump.
Trump, by saying so
many false and stupid things, allowed them to appear to stand up to
Trump. All anybody knows is they withstood the false Trump charge of
genocide against the Afrikaaner farming families, especially with the
picture Trump used that wasn't of a massive grave site.
Trump could have taken them to task for utter failure to take rural
violent crime seriously enough that the national government was actually doing something useful about it.
What's South Africa going to do if no one wants to farm? Now that I've
done a tiny bit of reading, the proposed land expropriations would
simply be done using violent crime as the precipitator of the crisis,
failing to address violent crime. After all, the criminals will simply
attack the next family, even if black farmers, who come to farm the
land. If they think they'll be killed, they'll stop farming too.
Now, though, the idea that South Africa was a multi-racial success story
is revealed to be a lie. The legacy media are AGAIN faced with yet more
anger from a public that feels betrayed by their lies of omission, just
as they feel betrayed by media efforts to cover up Biden's dubious
mental capacity.
The weird thing is that the documentaries I've seen indicate that South >Africa was actually working quite well in the 10 or 15 years after
apartheid ended; it was only with the election of the third
post-apartheid president, Jacob Zuma, that the wheels began to come off.
I don't know; I've never been there. Maybe it was already fairly dire
under Mandela and Mbeke.
Mandela made tire necklaces popular.
I don't know; I've never been there. Maybe it was already fairly dire >>>under Mandela and Mbeke.
Mandela made tire necklaces popular.
with the key disclaimer that all I saw was the limited
coverage routinely available in the US, it seemed this
was more a Winnie Mandela (that is, Nelson's wife), along
with a bunch of other hate filled power brokers, but
not encouraged by President Mandela.
I dunno...
OB RAT: "necklacing" was used to torture/kill a victim
in an episode of "The Americans".
I don't know; I've never been there. Maybe it was already fairly dire
under Mandela and Mbeke.
Mandela made tire necklaces popular.
In <1016s0l$379bf$6@dont-email.me> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> writes:
Rhino wrote:
I don't know; I've never been there. Maybe it was already fairly dire >>>under Mandela and Mbeke.
Mandela made tire necklaces popular.
with the key disclaimer that all I saw was the limited
coverage routinely available in the US, it seemed this
was more a Winnie Mandela (that is, Nelson's wife), along
with a bunch of other hate filled power brokers, but
not encouraged by President Mandela.
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
Rhino wrote:
I don't know; I've never been there. Maybe it was already fairly dire >>>under Mandela and Mbeke.
Mandela made tire necklaces popular.
I know Winnie liked them, first I've heard that Nelson did.
dannyb@panix.com wrote:
In <1016s0l$379bf$6@dont-email.me> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> writes: >>> Rhino wrote:
I don't know; I've never been there. Maybe it was already fairly dire
under Mandela and Mbeke.
Mandela made tire necklaces popular.
with the key disclaimer that all I saw was the limited
coverage routinely available in the US, it seemed this
was more a Winnie Mandela (that is, Nelson's wife), along
with a bunch of other hate filled power brokers, but
not encouraged by President Mandela.
He certainly did not discourage it.
(Silence is advocacy?)
"Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
dannyb@panix.com wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> writes:
Rhino wrote:
I don't know; I've never been there. Maybe it was already fairly dire >>>>> under Mandela and Mbeke.
Mandela made tire necklaces popular.
with the key disclaimer that all I saw was the limited
coverage routinely available in the US, it seemed this
was more a Winnie Mandela (that is, Nelson's wife), along
with a bunch of other hate filled power brokers, but
not encouraged by President Mandela.
He certainly did not discourage it.
(Silence is advocacy?)
The leftist rule is "silence equals complicity".
But I'm sure there's a leftist double-standard here just as there is for >every other issue under the sun.
But I'm sure there's a leftist double-standard here just as there is for >>every other issue under the sun.
Hell, they consider George Floyd a saint...
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
But I'm sure there's a leftist double-standard here just as there is for >>>every other issue under the sun.
Hell, they consider George Floyd a saint...
For sure. But then for sure he shouldn't have died during his arrest
but from what I've heard he was in terrible physical condition and
should have been in a hospital rather than on the street.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 167:48:23 |
| Calls: | 10,385 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,540 |