Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Aye or Naye?

I guess it's ultimately up to the readership of this blog. If it were up to me, the idiot known as Rooster would not have been getting as much bandwidth as he has been extorting from us here on ILSA. His own blog (to which his article about so called "Apartheid Nostalgia") has been almost completely ignored and to which he has received only one comment in response to date (Bwaaahahaha!)is a complete failure and he is therefore driven back to ILSA for a little gulp of oxygen and the engagement he so craves, and clearly lacks from his own blog.

Here on ILSA he has had an UNLIMITED platform to spew his bile on not only that article, which was re-produced here, but anything posted on this blog. We've bent over backwards to accommodate the little baiter, a fact which he acknowledges.

That's called freedom of expression, but it has a limit when clearly his agenda is not to seek common ground, but to bang his drum incessantly about how bad we are, how pathetic and lost those he so glibly dismisses as "old ballies" of "a certain age" are, how "verkrampt" we are.

He scarcely takes the time to read an article yet he has a store of copy/ paste replies which he trots out like the mindless chicken shit he is, and then has the gall to resort to ad hominum attacks, personal accusations and profanity (it makes me wonder what kind of mother he had rearing him), and wondering perhaps, how a rich white kid could have gone so wrong, but then remembering that he is a self confessed little rich white kid who was educated in a liberal private school pretty much along the lines of the liberal catholic CBC where a tiny minority of whites and blacks were placed on a (elite) pedestal and brainwashed to ignore the greater ocean of reality around them.

But that's just my opinion, and before I digress any further, I want to invite you all to air your views.

Do you want to continue to give this miserable sack of shit (sic) any more bandwidth on ILSA?

Does he have anything valuable to offer?

Or should we just delete his fucken arse like we did with BC and send him back to lick his wounds (and respond yet again (as he has responded on seven separate occasions to the one sole comment on his own (failed blog)? and bang away mindlessly on his keyboard, typing endless shit that nobody reads?

It's up to you gentle reader!

Thanks again to Piet (whoever you may be) for giving the Rooster a royal blood nose and a mighty rear ending he will not forget soon!!!




24 Opinion(s):

Viking said...

Abstaining.

One observation:

At least BC had the excuse of being American.

Exzanian said...

Don't forget, he spent 6 months in SA!

Piet said...

@Exzanian,

Who is "he"? The Rooster?

If so, I understand things better.

No need to ban him, it will pretend he was banned because he was telling the truth.

On the other hand, his last messages seemed to say he was ready to throw the towel...

More important news :

New policy on land grabs, farm tax

http://www.fin24.com/Economy/New-policy-on-land-grabs-farm-tax-20101013

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

This may not seem relevant to the issue, but please bear with me. Dr.Gedaliah Braun provides an interesting definition of a racist.

Before giving his final definition he clarifies who is NOT a racist: Someone with a sincere belief that his culture is superior, based upon the information available to him, even if his belief may be wrong; but who is sincerely willing to listen to additional information, and if such information is of sufficient evidence, to change his belief.

Put simply the sincere belief, even if wrong, that a culture is superior is not racist. Where 'racist' comes into the matter of beliefs about superiority of cultures (or whatever) is where the person is of such dogmatic obstinacy and stubborness, that they absolutely refuse to hear any information to the contrary and to make an enquiry into whether such information may be true.

Hence a racist is someone who believes their culture/race/ideology is superior, and refuses to consider any alternative point of view whatsoever.

He is of the view that a very plausible reason for this refusal is a very fragile ego, an absolute desperation to feel superior, as a sense of persona identity and moral superiority. When your sense of superiority is founded on observation of facts, then when such facts change, you are quite happy to change the conclusion. When your sense of superiorit is a result of fragile ego, not facts; then you cannot allow facts, no matter how compelling to shatter your sense of superiority, because it is the foundation of your ego identity.

It is for this reason liberals whose sense of superiority is not based upon the facts available to them, but on their fragile ego's, refuse to hear contradictory facts, and will project the 'racism' card; and by doing so, display their own incapability to hear the facts: because it would exterminate their sense of identity, their need for moral superiority.

Rooster, appears to plausibly be such a person, considering his total lack of ability to reason, listen, and impartially hear contradictory points of view.

Should he be banned; I wouldn't say so; just use more discretion in monitoring his comments; I'd suggest. If he wants to act like a 13 year old in a tantrum, then appoint him a nanny.

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

More accurately stated, sorry.

Hence a racist is someone who believes their culture/race/ideology is superior, where this belief is not based upon facts available to them, but a psychological sense of insecurity and need for moral superiority; and who refuses to consider any contradictory evidence to his belief whatsoever.

Sue said...

Ja, um, who is the rooster? I kinda skipped over the last few posts, not really interested in what he said.

Islandshark said...

I agree with Exzanian - the chicken has had his free ride.

Jim Beam said...

@Viking

Black Coffee was an American who lived in the country for 6 months and knew it all. Yes Americans think that thier country is the center of the galaxy and they fail to see that the US is going the way as South Africa.

Rooster is a South African who has clearly travelled the global so his perspective at least to me is of interest. I might not agree with everything he says but at least I can see what the 'other side' sees when they talk.

It is clear as daylight that the ANC is pushing the country to ruin. 1 in 5 work for the government and the land grab is a slow but certain communist trick.

The past is not going to go away and we are failing to deal with it even on these blogs. Instead it tends to get covered that it is in the past and should be forgotten 16 years post aparthied. Yet in the same breath the Boers still breath fire about concentrations camps 80 plus years ago. Why is one more important than the other.

To me and I think Rooster highlighted this was that many compare the misrule of the ANC to the indignation of the aparthied system to justify aparthied. You cant compare the two. There was no need for what had happened. If the minority whites wanted a lasting solution they should have carved up the country into a canton system and left everyone to their own devices. They did not - they wanted it all. It backfired and now we all have to deal with the mess it created.

Once the ANC rule is however over what then? If we cant even agree to disagree on a blog on the direction or solutions to South Africa without resorting to name calling then how the hell are we ever going to fix the country post-ANC?

Viking said...

Jim I agree with you. Looking to the future is, I think, more important than looking to the past. Personally I don't think comparing SA now with SA 25 years ago is even possible - they're two different countries in reality, which is not to say that individuals don't have the right to compare their own lives then and now.

The problem with Rooster is that he is downplaying people's experiences, you just can't DO that. I was actually happy enough with him commenting until I read his latest post - talking about how crap other countries are.

It always frustrated me knowing South Africans living in Ireland who used to complain about it the whole time - without any understanding that they lived their previous lives under a much more privileged position than they do as immigrants in a European country. You can't go from being in the richest 10% to the poorest 10% without finding something to complain about!

Yeh, life is tough for emigrants. Who knew?!

Trey Cruz said...

Thumbs Down.
He [Rooster] wastes too much time and precious energy with his intellectual impotence and vain, sophomoric sophistry.
For the record, I am a Yank who sees the parallel between SA and the USA and frequently recommends this blog for just that reason.
Keep up the good work.

Islandshark said...

@ Jim: Get you facts straight. The Boers don't want apartheid back - they never wanted to rule over anybody. Even after winning wars with the Zulu, they gave their land back to them.

The Boers always wanted their own homelands and for the other tribes to have the same - self rule.

The greedy bastards wanted the macro state so they could control everything - and the greedy bastards weren't blacks.

Islandshark said...

Willem Ratte is proof enough of the mindset of the Boer - he laid multiple murder charges against Mandela after Shell House massacre. I don't remember the majority of people killed there being white.

He drove through gunfire to bring food to Zulus besieged in Khatlehong.

Doesn't sound like somebody wanting to rule over others, does it?

Rooster can not present a single fact without twisting something out of proportion or lying through his teeth.

The Rooster said...

Willem Ratte is proof enough of the mindset of the Boer - he laid multiple murder charges against Mandela after Shell House massacre. I don't remember the majority of people killed there being white.

He drove through gunfire to bring food to Zulus besieged in Khatlehong.

Doesn't sound like somebody wanting to rule over others, does it?

------------------

This, hinting it's merry way about how the "boers" are just hell bent on doing what they can for black people, such noble philanthropists ...and then followed by...

-------------


Rooster can not present a single fact without twisting something out of proportion or lying through his teeth.



OH THE DECLICIOUS IRONY.

Exzanian said...

Harumph...

Islandshark said...

Yes chicken, he actually did a lot more for other tribes too. All very well documented.

To this day the royal bloodline of the Zulus have a lot of praise for the way the Boers treated them, even after wars and massacres from both sides. I guess they are all mad, aren't they? But I guess as an ANC muppet you would never know that.

Of course some are arseholes - you get that within every group. But the majority of Boers never wanted the macro state which is SA today.

Jim Beam said...

@Islandshark

"@ Jim: Get you facts straight. The Boers don't want apartheid back"

-- Get your facts straight Islandshark, the Boers never ruled the country except for Strydom and that white trash called Jan Smuts.

@Rooster

-- There are no "boers", there are just Boers. For crying out loud even I can tell Afrikaner and Boer apart.

@Andrea

"Rooster, appears to plausibly be such a person, considering his total lack of ability to reason, listen, and impartially hear contradictory points of view."

-- Shit you just described 90% of South Africans across the colour spectrum.

Islandshark said...

@ Jim: Jan Smuts has never been regarded as a hero by the Boers.

No, the Boers ruled themselves in the republics prior to the turn of the previous century. They were against the union of SA right from the start - that is the point.

Jim Beam said...

@Islandshark

"They were against the union of SA right from the start - that is the point. "

-- Then answer this if you may mate. Why do Boers at the funeral of Eugene Terrblanche wave an old South African flag and sing "Die Stem" when it was the very symbols of the Republic of South Africa.

It is that anthem and flag which at least to me would show the very loss of those republics. Why do they do that then? Why not sing the Transvaal anthem? Are the Boers confused? Its akin to a black man saying he wants his dompas back.

Islandshark said...

@ Jim: I would have thought that Vierkleurs and Free State flags were the majority.

If you look at most Boer movements, they all have a Vierkleur or Free State flag (or some form of it) as their symbol.

Your assessment of the Stem and old SA flag at any Boer function is correct - it doesn't make sense as the use of these indicate the downfall of what Boers stand for.

In reality not many people know the anthems of the Boer republics and the use of the Stem and old SA flag is more a case of not recognising the ANC inspired symbols than a support for Apartheid era ones.

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

Jim Beam,

"Rooster, appears to plausibly be such a person, considering his total lack of ability to reason, listen, and impartially hear contradictory points of view".

-- Shit you just described 90% of South Africans across the colour spectrum.

You appear to miss my point.

When I go to read a blog where I may not agree or have significant disagreements.. I ask questions, to attempt to understand others, I am there to dialogue, to share my view, but ALSO TO HEAR THEIRS.

I am not talking about 90% of SA's; the question was about Rooster, about his conduct ON THIS BLOG.

If the other 90% also choose to visit the blog, and display the same 13 year old behaviour of Rooster.. then once it is proven they appear to have no interest whatseover to dialogue and reason and listen.. then I imagine the blog moderators can ask the same question about them.

VI said...

Not too long ago I used to be a frequent contributor to this blog, and still enjoy the privilege of being a moderator. However in the context of this discussion I don't think you can place to much weight on my comments. Nevertheless, here goes.

Rooster is obviously much more intelligent than BC, and truth be told, I have enjoyed some of his responses. Unfortunately I find him exceptionally naive, when it comes to spouting the illusory benefits of the New South Africa.

More to the point. Freedom of speech, at the macro level, should be absolute; or should at least enjoy minimal restrictions. That is worth defending.

ILSA can hardly be defined as macro, and therefore is entitled to be more restrictive, but only slightly. ILSA clearly targets a specific audience, and it is this audience that needs to be considered.

Naturally alternative views should be tolerated, but in moderation otherwise you risk alienating your primary audience. At the same time ILSA needs to remain true to its defined purpose. There is no point being a "bad news" blog, if there is no bad news. But that isn't the case. If Rooster disagrees, that is fine, then he can highlight the myriad good things that are happening on his own blog.

As for ILSA readers, they don't need enlightenment. Their realities have brought them to ILSA. No amount of "feel good" rhetoric is going to change anything, other than anger people.

I say moderate Rooster more strictly. If his comments are valid, then allow them through. If they are unnecessarily provocative, then delete.

Exzanian said...

VI "There is no point being a "bad news" blog, if there is no bad news. But that isn't the case".

Well put, we're not making up any stuff, it's all real and happening out there in the daily grind in South Africa. Sure, we have our opinions, which sometimes may be flat out wrong, but hey, we're entitled to an opinion right? Rooster has his blog and his own opinions, let him spend more time there...btw, nice to see ya still around....

Anonymous said...

FUCK IDIOTS like the Rooster DOOS! Just hit them with article liken the following;

How Evil was Apartheid?
By: Albert Brenner

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?149083-How-Evil-was-Apartheid

Ron. said...

Jim Beam. As for why some Boers cling to the old South African flag: this is due to their confusion stemming from the Broederbond version of history & their erroneous reading of the flag because those Boer Republic[s] flags in the middle - while meant to get their approval of the then new flag of 1927 - in fact symbolizes the marginalization of the Boers around a sea of VOC colours while tethered to a Union Jack. The symbolism of that old flag is quite telling because the Afrikaners got associated with orange / white & blue while they & those colours dominated on the flag - even the respective communities as associated with the Union Jack & the two Vierkleur Republican flags.

Actually Jan Smuts was not a Boer as he was from the Western Cape community of folks who were often called the Cape Dutch & he was particularly influenced by the British Colonial outlook & was acting as a pro British double agent when he was appointed the State Attorney of the ZAR after one of President Paul Kruger's grandsons Piet Grobler suggested him for the post. It was claimed that he broke his pro-British stance after the Jameson Raid but history has shown that to be a convenient cover story for his later infiltration into the ZAR / Tansvaal government.

Louis Botha was in fact a Boer but he was so aligned to the Afrikaner & British imperial agenda that he alienated himself from the Boers. Just as P W Botha & possibly F W de Klerk were Boer descendents but certainly aligned with the Afrikaners & not with the Boers.

When Boer people publicly display flags they more often use the various Vierkleur flags or other old Boer Republican flags & comparatively much less the old South African flag because as many know that flag represented their marginalization but those who display it obviously do not appear to be aware of that fact.