If it wasn't so unlikley, it would be interesting to speculate as to whether charges of whatever the relevant equivalent is of negligent homicide, or even culpable homicide will end up being brought against FIFA and much of the Western media who are currently promoting the 2010 World Cup in South Africa, without the slightest hint of warning.
Whenever the subject comes up, film of beaming, friendly looking South African youth appears on TV, and South Africa is mentioned as a vibrant young democracy, and the country itself portrayed as some sort of Disney style theme park.
No mention yet of the fact that South Africa has become one of the most dangerous crime ridden places on earth which is not yet a failed state. Muggings and robbery exceed anything we know in the West many times over, murder is running at seven times the current rate in America, , whilst the numbers of rapes are ten times as high, and much higher than that that in terms of both child rape and male on male rape.
Given the rapid deterioration of the situation, the rates are likely to be even higher by 2010.
Do you think these things will be mentioned? I doubt it, our media has too much invested in promoting their own fantasy vision of the rainbow nation without allowing the risk to a few dozen (or more) lives to make them break a habit of a life time and tell the truth.
We are lead to believe that the most important issue is whether enough poor people will be able to afford tickets to the games, whereas the really important issue is how many visitors will get home with life, limb and property still intact. Where are the warnings about avoiding urban areas, staying in groups, only carrying the money you need to and not letting anyone see that you own a camera or mobile phone?.
The lack of caution is particularly reckless considering the normal behaviour of football fans when the visit foreign cities. They instinctively want to go down town, explore, find a bar and then get drunk and vulnerable. In much of South Africa such behaviour by Westerners is the equivalent of an antelope walking up to a pride of lions drenched in a honey and mustard dressing with a garlic bulb up its a##.
However, it is exactly what fans will do if they are not warned not to, and I am not hearing any warnings so far.
Let us hope that the fans have guardian angels looking out for them, as, on present showing, it seem unlikely that the media, FIFA or the Government have any intention of doing so.
Whenever the subject comes up, film of beaming, friendly looking South African youth appears on TV, and South Africa is mentioned as a vibrant young democracy, and the country itself portrayed as some sort of Disney style theme park.
No mention yet of the fact that South Africa has become one of the most dangerous crime ridden places on earth which is not yet a failed state. Muggings and robbery exceed anything we know in the West many times over, murder is running at seven times the current rate in America, , whilst the numbers of rapes are ten times as high, and much higher than that that in terms of both child rape and male on male rape.
Given the rapid deterioration of the situation, the rates are likely to be even higher by 2010.
Do you think these things will be mentioned? I doubt it, our media has too much invested in promoting their own fantasy vision of the rainbow nation without allowing the risk to a few dozen (or more) lives to make them break a habit of a life time and tell the truth.
We are lead to believe that the most important issue is whether enough poor people will be able to afford tickets to the games, whereas the really important issue is how many visitors will get home with life, limb and property still intact. Where are the warnings about avoiding urban areas, staying in groups, only carrying the money you need to and not letting anyone see that you own a camera or mobile phone?.
The lack of caution is particularly reckless considering the normal behaviour of football fans when the visit foreign cities. They instinctively want to go down town, explore, find a bar and then get drunk and vulnerable. In much of South Africa such behaviour by Westerners is the equivalent of an antelope walking up to a pride of lions drenched in a honey and mustard dressing with a garlic bulb up its a##.
However, it is exactly what fans will do if they are not warned not to, and I am not hearing any warnings so far.
Let us hope that the fans have guardian angels looking out for them, as, on present showing, it seem unlikely that the media, FIFA or the Government have any intention of doing so.
13 comments:
Well done. You have drawn attention to an extremely important issue. Who will be held accountable for the deaths, robberies and other unfortunate experiences that will descend on visitors to the World Cup in 2010?
Perhaps we should only hold such sporting events in the safe 'developed' world!? Whilst there are undoubted risks associated with holding such an event in South Africa, what about the undoubted benefits? Soccer is a largely black sport in South Africa, a country where the white sports of rugby and cricket dominate, a successfuly World Cup could be a huge boost for deprived areas of the country. As someone who has lived and worked in South Africa,I am fully aware of the dangers, however the cynicism shown by the author is frankly unfelpful.
Then again its not you who would be taking the risk to further your fantasy is it Tom?!
Tom, here are few facts:
1. Rugby and cricket dominates because the guys playing the sport are dedicated to what they do. They train hard, think and live the sports. Soccer players are mostly unfit, rowdy and do not care if they win or lose. Remember, we are about 80th in the world rankings.
2. Soccer's governing body is in it for the money. They make millions off the World Cup and club matches. They do not care for the rankings. Even if they say they do.
3. Soccer stadium are funded by tax paer's money. Remember: In South Africa 20% of the population pays 80% of the taxes. 80% of THIS 20% is the white people.
4. Refering to the above: White people do not care for soccer because we are to proud to be associated with a team that NEVER gets anywhere.
5. Negativity is bad. We know that, don't get me wrong. All the whites would like the Soccer World Cup to be a success. But if your son crashes your car into a wall on a daily basis, wouldn't you rather he NOT borrow the car anymore?? That is what we find with the blacks. Most of them only has their own financial interests at heart. We do not trust them to do anything. They can't finish anything to a level where it is done, donem done. There are always loose ends which causes trouble.
6. We as whites can't go into Hillbrow (please Google Hillbrow for stats. You will be shocked!!) on a normal day. All the Africans with hatred in their hearts live here. Do you REALLY think they will not burgle, kill or rape anybody because it is the World Cup?? You must be joking! Make hay while the sun shines!!
For somebody who has worked in South Africa (it must have been 13 days!! There is a joke which pertains to this. See end of my message...) you are VERY naïve.
I have lived in Southern Africa since my birth 34 years ago. You are a liberal PRAT who runs back to his FREE and SAFE country and then preaches from your safe perch to US who LIVE with these people.
Not even "Afro Americans" want to live here. Oprah? She came, she built a school, met Mandela and Left. Will Smith. He came, He met Mandela, saw the 46664 concert and left. By the way, Mr Smith wanted to built a house here but decided against it. Why?? We can only speculate...
I can go on and on but you seem like a lost case, Tom.
Hope this makes sence Sarah.
Regards
Stefan
Johannesburg, Hell.
PS: How long does it take to turn a foreigner (in South Africa) into a rascist? 14 days...
As a white male Afrikaner male, I completely agree with Sarah. Another point to mention is also the case of the "sex tourism" side of the affair. Tourists are in general extremely naive as to the realities of black behaviour - especially the fuzzy-wuzzy-bunny-hugger-we-are-all-one liberal kind. They are in for huge shocks. The result of the 2010 SWC in SA will be:
Plenty of foreigners stuck without official documents, Black elites stuffing themselves while SA taxpayers will be footing the bill for this fiasco for the next century or so, and many white elephant stadia that will require maintainance whereas we had more than ample rugby stadia to satisfy the needs (note that we've hosted very successful Rugby and Cricket WCup in SA, but the support bases and fans are mostly white and well-behaved). The SA 2010 WC will redefine soccer hooliganism - and FIFA will wash their hands of the problem.
In general one can safely say that the white folk in SA are very much against the WC being held here. Our newly released from their cages poulation will reveal to the world exactly what they are made of. (Albeit the Mainstream Media will do all in their power to cover it up).
let the europeans come to south africa
nothing better to teach the world the truth than to experience it
extended eugenics? - get your facts clear:
The beliefs of racists are biologically naive, and ignore the
well-known phenomenon of "hybrid" or "mongrel" vigour, where crosses
are more healthy, and, in the case of animals, more intelligent, than
pure breeds. One reason for this phenomenon is that many undesirable
genetic traits are recessive and linked by race. A white person, for
example, reduces the chances of a child with cystic fibrosis almost to
zero by marrying someone who isn't white.
Specific claims for inferiority of other races will be dealt with
elsewhere. The argument for preventing intermarriage may be analysed
independently of these: it suffers from a gross logical flaw common to
racist arguments from statistics to segregation, which in its general
form goes like this:
* Property X is desirable.
* Property X has, or may have, a genetic component.
* There is a statistical difference in average X-ness between black
people and white people of which the genetic component is so tiny that
most experts don't even agree that it exists. But we do.
* Therefore, we should discriminate against black people.
The problem here is that if it was a good idea to discriminate against
people on the grounds of lack of X, then it would be far more sensible
to reason as follows:
* Property X is desirable.
* Therefore we should discriminate against people lacking in X-ness,
regardless of color.
So, for example, if the racists could achieve their Holy Grail and
demonstrate that black people on average have very slightly lower IQ
scores, and if I cared, this would be no reason why, in my matrimonial
preferences, I should rate a dumb blonde above a black genius. On the
contrary, I should still go on judging people's intelligence, not by
the color of their skin, but by their intelligence, exactly as I do
now.
Yet the racists, with their concern for the precious genetic heritage
of the white race, are not campaigning to prevent smart white men from
marrying dumb blondes: although this happens, I am told, quite
frequently. And this calls into question the integrity of racists who
offer this argument against interracial marriage. It's almost as if
they had some other reason for opposing "miscegenation", such as being
racist bigots.
One curious by-product of racist views on interracial marriage is the
curious but oft-repeated assertion that interracial marriage is
unnatural because black people are not attractive, combined with a
willingness to debate the point with anyone who does in fact find this
or that black person attractive. It need hardly be pointed out that if
they were right, there would be no need for them to argue the point,
nor to establish laws against miscegenation.
what bigoted, bored nazi housewife, racist, bimbo you have justdisplayed you are!!!
"...the curious but oft-repeated assertion that interracial marriage is unnatural because black people are not attractive, combined with a[n] [un]willingness to debate the point with anyone who does in fact find this or that black person attractive. It need hardly be pointed out that if
they were right, there would be no need for them to argue the point, nor to establish laws against miscegenation."
No one claims that the white race or that any race is perfect. The point is that it is natural for the vast majority of any given race to prefer their own. Experience in the real world tells us that this is so. Only in the liberal dominated modern world with their attempts at social engineering has this been attempted to be overturned - just so they can attain the ultimate adolescent fantasy of absolute "freedom" and godhood.
Yes there have always been some whites with something missing upstairs, or lacking in sensitivity and sensibility who have found blacks attractive as sexual partners. The tragedy today, is that for so many years the destroyers of normality (the leftists) have been allowed to pedal their perversions and lies - that racial and sexual boundaries are unimportant, and this has had the effect of bringing Britain to the verge of destruction. The "precious genetic inheritance" is about more than merely high IQ - its about everything, from physical features to racial character.
Even if whites had the lowest IQs, I as a white would still prefer my race - one has a natural affinity for one's own. If you have only lived in mostly white areas with whites in control - this might not be so clear to you. Live among mostly blacks, (and if you can break free of leftist "goodthinking") you'll soon see what I mean. Rather a thousand times that "smart white men" marry "dumb white blondes" than the horror of them miscegenating with even "smart" black woman. Far from calling into question the integrity of "racists", this proves their integrity!! "Racist bigot" is an unatural perverted concept that can only maintain its currency with the force of a totalitarian media and government behind it. In fact "anti-racists" are bigots - they are the ones trying to enforce their anti-natural prejudices on normal people who like their own race.
Keith_SA
Very Good Helen Porter - love the comment about the bored nazi housewife or something to that effect.
Now we have your thesis on white racists who express their white racism by trying to preserve their race and presenting the facts in this regard for debate on forums like this - but what do you have to say about black racism, which by all accounts, masses of evidence and the harsh realitity for their white victims or their survivng families expresses itself as violent murder, mayhem, pillage, plunder and social decay wherever you find them in groups larger than two?
@ Anonymous 28 February 2009 04:30
A brilliant, concise post about the real racial facts in South Africa.
From the real facts of "Sharpeville" the "atrocity" made up by leftists to the thugocracy that black South Africa is today. I don't want to be presumptious Sarah, but maybe you should consider posting this as a "main" article. Anyway thanks once again for all you do to expose the truth about the black disaster that is today's South Africa. Keith_SA
Helen Porter, lmfao.
You are truly a schiller of the most obnoxious variety.
I hope that some day someone introduces you to a fmj.
"black genius" is an oxymoron....
How I can download documents from WikiLeaks?
Hope for answer
Post a Comment