A look at Orania

[rockfox]

But then again...there are instances in OT where God does...sort of...maybe a little...kinda...encourage wiping out entire tribes or groups of people (enemies of Israel).

I will let others speak to God on instituting that today. I bow out of those considerations.

Those passages make a lot more sense under the theory that those nations contained the offspring of the Nephilim; the gigantic children of Angels who were at war with God and mankind.

The 10 tribes thing always seems arbitrary. Always someone pointing to this or that group as being them; all different races too, always with themselves being the children of the promise, and always with complete certainty. It seems to me a pointless exercise fraught more with danger than promise. Who my long ago ancestors were is far less important to me than knowing I am Christ's, than making sure my children have a future.

I happened across a video just today from some blacks claiming that the Hebrews had to be black and that white people were actually from the Angels breeding with men in Gen 6. Seems like just a silly thing until you realize it feeds back into the wiping out the Nephalim thing and the view of some in the black community advancing the idea that whiteness is a faulty genetic mutation that should be wiped out.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

Now days you can be called a racist for almost any reason

My firm stance on Portuguese superiority probably qualifies me, lol

 

[mystic]

He couldn't understand how we all lived so unprotected and weren't concerned about being murdered, raped, or butchered in our homes.

I chatted on another site maybe five years ago with a young South African woman, white, who asserted that something like 15 murders of white people were happening every single day in SA. That would come to something like 5,475 per year.

I looked up the actual numbers and the rate turned out to be something more like maybe a couple of dozen or fewer, nationwide, in an entire year. I'm going by rough recall here, but you get the idea.

She wouldn't hear it.

I suspect that fear vastly elevates the numbers — and associated perception of risk — for those who feel threatened in this case.

 

[FollowingHim]

In this case, they're looking over the border at what happened in Zimbabwe, see their country moving in the same direction, and fear the future, not necessarily what is happening today. Today has problems, but tomorrow could be a lot worse, and they are trying to protect against tomorrow. My point is that today's stats aren't the problem, it's the overall political direction.
A Jew in Germany in the 1930's could be told "don't worry, the stats say not many Jews are being killed each year right now", but a wise Jew would look at the political direction and be concerned about where it could go in the future.

 

[Joleneakamama]

I'm suspicious. I know those other 10 tribes had to go somewhere.

The flip side of that is where did the Caucasians come from?
Sometimes secular articles are very interesting and actually support Israel being Caucasian. One hubby found was discussing the changing racial demographics of somewhere, and it stated very plainly that the history of the Caucasian people only goes back about 2,500 years. They just appeared then, on the stage of the world.
This is too danged much like evolution to me, in that there is no way I'm believing that a whole "family of the earth" just appeared like a "big bang."
Archeology has traced the migrations of the ten tribes that fled Assyrian captivity....into Europe where Christian churches were established in the early years AD.
Here is a snippet from the description of a book on the subject.
"An archaeological study of the origin and history of the so-called "Lost Tribes of Israel" and the Assyrian tablets that reveal the fate of these same people chosen by God to be the "light-bearers" to the nations. When clay cuneiform tablets were found in the excavations of the Assyrian Royal Library of Ashurbanipal in ancient Nineveh their relevance to the nation of Israel was overlooked at the time. This was undoubtedly because they were in complete disorder and among hundreds of miscellaneous text dealing with many matters of State. Contributing to this situation was the fact that the Assyrians called the Israelites by other names during their captivity. " If interested, you can buy the book here.

Joseph Dumond has done extensive research documenting the migrations of Israel, including some that left Eypt before the exodus. Look at his website https://sightedmoon.com for more.

And while many groups argue for being Israel, and the scriptures warn us of frauds, the proof is in the pudding....or rather the curses for disobedience that are upon the western nations as they have left their Christian roots, and the evidence over the centuries in who has enjoyed YHWH's blessings, and passed them on through missionary work and service to others like feeding the hungry.

To me it is not about boasting of where one came from, but about realizing why we are blessed, and the responsibility we have as a people to be a light and example of how our creator would have us live.

What folks who get stuck on color miss is that the term Israelite means a descendant of the man Israel, and if God accepted all the "part Egyptian" Israelites, AND He accepts those of other families of the earth too, we have ZERO reason to think that He would exclude from the body of Christ, because of mixed ethnicity, any literal seed (descendants) of Israel, who according to YHWH will be A (singular) nation before Him forever!

So yeah, I agree with @steve that wether the mixing happened at generation three with Jacob's wives, or after the believing Israelites came to be called Christians and started spreading the good news, and intermarrying with other followers of Christ from other ethnic groups, those feeling foolish someday will be the folks that didn't keep up with where Israel went, and what she became as she inherited the nations.

 

[Mojo]

In this case, they're looking over the border at what happened in Zimbabwe, see their country moving in the same direction, and fear the future, not necessarily what is happening today. Today has problems, but tomorrow could be a lot worse, and they are trying to protect against tomorrow. My point is that today's stats aren't the problem, it's the overall political direction.
A Jew in Germany in the 1930's could be told "don't worry, the stats say not many Jews are being killed each year right now", but a wise Jew would look at the political direction and be concerned about where it could go in the future.

Which is why I don't begrudge these SA folks from doing what they need to do.

I would qualify Americans as living in fear over such a scenario right now, or the very near future. I could be in denial, but I don't see it.

I do see blacks propogandized into fear of the police, when the numbers of "assaults" by white officers is grossly exaggerated.

Whites are being propogandized into feeling like the hoards of blacks and Browns are on every corner to rape and pillage their homes.


Demographically speaking, though, Whites are losing the battle, but it's not really because of unchecked immigration, per se. Whites and blacks are both decreasing their birth rates in this country. The Browns from the south and the Middle East are out reproducing everyone.

Hall of Fame running back Jim Brown just said that Blacks need to start policing themselves better when it comes to guns and violence. I agree.

Whites need to look in the mirror and encourage themselves to reproduce more. It's already a done deal in Europe. American Whites still have some hopes of a reversal.

 

[rockfox]

I chatted on another site maybe five years ago with a young South African woman, white, who asserted that something like 15 murders of white people were happening every single day in SA. That would come to something like 5,475 per year.

I looked up the actual numbers and the rate turned out to be something more like maybe a couple of dozen or fewer, nationwide, in an entire year. I'm going by rough recall here, but you get the idea.

She wouldn't hear it.

I suspect that fear vastly elevates the numbers — and associated perception of risk — for those who feel threatened in this case.

The statistics coming out of SA are known to be unreliable. A lot of the crime goes unreported, first because police ignore the reports and second, at least some of the crimes are being committed by off duty police. Not to mention this is all happening with the backing of the government; so they have ulterior motives to downplay the stats.

I need only look at the extreme measures people are taking there to keep them safe to know that it is far more than a couple dozen killings a year. Not only doesn't that pass the sniff test, I checked the stats and that would make the murder rate two orders of magnitude lower than the current USA rate.

Ok, so I better check the current SA stats. Those have the homicide rate (whole population) running at over 6 times the rate in the United States. That is NOT broken down by race, which will skew things since blacks are disproportionately victims of homicide in this country; meaning the felt murder rate in non-gang parts of the US will be a whole lot less.

To put that in numbers. over 19 thousand people are killed yearly in SA; out of a population of 56 million. In the USA only 17 thousand are killed out of a population of over 300 million. And if those rapes and murders are being mostly born by white South Africans; their population is under 5 million. I say if, I didn't find stats broken down by race/ethnicity.

From this it looks like 15 murders a day is understated. It is currently around 50 per day...

Around 49 people are murdered in South Africa every day. The murder rate increased rapidly in the late-1980s and early-1990s. Between 1994 -2009, the murder rate halved from 67 to 34 murders per 100,000 people. Between 2011-2015, it stabilised to around 32 homicides per 100,000 people although the total number of lives lost has increased due to the increase in population. There have been numerous press reports on the manipulation of crime statistics that have highlighted the existence of incentives not to record violent crime. Nonetheless, murder statistics are considered accurate. In the 2016/17 year, the rate of murders increased to 52 a day, with 19,016 murders recorded between April 2016 to March 2017. In 2001, a South African was more likely to be murdered than die in a car crash.

Oh and from that same page...

The country has one of the highest rates of rape in the world, with some 65,000 rapes and other sexual assaults reported for the year ending in March 2012, or 127.6 per 100,000 people in the country. The incidence of rape has led to the country being referred to as the "rape capital of the world". One in three of the 4,000 women questioned by the Community of Information, Empowerment and Transparency said they had been raped in the past year. More than 25% of South African men questioned in a survey published by the Medical Research Council (MRC) in June 2009 admitted to rape; of those, nearly half said they had raped more than one person. Three out of four of those who had admitted rape indicated that they had attacked for the first time during their teenage years. South Africa has amongst the highest incidences of child and baby rape in the world

Now we know that the definition of rape is often manipulated in surveys, so I wouldn't trust those 3 out of 4 and 1 in 3 numbers. But that doesn't affect country to country comparisons of police reports very much; so ya, its real bad. Looks like the rape rate there is not only worst in the world, its running about 5 times the US rate.

Note this is all from wikipedia; which I would expect to downplay the numbers if anything.

 

[Mojo]

The statistics coming out of SA are known to be unreliable. A lot of the crime goes unreported, first because police ignore the reports and second, at least some of the crimes are being committed by off duty police. Not to mention this is all happening with the backing of the government; so they have ulterior motives to downplay the stats.

I need only look at the extreme measures people are taking there to keep them safe to know that it is far more than a couple dozen killings a year. Not only doesn't that pass the sniff test, I checked the stats and that would make the murder rate two orders of magnitude lower than the current USA rate.

Ok, so I better check the current SA stats. Those have the homicide rate (whole population) running at over 6 times the rate in the United States. That is NOT broken down by race, which will skew things since blacks are disproportionately victims of homicide in this country; meaning the felt murder rate in non-gang parts of the US will be a whole lot less.

To put that in numbers. over 19 thousand people are killed yearly in SA; out of a population of 56 million. In the USA only 17 thousand are killed out of a population of over 300 million. And if those rapes and murders are being mostly born by white South Africans; their population is under 5 million. I say if, I didn't find stats broken down by race/ethnicity.

From this it looks like 15 murders a day is understated. It is currently around 50 per day...



Oh and from that same page...



Now we know that the definition of rape is often manipulated in surveys, so I wouldn't trust those 3 out of 4 and 1 in 3 numbers. But that doesn't affect country to country comparisons of police reports very much; so ya, its real bad. Looks like the rape rate there is not only worst in the world, its running about 5 times the US rate.

Note this is all from wikipedia; which I would expect to downplay the numbers if anything.

But it doesn't give the black on white rates. That would make a big difference.

In the US, blacks are more likely to be victimized by other blacks.

 

[rockfox]

But it doesn't give the black on white rates. That would make a big difference.

In the US, blacks are more likely to be victimized by other blacks.

Yes exactly. Its a rough first glance; just to point out that there is a very very very serious problem over there as compared to elsewhere. It's not a misconception as some in media would have us think.

Breaking down by race on the US side will likely drive the numbers a little lower for whites. Breaking them down by race in SA; uncertain, I haven't found those numbers yet. If the murders are mostly black on white, it would dramatically drive the rate up. But if the blacks there also kill each other at high rates then breaking it down may have little affect.

What I do know for sure is the Boers are in mortal danger and are socially targeted. Whether the level of violence against whites is solely due to targeting or a partial side effect of extremely high crime I can't say (as in crime rates are SO high that the normal proportion against whites overwhelms the small population). But in a situation where you have high societal violence and the government is giving moral cover for genocide, and in cases directly perpetrating it; the difference doesn't really matter.

I'm seeing some reports that SA stopped reporting race based statistics 10 years ago and that stats on white victims may not be even making the stats at all. Really, the longer this goes on and bigger this gets the less I'll trust the stats. A lot of people there and abroad with political incentive to deny it is happening.

But then that is how genocides usually go. One need only look at the Holodomor for an example of that. It's often only after the fact we get a good grasp of what really happened.

 

[Mojo]

But, do genocides in Africa get overlooked because it's Africa and people don't seem to care about that continent, no matter what?

My fear is that for some, it's just because it's Whites being targeted. Were these same folks as concerned with the Rwandan genocide? Or was that black on black genocide, so no biggie?

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

But, do genocides in Africa get overlooked because it's Africa and people don't seem to care about that continent, no matter what?

My fear is that for some, it's just because it's Whites being targeted. Were these same folks as concerned with the Rwandan genocide? Or was that black on black genocide, so no biggie?

I don’t think anyone is more “concerned” ( at least I’m not) about potential genocide in SA because they are white. I think the issue is that people are condemning the potential victims for trying to protect themselves. If Orania was made up of Koreans, Mexicans, Jews, Pakistanis, or Ethiopians would anyone here be calling them racists or supremacists for trying to protect themselves in this manner?

 

[Mojo]

I don’t think anyone is more “concerned” ( at least I’m not) about potential genocide in SA because they are white. I think the issue is that people are condemning the potential victims for trying to protect themselves. If Orania was made up of Koreans, Mexicans, Jews, Pakistanis, or Ethiopians would anyone here be calling them racists or supremacists for trying to protect themselves in this manner?

I believe supremacists was only bought up once here, and definitely not by me. I don't think anyone on here is bringing it up out of White, racist supremacy either, at least I hope not. I believe in freedom of association, and a right to bear arms.......period.

My suspicion is that the purveyors of fear and anger are making this issue known to stoke racial fears. I would be willing to bet that the Rwandan genocide in Africa is/was not on the radar of most folks bringing this issue up in non traditional media. I could be wrong.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

My suspicion is that the purveyors of fear and anger are making this issue known to stoke racial fears. I would be willing to bet that the Rwandan genocide in Africa is/was not on the radar of most folks bringing this issue up in non traditional media. I could be wrong.

If the “purveyors of fear and anger” are making this a huge issue for some ulterior motive, they’re doing a terrible job of it. There is very limited information on it. One has to dig deep to find information about it, and the people I’ve seen reporting on it are not neo nazis or white power groups. I’m not afraid or angry, i’m sympathetic about their plight as i was for the Tutsi people and I certainly wouldn’t have impugned them for taking measures to protect themselves. The Rwandan genocide was reported on by the mainstream media, even leading up to it. They are silent about SA.

I believe supremacists was only bought up once here, and definitely not by me. I don't think anyone on here is bringing it up out of White, racist supremacy either, at least I hope not. I believe in freedom of association, and a right to bear arms.......period.

Well someone did and it wasn’t me or you. I simply responded to it and you responded to me, and yada yada here we are. Not sure what your point is there.

 

[Mojo]

My points are:

• I'm not impugning the character or motives of anyone in this thread...anyone.
• I am reiterating that I think Orania is a fine idea for those in SA who want to live there (free association and gun rights)
• How one came to know about it, or their motivations for trying to promote the publicizing of it are their own personal concerns.
• I want folks here to be open to the possibility that some groups may be trying to prey on their fears, unwittingly.

the people I've seen reporting on it are not neo nazis or white power groups

Most of the mainstream media insisted they were nonpartisan for YEARS! With the advent of the Internet and alternative cable news shows, they just about openly admit it now, because there's no denying it. Unless you know a person personally, it's often hard to discern their true intents. Not only that, but there's crap and genocidal stuff happening all over the globe (Philipines, Tibet...). They are deemed to not be sexy enough sometimes to be reported in nightly and daily.

Note: I'm not fighting with you personally @Asforme&myhouse. I'm just offering counterpoint to a generic person out there who feels differently than I do, for the purpose of balance on this forum.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

My points are:

• I'm not impugning the character or motives of anyone in this thread...anyone.

Bro, I didn’t say you were.

• I want folks here to be open to the possibility that some groups may be trying to prey on their fears, unwittingly.

Most of the mainstream media insisted they were nonpartisan for YEARS! With the advent of the Internet and alternative cable news shows, they just about openly admit it now, because there's no denying it. Unless you know a person personally, it's often hard to discern their true intents. Not only that, but there's crap and genocidal stuff happening all over the globe (Philipines, Tibet...). They are deemed to not be sexy enough sometimes to be reported in nightly and daily.

I guess i just don’t see this giant seething cabal that is salivating over this rare opportunity to whip white people into a frenzy over this. I mean you seriously have to dig to get info about it... but maybe that’s their secret plot, kind of like when you’re trying to get your kids to pay attention, instead of talking louder, you wisper and all a sudden your kids ears perk up. Man these guys are clever! I never saw it coming!

Note: I'm not fighting with you personally @Asforme&myhouse. I'm just offering counterpoint to a generic person out there who feels differently than I do, for the purpose of balance on this forum.

I’m not fighting at all. I’m pretty sure the forum isn’t getting swept away with hateful rhetoric. You and i are the only ones even talking about this haha

 

[rockfox]

But, do genocides in Africa get overlooked because it's Africa and people don't seem to care about that continent, no matter what?

That is absurd. American's spend millions, maybe even billions, on foreign aid (privately and governmentally) to help Africa. We are anything but uncaring. We are standouts worldwide when it comes to privately helping other countries.

My fear is that for some, it's just because it's Whites being targeted. Were these same folks as concerned with the Rwandan genocide? Or was that black on black genocide, so no biggie?

That is ridiculous. When blacks were being killed in Rwanda were you concerned that it only got attention because blacks were being targeted? Who cares why people pay attention, it is enough that they do so we can stop the killing. Even if it's not your intent, that's still just a passive aggressive way of saying it's racist to care about white people being murdered.

Rwanda did get a lot of attention. And IIRC no one doubted it was genocide at the time. President Clinton would have intervened early in the killings, but he was still reeling over the Somalia debacle and did not want a repeat. He now calls it his biggest regret that he didn't. And this from the man so beloved by the black community they called him our 'first black president'. Was he racist for not intervening? Given that lesson should we now look the other way today in South Africa?

South Africa is different; first in that this is a not a hot war but rather a slow decades long campaign to eliminate the Afrikaners. It's finally getting attention because its on the verge of going hot. Second, there are lots and lots of people denying that this is taking place or casting aspersions on those who are concerned. The lessons of Never Again are being ignored. Its a dangerous recipe.

President Trump mentioning concern for this recently caused a big blowup in the media; who informed us that caring about white people being murdered is racism and white supremacy. All the while media propagandists assure us that either there is nothing to see here or that they deserve it. And this about a country with horrific rape/murder rates, whose President sings songs at rallies about killing the Boer, and the main opposition leader of which is talking about killing all the whites. What would we be saying if President Trump spent time at his rallies singing songs glorifying the murder of blacks while advocating taking all their property? Would anyone doubt he had genocidal intent?

Yes, racism is playing a factor in coverage of this issue. Just in the opposite way as you are concerned about.