South Africa: difficulty getting good information

[BigMike]

Skepdick, you’re right to call out vague rhetoric when you see it—but threading the needle between justice and injustice isn’t applause lighting. It’s just hard work that doesn’t fit into slogans, and yeah, it’s easier to roll your eyes than wrestle with complexity.

Don't you get that sense of irony, choking you like a cock at the back of your throat, when you are preaching wrestling with complexity to a complexity theorist?

Fair question.

The ANC would certainly disagree with that assessment. Isn't that just circular reasoning?

You haven't threaded the needle between fairness and unfairness for us.

What if it's an unfair question and you are just mistaken. Can't you wrestle with complexity?

The answer lies in context and power.

Well sure. The context is 2025 and the political power has changed hands.

If a group gained wealth through centuries of exclusion, benefiting from systems others were locked out of, then redistribution aimed at repairing that legacy isn’t theft—it’s course correction.

Heyyy, look! It took you virtually no time to sneak in group identity into the equation. So how do we determine who was; and wasn't part of the group which benefited "unfairly"?

Given that whites are effectively excluded from the higher echelons of the economy via BEE policies; and given that whites have no political power isn't that systemic racism circa 2025?

Isn't it unfair that race is now the deciding factor when having to do business with two equally competent individuals or businesses?

But if a group uses power to entrench its own advantage at others’ expense—without any historical or moral grounding—that’s not justice, that’s just a new imbalance wearing different clothes.

Ohhh "grounding". That stupid Western philosophical idea that has gotten us nowhere in thousands of years.

You can’t measure justice by who’s doing the redistributing—you measure it by why, how, and to what effect. That’s the difference. And it’s only visible if you’re willing to look past the cheap binaries and do the harder work of historical and moral accounting.

But sure—if mocking the language helps you sidestep that work, be my guest. Just don’t pretend cynicism is clarity.

More applause lights! More!

I am mocking the language which expresses all platitudes - without communicating any actual work.

You can't do any accounting - simplistic or otherwise; unless you provide us with the accounting framework you are using. Could you tell us the principles of accounting you are accounting by?

Skepdick, if you want an accounting framework, here’s one: cause and consequence over time.

Let’s strip this down.

1. Cause: Wealth and land were acquired through conquest, exclusionary law, and forced labor. That’s not group identity politics—it’s just recorded history. Entire populations were legally barred from ownership, education, and participation in markets for decades or centuries. That’s the imbalance.

2. Consequence: The benefits of those policies didn’t vanish when the laws changed. They compounded—like interest. Today’s disparities aren’t coincidences. They’re echoes. That’s not an ideology. That’s structural inertia.

3. Correction: Redress isn’t about punishing the present. It’s about dismantling the machinery of advantage that still hums in the background—quiet, but profitable.

Now you ask: what about 2025? Isn’t BEE and affirmative action now a mirror image of exclusion?

No. The crucial difference is motive. Past systems excluded to dominate. Modern equity policies exist to undo that legacy. If they’re overextended or misapplied, that’s a policy failure—not a reversal of oppression. It’s not symmetrical, because the intent and historical weight aren’t.

And no, “grounding” isn’t a stupid Western idea—it’s what lets us distinguish between justice and power dressed as justice. Without principles, you get whatever the strongest faction wants, justified by nothing but its own volume. That’s not clarity. That’s noise.

So if you want to keep mocking every attempt at principled reasoning as “applause lights,” fine. But don’t confuse sneering for insight. It’s the cheapest seat in the arena—and it builds exactly nothing.

[Skepdick]

Skepdick, if you want an accounting framework, here’s one: cause and consequence over time.

You really have a penchant for empty words, don't you? Cause and consequence over time is a given!
In fact some causes are themselves consequences. So unless you identify a root cause all you really have is consequences causing further consequences.

This is not sufficient for accounting; you see. Since you have offered no framework for mapping any consequences (even the causal ones) to the categories of "just" and "unjust".

1. Cause: Wealth and land were acquired through conquest, exclusionary law, and forced labor. That’s not group identity politics—it’s just recorded history. Entire populations were legally barred from ownership, education, and participation in markets for decades or centuries. That’s the imbalance.

2. Consequence: The benefits of those policies didn’t vanish when the laws changed. They compounded—like interest. Today’s disparities aren’t coincidences. They’re echoes. That’s not an ideology. That’s structural inertia.

3. Correction: Redress isn’t about punishing the present. It’s about dismantling the machinery of advantage that still hums in the background—quiet, but profitable.

Now you ask: what about 2025? Isn’t BEE and affirmative action now a mirror image of exclusion?

No. The crucial difference is motive. Past systems excluded to dominate. Modern equity policies exist to undo that legacy. If they’re overextended or misapplied, that’s a policy failure—not a reversal of oppression. It’s not symmetrical, because the intent and historical weight aren’t.

That's a lot of duplicit language without having threaded any of the needles there, buddy.

Which intents and motives are "just" and which intents are "unjust"?

Don't you think it's weird you went from preaching consequentialism to preaching deontology in a single paragraph?

And no, “grounding” isn’t a stupid Western idea—it’s what lets us distinguish between justice and power dressed as justice. Without principles, you get whatever the strongest faction wants, justified by nothing but its own volume. That’s not clarity. That’s noise.

So what are these principles? State them already so that I can apply them in practice without having to listen to you.

So if you want to keep mocking every attempt at principled reasoning as “applause lights,” fine. But don’t confuse sneering for insight. It’s the cheapest seat in the arena—and it builds exactly nothing.

What I am mocking is a wanker who lacks principles behind their so-called "principled" reasoning.

If you had principles you would've stated them already. Instead you default to the usual philosophical vagueness.

I'll go ahead with Hanlon's razor here. It must be stupidity and not malice. You really don't know that your reasoning isn't principled; and it's just vacuous rhetoric. Do you?

The moment you insisted your principle are "contextual" you pulled the rug from underneath your feet. What higher-order principle determine which principles are valid in which context?

The first and only principle of first principles reasoning is that there are no first principles!

[BigMike]

Skepdick, if you want an accounting framework, here’s one: cause and consequence over time.

You really have a penchant for empty words, don't you? Cause and consequence over time is a given!
In fact some causes are themselves consequences. So unless you identify a root cause all you really have is consequences causing further consequences.

This is not sufficient for accounting; you see. Since you have offered no framework for mapping any consequences (even the causal ones) to the categories of "just" and "unjust".

1. Cause: Wealth and land were acquired through conquest, exclusionary law, and forced labor. That’s not group identity politics—it’s just recorded history. Entire populations were legally barred from ownership, education, and participation in markets for decades or centuries. That’s the imbalance.

2. Consequence: The benefits of those policies didn’t vanish when the laws changed. They compounded—like interest. Today’s disparities aren’t coincidences. They’re echoes. That’s not an ideology. That’s structural inertia.

3. Correction: Redress isn’t about punishing the present. It’s about dismantling the machinery of advantage that still hums in the background—quiet, but profitable.

Now you ask: what about 2025? Isn’t BEE and affirmative action now a mirror image of exclusion?

No. The crucial difference is motive. Past systems excluded to dominate. Modern equity policies exist to undo that legacy. If they’re overextended or misapplied, that’s a policy failure—not a reversal of oppression. It’s not symmetrical, because the intent and historical weight aren’t.

That's a lot of duplicit language without having threaded any of the needles there, buddy.

Which intents and motives are "just" and which intents are "unjust"?

Don't you think it's weird you went from preaching consequentialism to preaching deontology in a single paragraph?

And no, “grounding” isn’t a stupid Western idea—it’s what lets us distinguish between justice and power dressed as justice. Without principles, you get whatever the strongest faction wants, justified by nothing but its own volume. That’s not clarity. That’s noise.

So what are these principles? State them already so that I can apply them in practice without having to listen to you.

So if you want to keep mocking every attempt at principled reasoning as “applause lights,” fine. But don’t confuse sneering for insight. It’s the cheapest seat in the arena—and it builds exactly nothing.

What I am mocking is a wanker who lacks principles behind their so-called "principled" reasoning.

If you had principles you would've stated them already.

I'll go ahead with Hanlon's razor here. It must be stupidity and not malice. You really don't know that your reasoning isn't principled; and it's just vacuous rhetoric. Do you?

Skepdick, let me remind you of what I said earlier to accelafine, because it applies here too:

“No single person has the solution—but refusing to engage unless the entire world is fixed at once is just another way to stay comfortable doing nothing.”

That’s not a cop-out. That’s an acknowledgment of reality. I’m not claiming to have the final framework, or the moral calculus that satisfies every complexity theorist on Earth. What I’m doing is showing up—to engage, to ask questions, and yes, to call out injustice where it's evident.

You say “cause and consequence” is a given, and demand I identify the root cause. Fine—exclusion by force is a root cause. That’s not a vague abstraction. That’s law, policy, and guns—used historically to extract land, labor, and wealth from one group for the benefit of another. If you think that’s too blurry to be meaningful, then your standard for clarity is designed to avoid responsibility, not face it.

You ask for principles? Here’s one: Don’t build your advantage by denying opportunity to others—and if you’ve inherited such an advantage, don’t pretend it's neutral. That doesn’t mean guilt. It means accountability.

You want a simple litmus test? When a policy increases access, mobility, and participation without forcibly punishing individuals, it leans just. When it entrenches power at the expense of others’ ability to live freely and fully, it leans unjust. Not perfect, but functional. Justice isn’t a proof—it’s a practice.

You accuse me of lacking principles while refusing to offer any of your own. That’s not critique. That’s deflection. And the sad part is, behind all your sneers, you might actually have something worthwhile to contribute—if you ever chose to do more than tear down the people trying to start the conversation.

[Skepdick]

Skepdick, let me remind you of what I said earlier to accelafine, because it applies here too:

“No single person has the solution—but refusing to engage unless the entire world is fixed at once is just another way to stay comfortable doing nothing.”

That's just part of your repertoire, though. Exaggeration and delusions of grandeur.

You can't even fix a single instance of a single problem affecting a single person using the methods you are using. But lets pretend you are doing something.

That’s not a cop-out. That’s an acknowledgment of reality. I’m not claiming to have the final framework, or the moral calculus that satisfies every complexity theorist on Earth. What I’m doing is showing up—to engage, to ask questions, and yes, to call out injustice where it's evident.

It's very evident to me that justice and injustice is not evident to you. You are just making it up as you go along.

You say “cause and consequence” is a given, and demand I identify the root cause. Fine—exclusion by force is a root cause. That’s not a vague abstraction. That’s law, policy, and guns—used historically to extract land, labor, and wealth from one group for the benefit of another. If you think that’s too blurry to be meaningful, then your standard for clarity is designed to avoid responsibility, not face it.

Yeah... it's pretty vague. Your new weasel word is "responsibility".

Is it responsible or irresponsible to extract wealth using employees whom I pay less than I pay myself?
Is it responsible or irresponsible to value my time more than I value yours?

You know, since time is an economic resource.

You ask for principles? Here’s one: Don’t build your advantage by denying opportunity to others—and if you’ve inherited such an advantage, don’t pretend it's neutral. That doesn’t mean guilt. It means accountability.

How exactly do I do this in practice? When I get tasked with any responsibility - everybody else who lost out has been denied the opportunity of being responsible for that thing I am responsible for.

About the only practical way forward is to ensure the supply of opportunities always exceeds the supply of responsible people willing to exploit them.

And as far as that goes there's an over-abundance of opportunities (problems!) in Africa.

All the responsible and capable problem solvers have already stepped up. So I guess there's a short supply of those.

You want a simple litmus test? When a policy increases access, mobility, and participation without forcibly punishing individuals, it leans just.
When it entrenches power at the expense of others’ ability to live freely and fully, it leans unjust.

OK, so if the N-th order side effects of a complex system result in poor outcomes for certain individuals is that just or unjust?

Surely living freely is impossible when your systems of power (laws) dictate to me how I must live my life.

Since there is no system that can benefit everyone; and any system necessarily benefits only some people and not others (e.g all systems necessarily produce inequality given their externalities) - what exactly is a "just system"?

Not perfect, but functional. Justice isn’t a proof—it’s a practice.

You keep hiding behind linguistic distinctions. It must be convenient.

Everything's practice.

Which practices are functional; and which are dysfunctional?
Which are just; and which are unjust?

Is it just to subject people to laws to which they have not agreed?

You accuse me of lacking principles while refusing to offer any of your own.

Refusing? That's colorfully loaded language. I told you what my one and only principles is: NO principles!

Principled reasoning is indistinguishable from sanctimony. It's equality of outcome dressed up as reason.

That’s not critique. That’s deflection. And the sad part is, behind all your sneers, you might actually have something worthwhile to contribute—if you ever chose to do more than tear down the people trying to start the conversation.

The conversation started long ago. You are just nor part of it.

Instead you've simply chosen to be a social justice [EDITED BY ADMIN - PISS OFF SKEPDICK] - the worst race on planet Earth.

[BigMike]

Skepdick, let me remind you of what I said earlier to accelafine, because it applies here too:

“No single person has the solution—but refusing to engage unless the entire world is fixed at once is just another way to stay comfortable doing nothing.”

That's just part of your repertoire, though. Exaggeration and delusions of grandeur.

You can't even fix a single instance of a single problem affecting a single person using the methods you are using. But lets pretend you are doing something.

That’s not a cop-out. That’s an acknowledgment of reality. I’m not claiming to have the final framework, or the moral calculus that satisfies every complexity theorist on Earth. What I’m doing is showing up—to engage, to ask questions, and yes, to call out injustice where it's evident.

It's very evident to me that justice and injustice is not evident to you. You are just making it up as you go along.

You say “cause and consequence” is a given, and demand I identify the root cause. Fine—exclusion by force is a root cause. That’s not a vague abstraction. That’s law, policy, and guns—used historically to extract land, labor, and wealth from one group for the benefit of another. If you think that’s too blurry to be meaningful, then your standard for clarity is designed to avoid responsibility, not face it.

Yeah... it's pretty vague. Your new weasel word is "responsibility".

Is it responsible or irresponsible to extract wealth using employees whom I pay less than I pay myself?
Is it responsible or irresponsible to value my time more than I value yours?

You know, since time is an economic resource.

You ask for principles? Here’s one: Don’t build your advantage by denying opportunity to others—and if you’ve inherited such an advantage, don’t pretend it's neutral. That doesn’t mean guilt. It means accountability.

How exactly do I do this in practice? When I get tasked with any responsibility - everybody else who lost out has been denied the opportunity of being responsible for that thing I am responsible for.

About the only practical way forward is to ensure the supply of opportunities always exceeds the supply of responsible people willing to exploit them.

And as far as that goes there's an over-abundance of opportunities (problems!) in Africa.

All the responsible and capable problem solvers have already stepped up. So I guess there's a short supply of those.

You want a simple litmus test? When a policy increases access, mobility, and participation without forcibly punishing individuals, it leans just.
When it entrenches power at the expense of others’ ability to live freely and fully, it leans unjust.

OK, so if the N-th order side effects of a complex system result in poor outcomes for certain individuals is that just or unjust?

Surely living freely is impossible when your systems of power (laws) dictate to me how I must live my life.

Since there is no system that can benefit everyone; and any system necessarily benefits only some people and not others (e.g all systems necessarily produce inequality given their externalities) - what exactly is a "just system"?

Not perfect, but functional. Justice isn’t a proof—it’s a practice.

You keep hiding behind linguistic distinctions. It must be convenient.

Everything's practice.

Which practices are functional; and which are dysfunctional?
Which are just; and which are unjust?

Is it just to subject people to laws to which they have not agreed?

You accuse me of lacking principles while refusing to offer any of your own.

Refusing? That's colorfully loaded language. I told you what my one and only principles is: NO principles!

Principled reasoning is indistinguishable from sanctimony. It's equality of outcome dressed up as reason.

That’s not critique. That’s deflection. And the sad part is, behind all your sneers, you might actually have something worthwhile to contribute—if you ever chose to do more than tear down the people trying to start the conversation.

The conversation started long ago. You are just nor part of it.

Instead you've simply chosen to be a social justice [EDITED] - the worst race on planet Earth.

Your comment crossed a line, Skepdick.

Disagreeing with me—challenging ideas, frameworks, even my logic—that’s fair game. But racial slurs and dehumanizing language end the conversation. Not because I’m offended, but because they make real dialogue impossible. That kind of language isn’t criticism—it’s poison. It doesn’t strengthen your argument; it exposes its rot.

You talk a lot about responsibility, clarity, and systems—but you just showed you’re more interested in degrading others than in contributing anything constructive. You ask for practical frameworks, then spit bile when one is offered. You claim to value rigor, but fall back on open racism when cornered by your own contradictions.

If you want to be taken seriously, start by respecting the basic dignity of the people you're talking to. Until then, you're not challenging injustice—you’re embodying it.

[Skepdick]

Your comment crossed a line, Skepdick.

Yeah, nonsense. You keep making up the lines as you go along.

Disagreeing with me—challenging ideas, frameworks, even my logic—that’s fair game. But racial slurs and dehumanizing language end the conversation.

For example, you were preaching "context" up till 10 minute ago yet you failed to recognize that I completely recontextualized the so-called "racial slur and dehumanizing language".

I even re-contextualized "your race" to mean "your ideology"

I am insulting (and intentionally devaluing) the way you think and speak, not your humanity. Unless; of course you've internalized all that nonsense and rendered it indistinguishable from your identity like the egocentric Westerner that you are.

Even then I can't "end" a conversation that never even began... you started preaching (as usual) but that's no conversation.

Not because I’m offended, but because they make real dialogue impossible.

That kind of language isn’t criticism—it’s poison. It doesn’t strengthen your argument; it exposes its rot.

The dialogue was rendered impossible by the way you think.

You are a social justice [EDITED]. You offer nothing of substance but language and thought policing. Dumb Western Logocentrist.

You talk a lot about responsibility, clarity, and systems—but you just showed you’re more interested in degrading others than in contributing anything constructive.

I have zero interest in degrading others (in general). I am only interested in degrading you and everything you stand for; and the manner in which you conduct yourself.

You steal time crafting empty narrative and rhetoric and you call it "constructive".

You ask for practical frameworks, then spit bile when one is offered. You claim to value rigor, but fall back on open racism when cornered by your own contradictions.

If you want to be taken seriously, start by respecting the basic dignity of the people you're talking to. Until then, you're not challenging injustice—you’re embodying it.

See! This is social justice [EDITED]! The brain rot of Westerners. Frameworks, contradictions, rigor, dialectic, arguments. Structure.

The embodiment of intellectual oppression telling me I am embodying injustice.

Fucking intellectual colonialists. Get off the conceptual land of Africans! Quit stealing our mental land with your ideations; interpretations; language and philosophy!

You have nothing to teach Africans! You don't even grok Ubuntu.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_philosophy

This compulsion of yours to insert yourself into every dialogue and to dominate it. To impose your solutions on every problem. To dictate what is; or isn't a problem...To have an opinion about everything anywhere on Earth. To be in total control of everything starting with the narrative.

That's Western imperialism's grassroots.

[accelafine]

Skepdick, let me remind you of what I said earlier to accelafine, because it applies here too:

“No single person has the solution—but refusing to engage unless the entire world is fixed at once is just another way to stay comfortable doing nothing.”

That's just part of your repertoire, though. Exaggeration and delusions of grandeur.

You can't even fix a single instance of a single problem affecting a single person using the methods you are using. But lets pretend you are doing something.

That’s not a cop-out. That’s an acknowledgment of reality. I’m not claiming to have the final framework, or the moral calculus that satisfies every complexity theorist on Earth. What I’m doing is showing up—to engage, to ask questions, and yes, to call out injustice where it's evident.

It's very evident to me that justice and injustice is not evident to you. You are just making it up as you go along.

You say “cause and consequence” is a given, and demand I identify the root cause. Fine—exclusion by force is a root cause. That’s not a vague abstraction. That’s law, policy, and guns—used historically to extract land, labor, and wealth from one group for the benefit of another. If you think that’s too blurry to be meaningful, then your standard for clarity is designed to avoid responsibility, not face it.

Yeah... it's pretty vague. Your new weasel word is "responsibility".

Is it responsible or irresponsible to extract wealth using employees whom I pay less than I pay myself?
Is it responsible or irresponsible to value my time more than I value yours?

You know, since time is an economic resource.

You ask for principles? Here’s one: Don’t build your advantage by denying opportunity to others—and if you’ve inherited such an advantage, don’t pretend it's neutral. That doesn’t mean guilt. It means accountability.

How exactly do I do this in practice? When I get tasked with any responsibility - everybody else who lost out has been denied the opportunity of being responsible for that thing I am responsible for.

About the only practical way forward is to ensure the supply of opportunities always exceeds the supply of responsible people willing to exploit them.

And as far as that goes there's an over-abundance of opportunities (problems!) in Africa.

All the responsible and capable problem solvers have already stepped up. So I guess there's a short supply of those.

You want a simple litmus test? When a policy increases access, mobility, and participation without forcibly punishing individuals, it leans just.
When it entrenches power at the expense of others’ ability to live freely and fully, it leans unjust.

OK, so if the N-th order side effects of a complex system result in poor outcomes for certain individuals is that just or unjust?

Surely living freely is impossible when your systems of power (laws) dictate to me how I must live my life.

Since there is no system that can benefit everyone; and any system necessarily benefits only some people and not others (e.g all systems necessarily produce inequality given their externalities) - what exactly is a "just system"?

Not perfect, but functional. Justice isn’t a proof—it’s a practice.

You keep hiding behind linguistic distinctions. It must be convenient.

Everything's practice.

Which practices are functional; and which are dysfunctional?
Which are just; and which are unjust?

Is it just to subject people to laws to which they have not agreed?

You accuse me of lacking principles while refusing to offer any of your own.

Refusing? That's colorfully loaded language. I told you what my one and only principles is: NO principles!

Principled reasoning is indistinguishable from sanctimony. It's equality of outcome dressed up as reason.

That’s not critique. That’s deflection. And the sad part is, behind all your sneers, you might actually have something worthwhile to contribute—if you ever chose to do more than tear down the people trying to start the conversation.

The conversation started long ago. You are just nor part of it.

Instead you've simply chosen to be a social justice [EDITED] - the worst race on planet Earth.

Your comment crossed a line, Skepdick.

Disagreeing with me—challenging ideas, frameworks, even my logic—that’s fair game. But racial slurs and dehumanizing language end the conversation. Not because I’m offended, but because they make real dialogue impossible. That kind of language isn’t criticism—it’s poison. It doesn’t strengthen your argument; it exposes its rot.

You talk a lot about responsibility, clarity, and systems—but you just showed you’re more interested in degrading others than in contributing anything constructive. You ask for practical frameworks, then spit bile when one is offered. You claim to value rigor, but fall back on open racism when cornered by your own contradictions.

If you want to be taken seriously, start by respecting the basic dignity of the people you're talking to. Until then, you're not challenging injustice—you’re embodying it.

Stupid childish Americans, believing a word has magic powers and forcing its eradication on the entire planet no matter what the context (unless it's 'cool' black dudes using it). You are truly the most annoying humans on the planet. The word 'n*****' comes from the Latin word 'niger' meaning black. Just because loathesome, horrible Americans who were rabid racists used it doesn't mean it has magical powers you twat.
Actually I don't understand why no one seems to find 'African American' offensive. Blacks have been there for just as long as white people. At what point are they just 'American'? They are hardly 'African' after twenty generations for 'f word' sake.

[accelafine]

Oh for f-word sake. It's so magical that it comes out as stars when you type it. JFC.

[Skepdick]

Oh for f-word sake. It's so magical that it comes out as stars when you type it. JFC.

[EDITED]! You can't say [EDITED]?

What would we do if somebody were to figure out a trivial workaround?!?

Call the thought-police to investigate this thought crime!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Wow, the guy calling to his followers for the murder of white South Africans is quite a sobering sight to behold. I hope there is a more productive middle ground to be found in all this.

I am always on the lookout for video reports on SA that get to the heart of matters. I found this one to be particularly interesting.

Reggie Yates travels to Coronation Park, South Africa’s largest white squatter camp, to spend a week living alongside the residents and uncover the harsh realities of life for impoverished white South Africans. Once part of the country's privileged class, many now face unemployment, poverty, and social exclusion. As Reggie explores their stories, he investigates the impact of post-apartheid affirmative action policies and asks: are some white South Africans now experiencing discrimination in a country once defined by racial inequality?

There is a part, somewhat later in the presentation, where Malema and the EFF are shown in a wider context.

[accelafine]

Just think, in another decade or so 'African American' will come out as A******A******** and the whole world will be obliged to say 'the double-A word'.

[henry quirk]

trivial

Might be to you, but I think it's clever.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But let's not throw out the diagnosis because the treatment was botched.

It is precisely ‘the diagnosis’ that requires a closer examination, in my view. Because ‘the diagnosis’ (the structure of your analysis) is certainly Marxian. And please note that I am not attempting to use that term in a blanket manner as it is used often these days. A Marxian analysis leads inevitably to class warfare and ‘revolution’ to address the ‘structural inequality’. The lens of analysis tends always to call forth specific ‘solution sets’.

You objected to my precise and realism-based assertions about the contrast between Afrikaner social and cultural mores and their institutions, in contradistinction to what Skepdick referred to as ‘indigenous knowledge’. Europeans had and brought everything (written language, political traditions, very basic technologies, defined legal codes — in brief the rudiments of what we define as civilization — to lands that did not have any of these.

The process of “contact” — any contact — inevitably affected those (as I say) primitive peoples and their traditions and way of life. The processes of colonization, though certainly having exploitive elements and that came about through political conquest, also brought those peoples into the world: the possibility and the reality of modern life.

Our own civilization — Europe — came to be because of similar processes of conquest, political subjugation, and being roped into what we understand as the world of civilization. These are “facts”. And we are all outcomes of these original processes of conquest: having been made to serve in the empire of larger, established will. We have been subject to it for 1,000 years, more or less.

Chomsky points out that in year ‘501’ (500 years after the initial conquest) the same systems still operate. Yes: schools that educate pupils in all the Occidental categories: grammar, language, political theory, economics, mathematics, science and technology, and these are the foundations of civilization.

No matter how it is looked at, be it for them or for us, we exist within these processes, initiated through the stark use of raw power: quite literally conquest.

Angela Davis often referred to Africans “stolen from the shores of Africa” and there is another encapsulating phrase (not hers) about “Africans forced to labor in the Empire of the white man’s will”. A cruel phrasing, right? However, when you dig down into it what you find is that what they have been subjected to, and what continues certainly today, is the imposition of all those categories on which civilization is based. Civilization is conquest.

The curious thing is that there is no turning back. There is no return to the reality of tribal life and custom in pre-conquest Africa, which is also pre-written language and pre-technology. But when you examine the ideas behind black nationalism, and the recovery of “black identity”, you do find that there are attempts to recover the “old gods” and at least the rudiments of an archaic life-relationship.

But there is really no turning back. Consider solely the African slave who became the subject of the white man’s will. Language, schooling, custom, law, European political and social traditions: these not only were ‘imposed’, they are still in process of imposition. Civilization is imposition.

What then is “the best course” for them and also for us? I will state it plainly and without mincing words nor fall into the weird idealism-trap that you seem to be in: They must surrender their rebellious will and agree to give conscious assent to cooperation with established processes we refer to as “civilized life”.

Those who do this “integrate” and make themselves ‘productive participants’. Don’t you see? They take on, they adopt, and they continue forward in everything that we refer to as the structures of civilization. I do admit that rebellion, resistance (and revolution) are always options. But I hope that you recognize that I — as a European — had long ago, generations back of course, been subject to civilization’s processes. To the hard rule of the law. And I hope you see that I give my assent to all of this.

[BigMike]

But let's not throw out the diagnosis because the treatment was botched.

It is precisely ‘the diagnosis’ that requires a closer examination, in my view. Because ‘the diagnosis’ (the structure of your analysis) is certainly Marxian. And please note that I am not attempting to use that term in a blanket manner as it is used often these days. A Marxian analysis leads inevitably to class warfare and ‘revolution’ to address the ‘structural inequality’. The lens of analysis tends always to call forth specific ‘solution sets’.

You objected to my precise and realism-based assertions about the contrast between Afrikaner social and cultural mores and their institutions, in contradistinction to what Skepdick referred to as ‘indigenous knowledge’. Europeans had and brought everything (written language, political traditions, very basic technologies, defined legal codes — in brief the rudiments of what we define as civilization — to lands that did not have any of these.

The process of “contact” — any contact — inevitably affected those (as I say) primitive peoples and their traditions and way of life. The processes of colonialization, though certainly having exploitive elements and that came about through political conquest, also brought those peoples into the world: the possibility and the reality of modern life.

Our own civilization — Europe — came to be because of similar processes of conquest, political subjugation, and being roped into what we understand as the world of civilization. These are “facts”. And we are all outcomes of these original processes of conquest: having been made to serve in the empire of larger, established will. We have been subject to it for 1,000 years, more or less.

Chomsky points out that in year ‘501’ (500 years after the initial conquest) the same systems still operate. Yes: schools that educate pupils in all the Occidental categories: grammar, language, political theory, mathematics, science and technology, and these are the foundations of civilization.

No matter how it is looked at, be it for them or for us, we exist within these processes, initiated through the stark use of raw power: quite literally conquest.

Angela Davis often referred to Africans “stolen from the shores of Africa” and there is another encapsulating phrase (not hers) about “Africans forced to labor in the Empire of the white man’s will”. A cruel phrasing, right? However, when you dig down into it what you find is that what they have been subjected to, and what continues certainly today, is the imposition of all those categories on which civilization is based. Civilization is conquest.

The curious thing is that there is no turning back. There is no return to the reality of tribal life and custom in pre-conquest Africa, which is also pre-written language and pre-technology. But when you examine the ideas behind black nationalism, and the recovery of “black identity”, you do find that there are attempts to recover the “old gods” and at least the rudiments of an archaic life-relationship.

But there is really no turning back. Consider solely the African slave who became the subject of the white man’s will. Language, schooling, custom, law, European political and social traditions: these not only were ‘imposed’, they are still in process of imposition. Civilization is imposition.

What then is “the best course” for them and also for us? I will state it plainly and without mincing words nor fall into the weird idealism-trap that you seem to be in: They must surrender their rebellious will and agree to give conscious assent to cooperation with established processes we refer to as “civilized life”.

Those who do this “integrate” and make themselves ‘productive participants’. Don’t you see? They take on, they adopt, and they continue forward in everything that we refer to as the structures of civilization. I do admit that rebellion, resistance (and revolution) are always options. But I hope that you recognize that I — as a European — had long ago, generations back of course, been subject to civilization’s processes. To the hard rule of the law. And I hope you see that I give my assent to all of this.

Alexis, thanks for laying that out so fully—it clarifies the roots of your position. But what you’re calling “realism” is still grounded in a fundamental asymmetry: that one set of people brought civilization, and the other must submit to it. That’s not a neutral observation—it’s a hierarchy, and it makes a moral claim, even if cloaked in historical description.

You’re right that conquest and coercion played foundational roles in shaping what we call “civilization.” But if we take that seriously, the lesson shouldn’t be: therefore, others must now agree to be molded by it too. It should be: we are all inheritors of a process that included brutal imposition—and that truth should make us cautious about preaching submission as a virtue.

You say that “they must surrender their rebellious will” and consciously adopt the tools of civilization. But that language—surrender, assent, submission—presumes there’s nothing of value in indigenous worldviews, and nothing worth integrating from them into our shared future. That’s where we part ways. Because many societies—African, South American, Indigenous—possess traditions of community, sustainability, and relational ethics that Western systems, obsessed with conquest and extraction, have largely lost.

Yes, there is no going back to a pre-contact world. But forward doesn’t have to mean one path. It doesn’t require the erasure of everything non-European. Integration doesn’t have to mean cultural obedience. It can mean co-creation—building systems that honor complexity and multiplicity, not just dominance and efficiency.

You point out that rebellion and resistance are always options. They are. And they arise when people feel their dignity is being erased in the name of “progress.” If we want real, lasting cooperation, it must be offered—not demanded. Not as submission to what was, but as participation in what could be.

So yes, let’s acknowledge that civilization involves imposition. But let’s also ask: can we finally outgrow that mode of civilization? Or must it always require someone’s surrender?

[Skepdick]

So yes, let’s acknowledge that civilization involves imposition. But let’s also ask: can we finally outgrow that mode of civilization? Or must it always require someone’s surrender?

I guess you answered yourself there...

Other people's freedom is a problem for you. Which certainly makes you a problem for other people.

Let’s stop pretending. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not noble. It’s not progressive. It’s not enlightened. It is a legal enshrinement of mass delusion—a global permission slip for humans to believe whatever the hell they want, no matter how ignorant, dangerous, or outright false, and demand respect for it.

It’s the reason a child can be taught that hell awaits them for thinking critically. It’s the reason grown adults can mutilate genitals in the name of a god and call it “culture.” It’s why religious institutions can hoard wealth, obstruct science, and indoctrinate billions—with impunity.

We don’t give legal protection to conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, or schizophrenic delusions. But slap the word “religion” on any irrational belief system and suddenly it’s sacred. It’s protected. It’s untouchable. That is insanity, institutionalized.

Freedom of thought is one thing. But freedom to teach lies, manipulate minds, and sow conflict under the banner of “religion” is not a right—it’s a societal rot. Article 18 is a coward’s clause, shielding dogma from accountability.

It’s time we stop coddling mythology and start defending reality. Article 18 has to go—before it drags the rest of us down with it.