(Tucker) Carlson slams South Africa's defense of land reform: 'Pure propaganda'

[TomSea]

Carlson slams South Africa's defense of land reform: 'Pure propaganda'
Joe Concha

Fox News host Tucker Carlson on Thursday defended President Trumps response to a segment on his show, saying the reaction from South Africa was "pure propaganda."

Carlson told The Hill that he was "really grateful" the president brought attention to his report on land seizures in South Africa, despite the country's pushback this week.

Carlson in the Tuesday segment charged that the South African government was racist, telling The Hill on Thursday that "proposing to take people's land away not because these people have committed crimes but because those people are the wrong color" is "totally wrong."

Read more at: http://thehill.com/homenews/media/403388-carlson-on-south-africa-pure-propaganda

[Fishrrman]

The so-called "war on whites" is (at least for now) pretty much an intellectual struggle in most countries of The West.

Unfortunately in South Africa, it is as real as real can be.

[TomSea]

Fox's Tucker Carlson stunned by reaction to stories on South Africa
David Bauder
AP Media Writer
 
Fox News host Tucker Carlson said Friday he's shocked his segments this week on a South African land reform policy should be considered an appeal to white nationalists — let alone spark an international incident.

Carlson argued against a proposal that would allow the South African government to seize some white-owned agricultural land, part of an effort to address inequities left over from apartheid. Whites own more than 70 percent of such farmland despite being about 8 percent of the population.

Two hours after Carlson reported on it, a prominent viewer — Republican President Donald Trump — tweeted that he asked the secretary of state to look into the issue.

Read more at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/tv/ct-fox-news-tucker-carlson-south-africa-20180824-story.html

This is clearly a biased anti-fox story but good to know what is going on. I don't see how Tucker or Laura for that matter, who is mentioned in the story, can be criticized for reporting the news.

[goatprairie]

This is clearly a biased anti-fox story but good to know what is going on. I don't see how Tucker or Laura for that matter, who is mentioned in the story, can be criticized for reporting the news.

The usual suspects, the lib media (redundant) do not want this story reported. If they do report anything about it. everything is "justified" because of apartheid and past injustices.
If they were honest, the media would admit they like the idea of white farmers being murdered and having their land stolen. In their evil minds that makes up for past wrongs.
The fact that innocent people are being killed, their land stolen, and SA blacks are not competent to run modern farms is not not mentioned by the media.
Various black SA leaders have made it clear they want to even the score and punish whites.  Some have advocated or threatened killing whites.  The end result will be the utter ruination of SA.  Look for another Zimbabwe as SA blacks cut off their noses to spite their faces.

[Absalom]

History is required here but you won't get it from FOX, the yip-yap
network.
South Africa was Tribal Black till the Boers (a Dutch/Afrikaner label
meaning farmer) immigrated in the 18th century.
The Boers displaced the Zulu, then the Ruling Class, forcing them
from their ancestral lands.
What is presently going in South Africa, is retribution and vengeance
for a 250 year old sin that all Colonists around the world were guilty of.
 

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

What is presently going in South Africa, is retribution and vengeance
for a 250 year old sin that all Colonists around the world were guilty of.

That's as ridiculous as excusing the idea that blacks or the descendants of Union Army soldiers should be rampaging through the Southern US today, committing murders and robberies as retribution for past sins.

South Africa's current mess is a product of western white liberal guilt and it can be traced right back to Leftist Darling Nelson Mandela, who became the leader of a black terrorist group called the ANC in 1937.

They were funded, trained, and advised by Stalin's Govt.

They necklaced far more SA blacks with burning tires full of gasoline than they ever did whites, and under Mandela the Govt set in motion the destruction of private property rights.

[txradioguy]

What is presently going in South Africa, is retribution and vengeance
for a 250 year old sin that all Colonists around the world were guilty of.

 

[goatprairie]

History is required here but you won't get it from FOX, the yip-yap
network.
South Africa was Tribal Black till the Boers (a Dutch/Afrikaner label
meaning farmer) immigrated in the 18th century.
The Boers displaced the Zulu, then the Ruling Class, forcing them
from their ancestral lands.
What is presently going in South Africa, is retribution and vengeance
for a 250 year old sin that all Colonists around the world were guilty of.

According to the history I've read, the Boers were there well before the Zulus. There were only a few very small black tribes inhabiting the huge area when the Boers arrived.  The Zulus arrived later.
The Boers and later the English basically built SA.  The blacks were mostly common laborers.
To believe that somehow the mostly uneducated SA blacks can take over major agriculture concerns and run them successfully is to believe they could also launch their own space program.
What we will see in SA is another Zimbabwe after the whites are kicked out or killed.

[skeeter]

Why should Carlson be stunned? This is the Left's stock response to anyone who disagrees with them on issues where ethnicity can, in any way (however tenuous), be linked.

ANY issue.

Its worked like a charm so far - everyone always scatters when they flash the scarlet R.

[dfwgator]

Just like the Left were all pals with Hitler when he signed the Non-Aggression Pact with Stalin.   They justified everything Hitler did.

Until, Hitler invaded their beloved Soviet Union.

[skeeter]

According to the history I've read, the Boers were there well before the Zulus. There were only a few very small black tribes inhabiting the huge area when the Boers arrived.  The Zulus arrived later.
The Boers and later the English basically built SA.  The blacks were mostly common laborers.
To believe that somehow the mostly uneducated SA blacks can take over major agriculture concerns and run them successfully is to believe they could also launch their own space program.
What we will see in SA is another Zimbabwe after the whites are kicked out or killed.

My understanding as well. SA was very sparsely populated with nomadic bushman tribes when the Boers arrived.

Claiming that revenge for 250 yrs abuse is whats happening in SA now is nearly tantamount to saying mexicans were exacting retribution if they as a group decided to attack and disposses white Californians of their lives and property.

[dfwgator]

If anything, it was the Boers who were fighting against British Colonialism, during the Boer War.

[Absalom]

That's as ridiculous as excusing the idea that blacks or the descendants of Union Army soldiers should be rampaging through the Southern US today, committing murders and robberies as retribution for past sins.

South Africa's current mess is a product of western white liberal guilt and it can be traced right back to Leftist Darling Nelson Mandela, who became the leader of a black terrorist group called the ANC in 1937.

They were funded, trained, and advised by Stalin's Govt.

They necklaced far more SA blacks with burning tires full of gasoline than they ever did whites, and under Mandela the Govt set in motion the destruction of private property rights.

--------------------------------------
Suggest you dispense w/the 'liberal guilt, Mandela, Stalin' plus the rest of your
cliche's and try the Library. It's the stone building w/the history books inside!
Nelson Mandela, despite his warts, was a visionary leader who understood that
driving the white farmers from SA would devastate the nation economically.
So he reached an accord in 1991 w/ Mangosutu Buthelezi, Chief of the Zulu,
the ranking national tribe; to maintain political tolerance and protect property
rights. This was honored by both Blacks and the White Afrikaner rulers, Botha
and DeKlerk ; as South Africa transitioned from white to majority black rule,
where it is today. Why the agreement?
Because Mandela saw what was happening in Rhodesia when Ian Smith stepped
down and hard Marxist, Robert Mugabe became PM; driving the white farmers
out and devastating what is now Zimbabwe; one of the poorest nations in Africa.
Whether it be the Boers in the Transvaal, the Portuguese in Angola and Mozambique,
the Belgians in the Congo, the French in Algeria, the Spanish in the Americas and
so on around the world, during the colonial era; the Europeans explored to acquire
wealth; a perfectly understandable ambition.
As the superior power they took what they desired but certainly didn't pay for it.
Agreed the present white South African farmers have private property rights but
those who lived there before them, some 300 years ago, did not?
Suggest you try reality rather than fantasy-land!

[truth_seeker]

Well researched historical novel by James Michener, on SA.

"The Covenant." Two volumes.

Long before Political Correctness stood in the way of truth, Michener' books defined who the people were, good-bad-indifferent.

I remember reading therein that the only blacks in the region the whites settled, were pygmies (or something like that).

[Sanguine]

History is required here but you won't get it from FOX, the yip-yap
network.
South Africa was Tribal Black till the Boers (a Dutch/Afrikaner label
meaning farmer) immigrated in the 18th century.
The Boers displaced the Zulu, then the Ruling Class, forcing them
from their ancestral lands.
What is presently going in South Africa, is retribution and vengeance
for a 250 year old sin that all Colonists around the world were guilty of.

No, that's not true.  South Africa was mostly empty (except for small, scattered groups of Bushmen) when the Boers arrived in the mid 17th century. That's part of the reason they settled there.  There were a series of Bantu wars in the central north part of Africa that drove those peoples down into SA, AFTER the Boers had settled there.  (Zulu, under Shaka, for example)  The Bantu, among other less-than-desirable habits, hunted and ate the Bushmen, seeing them as not quite human. 

The Boers responded to the Bantu encroachments with a 17th - 18th century solution - one, which in retrospect has led to their destruction in the 20th century.

The English took over SA during the Napoleonic wars, ostensibly so that the French wouldn't.  Winston Churchill participated as a young office.

The history is a bit hard to tease out, because it seems that ideology drives much of its telling.

[Sanguine]

Well researched historical novel by James Michener, on SA.

"The Covenant." Two volumes.

Long before Political Correctness stood in the way of truth, Michener' books defined who the people were, good-bad-indifferent.

I remember reading therein that the only blacks in the region the whites settled, were pygmies (or something like that).

Did you read Rags of Glory?  Early concentration camps.

[TomSea]

Sounds good and I have read a few Michener. I will look up more on this "Rags of Glory".

[Absalom]

No, that's not true.  South Africa was mostly empty (except for small, scattered groups of Bushmen) when the Boers arrived in the mid 17th century. That's part of the reason they settled there.  There were a series of Bantu wars in the central north part of Africa that drove those peoples down into SA, AFTER the Boers had settled there.  (Zulu, under Shaka, for example)  The Bantu, among other less-than-desirable habits, hunted and ate the Bushmen, seeing them as not quite human. 

The Boers responded to the Bantu encroachments with a 17th - 18th century solution - one, which in retrospect has led to their destruction in the 20th century.

The English took over SA during the Napoleonic wars, ostensibly so that the French wouldn't.  Winston Churchill participated as a young office.

The history is a bit hard to tease out, because it seems that ideology drives much of its telling.

-----------------------------------
Sanguine,
Agree that the Transvaal of SA was not densely populated in 1700.
Nor was the world; yet that's hardly to point.
Also recognize that today's Afrikaner Farmers are being denied
property rights; the same rights that were denied to the tribes
of South Africa some 300 years ago,however few/many there were.
And that is the legacy of Colonialism!!!

[Fishrrman]

goatprairie wrote:
"If they were honest, the media would admit they like the idea of white farmers being murdered and having their land stolen. In their evil minds that makes up for past wrongs"

Did you ever -- just ever -- think for a moment that at least some of them could want the same thing to happen here...?

Goat also wrote:
"Various black SA leaders have made it clear they want to even the score and punish whites.  Some have advocated or threatened killing whites.  The end result will be the utter ruination of SA.  Look for another Zimbabwe as SA blacks cut off their noses to spite their faces."

Anyone who DIDN'T "see this coming" when de Klerk and the whites handed power over to the blacks back in the early nineties must have been blind. Blinder than Ray Charles.

As soon as that was done, the whites of South Africa were "done", as well.

At the very least, they should have fought for a partitioning of the country, and the creation of a "white homeland", even if that meant giving much of the established wealth and economy to the blacks (who would have promptly wasted it). At least they might have had a chance to survive.

As things are now, they will not.
They will be "eliminated", as were the Jews of Europe under the Nazis.
Guaranteed.

[Wingnut]

I don't know if SA was "Colonized" or if it was settled by fair skin peoples from a civilized country.  But I'm pretty sure if SA would have been left un touched by the "White hoards" the indigenous population would still be chucking spears at each other or it would be a communist shithole.

[skeeter]

I don't know if SA was "Colonized" or if it was settled by fair skin peoples from a civilized country.  But I'm pretty sure if SA would have been left un touched by the "White hoards" the indigenous population would still be chucking spears at each other or it would be a communist shithole.

The irony of the 'European colonization as the reason for the depressed state of the third world' line so popular on college campuses these days is that if any party in this mess has a case against 'colonialism' its the Africaaners.

[goatprairie]

goatprairie wrote:
"If they were honest, the media would admit they like the idea of white farmers being murdered and having their land stolen. In their evil minds that makes up for past wrongs"

Did you ever -- just ever -- think for a moment that at least some of them could want the same thing to happen here...?

Goat also wrote:
"Various black SA leaders have made it clear they want to even the score and punish whites.  Some have advocated or threatened killing whites.  The end result will be the utter ruination of SA.  Look for another Zimbabwe as SA blacks cut off their noses to spite their faces."

Anyone who DIDN'T "see this coming" when de Klerk and the whites handed power over to the blacks back in the early nineties must have been blind. Blinder than Ray Charles.

As soon as that was done, the whites of South Africa were "done", as well.

At the very least, they should have fought for a partitioning of the country, and the creation of a "white homeland", even if that meant giving much of the established wealth and economy to the blacks (who would have promptly wasted it). At least they might have had a chance to survive.

As things are now, they will not.
They will be "eliminated", as were the Jews of Europe under the Nazis.
Guaranteed.

A white homeland is my idea too. SA is large enough to accommodate both races. Then the SA blacks can have their own country to themselves without "evil" whites dominating.
We'll see what happens.  Without whites, inside twenty years SA will be as destitute as Zimbabwe.

[Suppressed]

Trump might not get all the facts straight, but I'm glad he's looking into this situation, and I would hope he offers refugee relief.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

This is exactly what blacks here want when they scream 'Reparations.

No one alive was a slave, nor a slaveowner.

All that matters is whether one is black or white.

[Sanguine]

-----------------------------------
Sanguine,
Agree that the Transvaal of SA was not densely populated in 1700.
Nor was the world; yet that's hardly to point.
Also recognize that today's Afrikaner Farmers are being denied
property rights; the same rights that were denied to the tribes
of South Africa some 300 years ago,however few/many there were.
And that is the legacy of Colonialism!!!

Colonialism really doesn't apply here until you get to the English in the 19th century was my main point.

What tribes were denied land rights 400 - 500 years ago?