Delusional twats come in all forms, sex and sizes.

Standard

Vaccers2https://www.facebook.com/theskepticsguide?fref=photoVaccers

Advertisements

114 thoughts on “Delusional twats come in all forms, sex and sizes.

  1. My sentiments exactly. You are also going to pay a fortune on security because, as your saintly church next door is not really of this world, they are not concerned by thieves swarming over their unenclosed property and over your walls.

    #NwiloWrites | HOW TO BE A FRUSTRATED NIGERIAN – Own A House Next To A Church

    There is nothing as excruciatingly frustrating as owning a house next to a church in Nigeria.

    It is like buying a musical set that plays the music that you detest loud enough to serve a community in a never ending order. You will end up as useless as never before. You would rather own a house next to an airport or a railway than the church. Most churches operate by sheer standard of faith. The Holy Spirit directs their services. And when you don’t have the spirit in you, you won’t be able to know when services hold.

    The airports have schedules. The sound is monotonous; one nosily huge boom that occurs either when a plane is landing or taking off. You could manage it. Maybe the sight could serve you a lot of purpose. You may as well turn a photographer, selling pictures of planes, falling and rising. You could make a few hundreds of naira too, enduring life. But when you live next to a church, you are a special breed. Many things will be on your mind, one prevalent thing would be genocide. You may wish to wake up one morning with a loaded AK47 in hand, finger on the trigger, the barrel aiming at no particular person but a group of people who you have perceived to be very annoying and inconsiderate.

    Imagine you telling a pretty girl to check on you at home, from 1PM to 3, knowing too well that any service (be it a thanksgiving session by a politician whose wife had just returned from a shopping spree in Dubai or a Local Government Chairman who had just acquired a Lamborghini sports car with project money from his constituency) should have been over. Then that is when the church has just dismissed and a retarded choirmaster has decided to rehearse a few lines of a particular song which has been disturbing his mind all through the service with some choristers. Or the instrumentalists are trying their hands on the new set of piano, oblivious to your plight.

    If you live next to an airport you could as well go all out one day, get the flights schedule, tell them you are a neighbour who isn’t mad at the noise that comes from their place of work and you would want to know about their flights so as to schedule your time for sleep. That is amazing. But for the church, you would need some Jesus to direct your every step.

    If you are someone who appreciates some quiet, you are one wrong fellow, living next to a church. It is like detesting the sight of dead bodies yet working in a morgue. As someone who lives next to a church there is no dulling moment for you. Forget to buy a musical set when you finally pack in to your apartment. You wouldn’t need one. The church next door will provide all round music. Their choristers will do you a lot of good. If you are really looking for a smooth and easy way to die, this should be your first stop.

    A Nigerian church believes in enemies everywhere, in the air, in the water and in your mind. The prayer that follows is not one that serves to make peace with an enemy but to destroy it. The blood of Jesus has been very useful in this act. When you own a house around a church you should have a coverall, something that can keep you from getting stained by the numerous bloods that would be spilled. The Nigerian church is merciless. Jesus must be exhausted from this. The Nigerian church would rather not address a PHCN disconnection. They would pray against it. This calls for the reason why there is usually an earthquake prayer session almost every day of the week.

    Your death will be hastened if you have a house next to a new generation Pentecostal church where speaking in tongues are the order of the day. You are safe if the church next to you is a Deeper Christian Life Bible Church. Those folks are too out of connection with this world. They don’t wear jewelleries and so they avoid band-sets and other items which generate noise. The generator set may as well be channelled to your window since other noisemaking sets are missing in action. A church like the Deeper Christian Life Bible Church uses public address system so don’t thank you goodness yet, that you can now own a house next to it.

    You are in danger when you don’t attend the church yourself. You are seen as an enemy of God. The entire prayer will be channelled to you. If the house, I mean the property is yours, please sell it and buy another property far away from the former. When a church owns a property next to you it is a clear hint that your house will soon be bought over, maybe as a site for the teenagers’ church or the church urinary.

    – See more at: http://olorisupergal.com/nwilowrites-how-to-be-a-frustrated-nigerian-own-a-house-next-to-a-church/#sthash.0NyipLWp.dpuf

    lorisupergal.com/nwilowrites-how-to-be-a-frustrated-nigerian-own-a-house-next-to-a-church/

    Like

  2. Last night me and my mother went to Steers to go and get some take aways. We stood in the cue at the drive through. While waiting this beggar comes up to us and asks for money. My mother was already crying because of something, now this guy wants to come and make his problem ours. I said to him as well as my mother ( Said to him ) that we are not going to give him anything. Then he carries on with his story. My mother decided that’s it and drove off. We went to another Steers.

    Now what really pisses me off is that he comes to a take away restaurant and harasses the customers. Is he just plainly an under achiever that can’t help himself in life or doesn’t he really want to help himself? I still think uthenasia is a good idea. Yes I’m not sure if people like that just want to make a living out of begging. Tell me because next time I’m going to bliksem him if he comes and talk shit to me again.

    Like

    • There I go but for the grace of God. Wat gaan jy doen as jou ouers nie meer vir jou sorg nie? Ek het eenkeer op so iemand se skuilplek af gekom en was verbaas om alles wat almal het daar te vind – ‘n plek om te slaap, ‘n plek waar warmte gemaak word om te kook en die koue weg te hou, ‘n jêmblik wat seker as beker dien, vermaaklikheid in ‘n radio wat sekelik nie gewerk het nie, ‘n drank kabinet met net leë half jacks en ‘n “boekrak” onder ‘n bos met een boek wat gegaan het oor iets van hoe om jou seks lewe te verbeter. Ek dink hy was van die arm bedelaars.

      Waaroor het jou ma alreeds gehuil? En van julle 3 wie was die gelukkigste?

      Like

      • Johann, hoekom kry ek die die indruk jy woon in die Wes – Kaap. Ag sy het ‘n geliefde verloor dis hoekom sy gehuil het. Nee Johann as my ouers nie meer daar is nie nie sal ek maar in die ysige koue le en slaap en doodgaan van my eie indignity. Soos ek se jou god is nou nie juis ‘n bertoubare god wat mense help in hulle tye van nood nie, so wat moet wees moet wees. Dankie vir jou ” positiewe ” boodskap in elk geval.

        Like

      • Johann, those were my thoughts as well. Not so much about what A will do when his parents are no longer there – most people of a good background and with an education can pretty much survive when their back is to the wall. But the truly down and out, that’s another story altogether.I am involved in a charity initiative with a church without actually attending church services. It can be frustrating that as a woman you may not always say what you think. Not that I necessarily let childish pig headedness stand in my way.

        Like

  3. Kan nou nie sê dat ek die Nigerian se frustrasie gelees het nie, dis amper asof hy iets lagwekkend wou skryf, maar ek het dit nie gekry nie.

    Ek weet van een “kerk” in Nigeria, dis die profeet Joshua (?) wat ‘n groot prent van homself en ‘n Rabbi, wat hande skud, vir die besoekers “wys”, wat net vir my bevestig dat die jode ook ‘n vinger in daai paai het.

    Ek is seker dat hy baie verligting en hoop bring vir die menigte wat daar aankom met allerande siektes en besetenheid, waarvan daar baie in Afrika is. Sy “preekstoel” is omring deur ‘n sandpit waar die mense wat vorentoe kom om voor gebid te word kots om van die duiwels ontslae te raak. En daar is visiuële beelde beskikbaar van die groeisles op daai onderdele wat julle atijoote so graag na verwys wat net te grous is vir my gestalt. Die meerderheid van die mense is natuurlik van daai wat nog nie vêr van die missieng lienk ge-evolueer het nie (dis nou waar Mallies gatkruip) en ek kan dink dat die lekker jollie kan gaan as die loukils vrye teuls gee aan hul emosies. So die frustreerde Nigerian kan gerus hier na SA toe kom hier is meer om te steel.

    Like

    • The town where I live is crawling with Nigerian drug dealers – as is the case everywhere in South Africa. If you can’t feed or clothe yourself, drug yourself with tik and wunga so you don’t feel the cold and hunger. Latest burglary craze is to steal plasma tvs for the part that can be ground into a powder to give wunga an extra boost – totally imaginary but what can you do with an IQ of 69.. The rest of the tv is just thrown away. Thanks to the ANC for letting in scum whether from the rest of Africa, Belarus or Cyprus.

      Like

    • I did post the Nigerian’s story as a send up of evangelical churches, but the ultra religious can be infuriating when they don’t want to see reality. As per McBrolloks’ three “wise” monkeys.

      Like

  4. Welkom in Afrika mense! Hierdie is die donker continent. Witmense kon hierdie continent nie tame nie. Kom ons hoop ten minste dat die groot megafauna bly bestaan. Dis die enigste ligspikkeltjie in hierdie donker plek. Ons gaan reguit Zim toe. Binne die volgenede 10 jaar is ons daar. Afrika het die bietjie beskawing op die Suid – punt van Afrika ingesluk. Ek sien nog die dag dat dit R20 vir ‘n pond gaan wees. En ek praat van nie redelik lank van nou af nie. Gelukkig het ek nie kinders nie, ek is totaal en al nie in die possissie om te he nie. Ek is alhoewel baie beter af as baie mense wat by fastfood stores staan en bedel. Baie van hulle het wel kinders.

    Like

    • ANC style farming or: Why you don’t give a farm to a meid.

      Thandi Modise will cooperate as her farm of horrors is investigated

      National Council of Provinces chairperson Thandi Modise said she will cooperate with the investigation into the neglect of animals on her farm.

      “I am saddened by the abandonment and trauma the livestock suffered after workers employed on the farm unceremoniously left without notice,” she said today.

      “The suffering the animals endured does not compare to the financial loss I suffered.”

      Modise said she believed everything on the farm was well under the supervision of the replacement farm manager. The manager had asked for a leave of absence two weeks ago to attend to urgent family matters.

      Modise said she was shocked to learn from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (NSPCA) that the manager had deserted the farm.

      She said she had seen television footage of “political opportunists” on her private property. This constituted invasion of privacy and trespassing, she said.

      The Sunday Independent reported that Modise bought the multimillion-rand farm Modderfontein, near Potchefstroom in the North West, about three years ago.

      The remaining 85 pigs on the farm had begun cannibalising the 58 dead pigs, and were reportedly drinking their own urine. Sheep, geese, goats and ducks had also died.

      Police and NSPCA officials made the discovery on Saturday.

      It appeared the animals had been without water and food for a week, possibly two. There were no farm workers on the property, no electricity, and the water pumps were broken.

      Modise said that over the past three years she had visited the farm every two weeks. She had appointed vets, an environmentalist, an interim farm manager and lawyers to deal with problems on the farm.

      She said she would consider an offer from a farm to lease the property so that she could focus on her responsibilities in Cape Town.

      The Freedom Front Plus today said Modise was a poor example for emerging black farmers and should be prosecuted for animal cruelty.

      What happened on her farm attested to poor management, the party’s agriculture spokesman Pieter Groenewald said.

      “Modise’s excuse that her farm manager absconded is unacceptable. This means she had not communicated with the manager for at least one or two weeks,” he said.

      Groenewald said owning a farm did not make one wealthy.

      “The ownership of a farm demands responsibility, hard work, dedication and expert management,” he said.

      Rural Development and Land Reform Minister Gugile Nkwinti and the government should take note of this before they continued with their land reform plans, said Groenewald.

      – Sapa

      http://www.citypress.co.za/politics/thandi-modise-will-cooperate-farm-horrors-investigated/

      Like

  5. Krynaauwslust is a 4400 hectare farm near Vrede in the Freestate. The
    Freestate government has committed to spend R570 000 000.00 on a dairy farm
    on Krynaauwslust through a BEE company named Estina.

    Some of the expenses :
    * R2.6 million for the gate
    * R119 million for the actual dairy buildings
    * R2.5 million for spanners and tools
    * R6 million for dairy cows, etc etc.

    According to a very glossy, drummed up report by the Freestate Premier, Ace
    Magashule, Krynaauwslust will deliver 100 000 litres of milk per day out of
    the 370 dairy cows they bought. Or to be exact : 270 liters per cow per
    day. That is BLOODY AMAZIING! Because that is more than 10 times the
    average that a dairy cow produces per day.
    If you drive to Krynaauwslust right now, you would smell something in the
    air. It is the carcasses of cows dying from hunger that are dumped in the
    ravine on the farm. About 65 are dead already.

    The BEE company is legit and registered to this address : Block A, Grayston
    Ridge Office Park in Sandton.
    When you pay a visit this address, you will find some other interesting
    people also have offices in that block. Namely:

    1. Duduzane Zuma: Our beloved president`s son.
    2. Mabengela Pty (Ltd) : Our beloved Gupta family`s company.
    3. Thsepo Magashule: Our beloved Freestate Premier`s son.

    How much more blatant a reason do you need to impeach him?
    This is shocking, but what can you and I do about it, apart from our vote ?

    Let each of us pass these messages on a worldwide basis ; as the RSA cannot sustain this flagrant and blatant fraud ; theft ; robbery ; lies ; corruption and bullsh*t any longer by the ANC government !!!!

    Like

  6. Very, very, VERY good commentary:

    “As it happens, no atheist should call himself or herself one. The term already sells a pass to theists, because it invites debate on their ground. A more appropriate term is “naturalist”, denoting one who takes it that the universe is a natural realm, governed by nature’s laws. This properly implies that there is nothing supernatural in the universe – no fairies or goblins, angels, demons, gods or goddesses. Such might as well call themselves “a-fairyists” or “a-goblinists” as “atheists”; it would be every bit as meaningful or meaningless to do so. (Most people, though, forget that belief in fairies was widespread until the beginning of the 20th century; the church fought a long hard battle against this competitor superstition, and won, largely because of the infant and primary church schools founded in the second half of the nineteenth century.)

    “By the same token, therefore, people with theistic beliefs should be called supernaturalists, and it can be left to them to attempt to refute the findings of physics, chemistry and the biological sciences in an effort to justify their alternative claim that the universe was created, and is run, by supernatural beings. Supernaturalists are fond of claiming that some irreligious people turn to prayer when in mortal danger, but naturalists can reply that supernaturalists typically repose great faith in science when they find themselves in (say) a hospital or an aeroplane – and with far greater frequency. But of course, as votaries of the view that everything is consistent with their beliefs – even apparent refutations of them – supernaturalists can claim that science itself is a gift of god, and thus justify doing so. But they should then remember Popper: “A theory that explains everything explains nothing.””

    From here:http://www.acgrayling.com/can-an-atheist-be-a-fundamentalist

    Like

  7. C.S. Lewis and Naturalism
    Can Naturalism Explain Reason, Nature, and Morality?:

    C.S. Lewis wanted to explain nature on the basis of his supernatural god; as a consequence, naturalistic explanations for nature represented a major threat — just as it does for contemporary apologists. Lewis argued against naturalism in a variety of contexts. It plays an important role not just in his discussions about morality, but also in his arguments about the nature of reason.

    In his book Miracles, Lewis argues against naturalism by saying “If Naturalism is true, every finite thing or event must be (in principle) explicable in terms of the Total System.” This isn’t necessarily true. Lewis was aware of advances in physics which revealed that events on the quantum level were probabilistic rather than deterministic, but he regarded this as a reason to think that there exists something more than “Nature” rather than as a reason to think that maybe nature isn’t quite what he (like others) assumed it to be. He rejected the findings of science because they conflicted with his assumptions.

    Lewis appears not to have understood that some events and systems are, even in principle, not explainable despite being entirely natural. No one disputes that the weather is completely natural, but while weather events can be predicted to varying degrees of accuracy, it’s not possible even in principle to explain every facet of them because they are too complex, chaotic, and probabilistic.

    Part of the problem is that Lewis adopts a very limited, narrow understanding of naturalism. For Lewis, naturalism is the same as determinism. Thus, what we encounter is a tactic which Lewis uses continually: the construction of a false dilemma fallacy in which he presents the “wrong” option in an unfavorable and incorrectly defined way against the “right” option which, he hopes, will seem more reasonable against his straw man. The idea of a third option, like rejecting both extreme determinism and supernaturalism, is never entertained.

    From this inauspicious beginning, things only go down hill. Lewis argues that nature cannot explain the existence of Reason:

    “A strict materialism refutes itself for the reason given long ago by Professor Haldane: ‘If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true…and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.’ (Possible Worlds, p. 209)”

    In other words, because atoms are not themselves rational, then they alone cannot be responsible for rationality because such an irrational foundation cannot be a reliable basis for rational thinking. This absurd reasoning would preclude atoms being responsible for anything at all — atoms aren’t visible to the naked eye, so how could they produce anything visible? It’s known as the fallacy of composition and is just one more example of Lewis constructing fallacious arguments in the apparent hope that no one would notice.

    On February 2, 1948, G.E.M. Anscombe read a paper to the Oxford Socratic Club criticizing this section of C.S Lewis’ book, identifying several serious weaknesses. According to George Sayer, a friend of Lewis, he recognized that his position was soundly refuted:

    “He told me that he had been proved wrong, and that his argument for the existence of God had been demolished. …The debate had been a humiliating experience, but perhaps it was ultimately good for him. In the past, he had been too proud of his logical ability. Now he was humbled ….’I can never write another book of that sort’ he said to me of Miracles. And he never did. He also never wrote another theological book. Reflections on the Psalms is really devotional and literary; Letters to Malcolm is also a devotional book, a series of reflections on prayer, without contentious arguments.”

    Lewis never publicly acknowledged his defeat, but he did respond. The relevant chapter was renamed from “Naturalism is Self-Refuting” to “The Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism.” Some statements were revised and he removed the egregious claim that “We may state it as a rule that no thought is valid if it can be fully explained as the result of irrational causes.”

    These revisions are not enough to salvage his argument because its flaws are fundamental. Lewis relied, for example, on a bizarre epistemology, according to which knowledge can only be attained indirectly by inferring from sensory perception to the objects supposedly lying behind them. Because of this, he felt that reliable knowledge depends upon logical reasoning — that we cannot come to have true, justified beliefs about the world without it.

    This is a peculiar and extreme form of rationalism, but it’s not an epistemology which is compatible with modern science and thinking. It doesn’t enjoy wide currency today, even among Christians who ostensibly accept Lewis’ apologetics. If they do not accept the epistemological assumptions he uses, though, they cannot also accept his theological conclusions which they find so appealing.

    http://atheism.about.com/od/cslewisnarnia/a/naturalism.htm

    Like

  8. Lekker brein gimnastiek, maar wat ek blykbaar nie kan oordra nie, is dat in my realiteit is die antwoord so eenvoudig – as iemand regtig wil weet is daar net een manier om uit te vind, en dit het ek al soveel keer vir julle gevra om te doen dat ons kan aaanbeweeg, al hierdie slim argumente is stimulerend vir die ego en dit gee die ego ‘n harde, opgeblaaste houding van “ek is reg” moet reg wees want kyk hoe dom is die ander ego’s ens ens.

    “Agnostici is soekers wat nooit wil vind nie” So skryf Willem de Klerk.

    Alles kom tot niks so hoekom kan mens dan nie alles ondersoek en dit by jou realiteit voeg nie. (Moet nou net nie terug regress na ou uitgediende konsepte nie).

    Like

  9. Below an essay by Ricky Gervais written some time ago and old hat to most of us, but brilliant none-the-less.

    Ricky Gervais: Why I’m an Atheist

    Why don’t you believe in God? I get that question all the time. I always try to give a sensitive, reasoned answer. This is usually awkward, time consuming and pointless. People who believe in God don’t need proof of his existence, and they certainly don’t want evidence to the contrary. They are happy with their belief. They even say things like “it’s true to me” and “it’s faith.” I still give my logical answer because I feel that not being honest would be patronizing and impolite. It is ironic therefore that “I don’t believe in God because there is absolutely no scientific evidence for his existence and from what I’ve heard the very definition is a logical impossibility in this known universe,” comes across as both patronizing and impolite.

    Arrogance is another accusation. Which seems particularly unfair. Science seeks the truth. And it does not discriminate. For better or worse it finds things out. Science is humble. It knows what it knows and it knows what it doesn’t know. It bases its conclusions and beliefs on hard evidence -¬- evidence that is constantly updated and upgraded. It doesn’t get offended when new facts come along. It embraces the body of knowledge. It doesn’t hold on to medieval practices because they are tradition. If it did, you wouldn’t get a shot of penicillin, you’d pop a leach down your trousers and pray. Whatever you “believe,” this is not as effective as medicine. Again you can say, “It works for me,” but so do placebos. My point being, I’m saying God doesn’t exist. I’m not saying faith doesn’t exist. I know faith exists. I see it all the time. But believing in something doesn’t make it true. Hoping that something is true doesn’t make it true. The existence of God is not subjective. He either exists or he doesn’t. It’s not a matter of opinion. You can have your own opinions. But you can’t have your own facts.

    Why don’t I believe in God? No, no no, why do YOU believe in God? Surely the burden of proof is on the believer. You started all this. If I came up to you and said, “Why don’t you believe I can fly?” You’d say, “Why would I?” I’d reply, “Because it’s a matter of faith.” If I then said, “Prove I can’t fly. Prove I can’t fly see, see, you can’t prove it can you?” You’d probably either walk away, call security or throw me out of the window and shout, ‘’F—ing fly then you lunatic.”
    This, is of course a spirituality issue, religion is a different matter. As an atheist, I see nothing “wrong” in believing in a god. I don’t think there is a god, but belief in him does no harm. If it helps you in any way, then that’s fine with me. It’s when belief starts infringing on other people’s rights when it worries me. I would never deny your right to believe in a god. I would just rather you didn’t kill people who believe in a different god, say. Or stone someone to death because your rulebook says their sexuality is immoral. It’s strange that anyone who believes that an all-powerful all-knowing, omniscient power responsible for everything that happens, would also want to judge and punish people for what they are. From what I can gather, pretty much the worst type of person you can be is an atheist. The first four commandments hammer this point home. There is a god, I’m him, no one else is, you’re not as good and don’t forget it. (Don’t murder anyone, doesn’t get a mention till number 6.)
    When confronted with anyone who holds my lack of religious faith in such contempt, I say, “It’s the way God made me.”

    But what are atheists really being accused of? The dictionary definition of God is “a supernatural creator and overseer of the universe.” Included in this definition are all deities, goddesses and supernatural beings. Since the beginning of recorded history, which is defined by the invention of writing by the Sumerians around 6,000 years ago, historians have cataloged over 3700 supernatural beings, of which 2870 can be considered deities. So next time someone tells me they believe in God, I’ll say “Oh which one? Zeus? Hades? Jupiter? Mars? Odin? Thor? Krishna? Vishnu? Ra?…” If they say “Just God. I only believe in the one God,” I’ll point out that they are nearly as atheistic as me. I don’t believe in 2,870 gods, and they don’t believe in 2,869.

    I used to believe in God. The Christian one that is. I loved Jesus. He was my hero. More than pop stars. More than footballers. More than God. God was by definition omnipotent and perfect. Jesus was a man. He had to work at it. He had temptation but defeated sin. He had integrity and courage. But He was my hero because He was kind. And He was kind to everyone. He didn’t bow to peer pressure or tyranny or cruelty. He didn’t care who you were. He loved you. What a guy. I wanted to be just like Him.

    One day when I was about 8 years old, I was drawing the crucifixion as part of my Bible studies homework. I loved art too. And nature. I loved how God made all the animals. They were also perfect. Unconditionally beautiful. It was an amazing world.

    I lived in a very poor, working-class estate in an urban sprawl called Reading, about 40 miles west of London. My father was a laborer and my mother was a housewife. I was never ashamed of poverty. It was almost noble. Also, everyone I knew was in the same situation, and I had everything I needed. School was free. My clothes were cheap and always clean and ironed. And mum was always cooking. She was cooking the day I was drawing on the cross.
    I was sitting at the kitchen table when my brother came home. He was 11 years older than me, so he would have been 19. He was as smart as anyone I knew, but he was too cheeky. He would answer back and get into trouble. I was a good boy. I went to church and believed in God -– what a relief for a working-class mother. You see, growing up where I did, mums didn’t hope as high as their kids growing up to be doctors; they just hoped their kids didn’t go to jail. So bring them up believing in God and they’ll be good and law abiding. It’s a perfect system. Well, nearly. 75 percent of Americans are God-¬‐fearing Christians; 75 percent of prisoners are God-¬‐fearing Christians. 10 percent of Americans are atheists; 0.2 percent of prisoners are atheists.

    But anyway, there I was happily drawing my hero when my big brother Bob asked, “Why do you believe in God?” Just a simple question. But my mum panicked. “Bob,” she said in a tone that I knew meant, “Shut up.” Why was that a bad thing to ask? If there was a God and my faith was strong it didn’t matter what people said. Oh…hang on. There is no God. He knows it, and she knows it deep down. It was as simple as that. I started thinking about it and asking more questions, and within an hour, I was an atheist.

    Wow. No God. If mum had lied to me about God, had she also lied to me about Santa? Yes, of course, but who cares? The gifts kept coming. And so did the gifts of my new found atheism. The gifts of truth, science, nature. The real beauty of this world. I learned of evolution -– a theory so simple that only England’s greatest genius could have come up with it. Evolution of plants, animals and us –- with imagination, free will, love, humor. I no longer needed a reason for my existence, just a reason to live. And imagination, free will, love, humor, fun, music, sports, beer and pizza are all good enough reasons for living.

    But living an honest life -– for that you need the truth. That’s the other thing I learned that day, that the truth, however shocking or uncomfortable, in the end leads to liberation and dignity.

    So what does the question “Why don’t you believe in God?” really mean. I think when someone asks that they are really questioning their own belief. In a way they are asking “what makes you so special? “How come you weren’t brainwashed with the rest of us?” “How dare you say I’m a fool and I’m not going to heaven, f— you!” Let’s be honest, if one person believed in God he would be considered pretty strange. But because it’s a very popular view it’s accepted. And why is it such a popular view? That’s obvious. It’s an attractive proposition. Believe in me and live forever. Again if it was just a case of spirituality this would be fine.

    “Do unto others…” is a good rule of thumb. I live by that. Forgiveness is probably the greatest virtue there is. But that’s exactly what it is -¬‐ a virtue. Not just a Christian virtue. No one owns being good. I’m good. I just don’t believe I’ll be rewarded for it in heaven. My reward is here and now. It’s knowing that I try to do the right thing. That I lived a good life. And that’s where spirituality really lost its way. When it became a stick to beat people with. “Do this or you’ll burn in hell.”

    You won’t burn in hell. But be nice anyway.

    Like

    • “I know faith exists. I see it all the time. But believing in something doesn’t make it true. Hoping that something is true doesn’t make it true. The existence of God is not subjective. He either exists or he doesn’t. It’s not a matter of opinion. You can have your own opinions. But you can’t have your own facts.” Exactly. If your grandmother used to run around in circles with a rubber chicken on her head, that doesn’t mean you need to do the same in the name of tradition.

      Like

  10. Desmond Tutu se hy ondersteun die genadedood. Baie wys van hom. Ek het nie gedink hy sal so baie insig he nie. Doodstraf is ook bitter belangrik. Trust my mense baie indirekte gevolge sal ook gestop word. Bring terug ou sparkie!

    Like

  11. “I know faith exists. I see it all the time. But believing in something doesn’t make it true. Hoping that something is true doesn’t make it true. The existence of God is not subjective. He either exists or he doesn’t. ”

    Of God bestaan of nie. . . . dit is die vraag. Nou wat kan mens doen om te besluit Ja of Nee,. . . . . Gaan jjy na ander mense luister en dan volgens dit wat “hulle’ jou vertel (*of dit nou priesters of saaintes is – selfde ding), of jy kan vir jouself besluit en vir jouself uitvind, en dit sluit nie die indoktrinasie in van jou jeug nie, begin net weer van voor af, iets wat mens voordurend kan doen, elke oomblik is ‘n oomblik wat mens kan besluit of jy gaan aanhou met jou ekspressie van jou haat teenoor iets of iemand of gaan jy na die anderkant toe, na die kant van liefde, die paradoks van dit wat ons lewe noem.

    Like

    • Gelukkig het niemand my geindoktrineer toe ek jonk was nie en daarvoor is ek baie gelukkig. Maar ek is jammer vir diegene wat wel so mishandel is toe hulle weerloos was. Wie het jou geindoktrineer, Johann? Hoekom is jy bang om nee te se vir die onnoselheid?

      Like

  12. Molly. Ek het al male sonder om te tel vir julle vertel dat ek “nee” gesê het vir die “onnoselheid”, maar dit was nie die einde van my soektog nie. Ek het die vryheid geneem om te gaan uitvind vir myself sonder enige vooropgestelde konsepte wat ek dalk mag gehad het en dit het my verwagtinge vêr oorskry. Ondersoek jou “wil” en jy kan vind dat jy nie wil “glo” nie en dan “bewyse” soek om jou wilsbesluit te reverdig.

    1Ko 1:27 maar wat dwaas is by die wêreld, het God uitverkies om die wyse te beskaam; en wat swak is by die wêreld, het God uitverkies om wat sterk is, te beskaam;

    Die sisteem is gelyk vir almal of jy oud of jonk slim of dom is, dis vir almal ‘n gelyke besluit. Dis so eenvoudig.

    Like

    • Ja, hier kom die bybel versies Johann. Julle gristinne se laaste pyl. ‘n Pyl wat stomp en onverstaandbaar is.

      Hier is vir jou ‘n ander bybel versie:

      “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)”

      Like

      • Die vertrekpunt vir geliges soos Johannie is leuenagtigheid. Eerlikheid en gelowigheid is nie bedmaats nie. Johan is bewys hiervan.

        Like

      • “Pyl wat stomp en onverstaandbaar is.” Ja mens kan dink tot jy blou is in jou gesig, jy kan nie alles uitdink nie, wat doen jy dan? Dink is maar een aspek van wat ‘n mens het om mee te “werk”, die mens is meer as dit.

        Wat is die dwaasheid waarna verwys word, en hoe dwaas moet enige iemand wees om sulke “stories” te glo? Vir jou is dit dwaasheid, en tog is dit wat ek en jy moet “beleef”, die ingang om deur te gaan, ‘n ander pad om te ervaar, om tot die besef te kom wat dit is om blind te wees, verlore te wees, verslaaf te wees, gebind te wees en sommer plynweg stjoepit te wees.

        En jou konsepte en idees het jou gebind en van vryheid ontneem om – jouself te ekspress en te ervaar op enige en alle maniere wat daar beskikbaar is, maar dis makliker en eintlik vind mens dit onder veral mense van laer klasse, om “self righteous” (fariseer) op te tree en jou ego te voed met allerande slim praatjies. Om jou denkbeeldige gelykenis van God te “worship” Is dit moeilik om te verstaan?

        Like

        • Johann, jy is beslis nie ‘n denker nie. Jou brein is lui. Dit is net te maklik om maar eerder jou spoke te gebruik as ‘n antwoord en ‘n verklaring vir alles vir wat jy te stupid is om te verstaan.

          Die haarseer ding is dat jy dan ander probeer ooreed dat jy reg is. Dis eintelik tragies.

          Luike soos jy hoef beslis nooit bang te wees dat julle julle breine gaan oorlaai nie.

          Like

          • Johann probably lives in a small town. Religion is big in small towns because there is nothing else to do except gossip and steal. Salaries are a lot smaller so you get a lot of petty theft. I live in a small town and I know about it. I had a handyman in the other day and his assistant stole R500 cash from me quick as a flash. So I kicked the “assistant” out – I had a strong impulse to have him stripped naked and to shove the hot poker from the coal stove up his arse but threw him out onto the street instead. The gardener helped the handyman out, but at a discount of course, after the theft and allowing for what I pay Themba.

            Bitterness, guns, drugs, thieving, adultery and religion do the rounds here. You hear a lot of, “My God laat hom nie beledig nie” and “Die wiel draai”. On the other hand, everyone knows everyone else and you can get things done cheaper – provided you keep the thieving hands at bay.

            Like

          • The crazy neighbour with the bed and breakfast business two houses up has put a large sign with huge lettering on her fence: “By the word of the Lord was everything made.”

            She should make up her mind whether she’s in the b&b or in the church business. She is turning business away, not attracting it. Clientele passing through is from the big cities, not from the fundamentalist boondocks. Doesn’t help that she’s in a quiet lane off the main road.I hope she doesn’t resort to loud praying in this quiet cul de sac. It’s the last thing everyone else wants.

            Like

          • Mad Mac ek beskou myself nie as ‘n denker nie en tog dink ek dat verstaan wat jy skryf, eintlik meer aswat jy skryf, maar ek het ‘n spesmaas dat jy nie ‘n kloe het wat ek skryf nie, as ek terugstaan en “kyk” na wat jy kwyt raak kry ek die indruk dat jy “jouself” ekspress en wat jy ekspress is onsamehangende gieberies vol frustrasie en haat en nyd, dis eintlik is dit wat jy die heeltyd doen.. . ?

            Dis asof jy hulp vra.

            Like

  13. Johann ons sit en wag nogsteeds vir jou imaginary friend. Hy het nou nog nie opgedaag om iets te kom se nie. Ek weet nie regtig wat jy in hom sien nie, hy is ‘n kompleet douchebag. Wat doen hy nou eintlik wat so wonderlik is? Ek dink hierdie wereld is ‘n GROOOOOOOOOOOT fokkop! Hoe leef hy met sy gewete?

    Like

  14. Spanking for Jesus’ movement lets God-fearing husbands feel good about punishing their wives

    What happens when you combine Fifty Shades of Grey with fundamentalist Christianity? “Spanking for Jesus” — or a movement known as Christian Domestic Discipline. The alternative lifestyle fell into the media spotlight on Wednesday thanks to The Daily Beast nd Jezebel .

    Both publications detailed the household arrangement, in which men dominate women using divinely-approved spankings. It sounds like a crude parody, but The Daily Beast estimates that thousands of couples have actually embraced the Christian Domestic Discipline way of life.

    Two websites devoted to Christian Domestic Discipline both emphasize the absolute power of a husband over his wife, a situation that is purportedly supported by biblical teachings.

    ChristianDomesticDiscipline.net defines the unusual relationship as a marriage “set up according to the guidelines set forth in the Holy Bible, meaning the husband has authority over his wife within the bounds of God’s Word and enforces that authority, if need be, through discipline including but not limited to spanking.”

    ChristianDomesticDiscipline.com, on the other hand, defines the relationship as “simply a traditional, male-led, Christian marriage” in which “one partner is given authority over the other, and has the means to back up that authority, usually by spanking.”

    A Beginning Domestic Discipline “Beginner’s Packet” reported on by Jezebel instructs husbands on how to best manipulate their wives using psychological tricks and corporeal punishment. The manipulation tactics range from taking away privileges like “going out with friends” to bare-bottomed spankings with a wooden paddle.

    Surprisingly, many women seem to willingly enter into the Domestic Discipline lifestyle and approve of it. Those involved deny the punishments are domestic abuse.

    “Most of the women who write about their CDD experiences online are not complaining,” Toronto-based writer Laura Rubino, who accidentally stumbled upon the practice earlier this month, noted. “Many of them report feeling extremely calm and relaxed after being disciplined, and believe it is an expression of their husband caring about them and their marriage, enough to help them modify their behaviour.”

    Experts, however, view the household arrangement as little more than the symptom of disturbed minds. Forensic psychologist Jim Alsdurf told The Daily Beast that Christian Domestic Discipline appeared to be more of an unhealthy and distorted way to fulfill a suppressed sexual desire than a religious lifestyle.

    “No fool in his right mind would buy this as a legitimate way to have a relationship,” Alsdurf said. “A relationship that infantilizes a woman is one that clearly draws a more pathological group of people.”

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/19/spanking-for-jesus-combines-christian-fundamentalism-and-sadomasochism/

    Like

  15. Christian sadomasochism in the home.

    PRACTICAL MATTERS
    Disciplining the wife when the marriage is in trouble may not be fair. In her eyes it may not even be right. But ask her whether in her soul God has told her that submitting to her husband’s hand, even in this, is against His will and the honest wife will admit defeat before the struggle begins. She knows very well what works. God has not hidden this from her. After presenting her with the
    ultimatum, the husband should give his wife time to reflect. She may need time alone. If the marriage has come to this, in most cases, a few more minutes, hours, or even days is not going to matter. Weeks, months, and years are a different story altogether. Whether before or after the event, apologies only antagonize an already difficult situation.

    Even amidst all the talk about domestic violence and women’s liberation, most wives know when they need it. Most husbands know when they need to give it. There is a normal arrangement and flow of events. Trying to adhere to a rigid agenda only complicates matters. In the privacy of her own home, while she may demur, a wife made sufficiently aware of her sin(s) over time will seldom refuse to present herself to the long-suffering husband confronting her with switch in hand and a determination to straighten things out. Unless she has been abused at his hand, a woman expects her man to take charge when the need arises and will despise him more for shirking that responsibility than for his chastening and chastising.

    CLIMBING THE MOUNTAIN
    Women nag, men spank. Women have sharp tongues, and equally sharp minds, which they can use with great effect. Men have upper body strength. For good or for evil, but use what God gave them. The strong-willed wife will try to outlast her husband’s hand on a bare bottom. She will protest to both him and others about some perceived abuse at his hand even when none exists
    and the punishment was well deserved. However, the wife who has had a significant disciplinary experience from the top of her buttocks to the upper third of her thighs (down to what women of a few generations ago used to call the “stocking line”) will keep the matter to herself. She will bring no further embarrassment upon her house. To the surprise of many, the deserving wife caught compromised across her husband’s knees will ask for privacy so he may continue with the task at hand.

    She will apologize more for her indiscretions than for her husband’s punishing her for them. If one’s children find out, it is not end of the world. Most children understand more than adults give the credit. In particular, children understand spanking far more than they understand bitterness and divorce. A child who grows up aware that mother submits to father’s discipline may be less likely to engage in frivolous and dangerous behavior as they grow older. Even if she has grown children and has remained unpunished since her own childhood, the woman who is ruining her marriage knows she is not “too old”. She knows that vanity, pride in saying “he [her husband] wouldn’t dare” is a poor substitute for a loving marriage in which he does, even more frequently than she would wish.When the husband announces, “It’s time”; a wife expects four things that she will vow never to tell her husband.

    One is to lose her pants early to prove he means business. She expects it “to hurt”sufficiently to make her cry in repentance. She knows that it must get though to her so that there is no doubt in her mind or that of her husband that he is in control. Finally, she expects to feel better after it is over. These she expects her husband to know he well enough to act on this
    knowledge without her telling him.To see whether her husband is serious about her and their marriage, women will frequently roll out three sets of stumbling blocks. Each increases in intensity. The first are the preliminary
    protests. The second are the promises and pleadings when he begins. The third are, although the language may be more blunt, rages of anger at being “treated this way” as he continues. For the husband who conquers all three, there is the promise of peace beyond. Domestic tranquility will be restored.

    There are some parallels turning one’s wife over one’s knees and casting out devils. One lesson in both is that, as Jesus pointed out in the story of the man among the tombs, if the husband does not fill the spiritual void created in his wife with something positive, then something worse may take its place. There is an information highway created which runs from a woman’s bottom to her
    mind as the evil spews from her mouth. It is the husband’s responsibility to fill with love and assurance. Otherwise, he has simply engaged in an act of torture.

    There are three basic ways to control a wife. One is to ignore her. Another is to burden her with chores, responsibilities, and work. The final way is to, in a no nonsense fashion, discipline her personally, privately, and memorably. The first method ruins the marriage. The second makes her old. In responsible hands, the third can work miracles. Long and happy marriages generally mean that the couple crossed the discipline bridge when they came to it rather go their separate ways. Adjectives such as “good” when used to describe
    her husband or his behavior toward her frequently mean he has taken charge of her more than once or twice during their marriage.

    CONCLUSION
    The question posed is “Does a man have the right to spank his wife?” I believe the question to be in error. A better question is should a man, a man to whom God has given talents and responsibilities, let his marriage crumble around him without raising a hand to stop it? My answer is simply no. A man does not have a right to spank his wife. However, he has an obligation to protect his marriage and his sanity even if it means wearing out the woman he loves! When she
    stands before her husband and asks “why” if he cannot look her in the eyes and honestly say “because I love you more than I love myself” he has no business taking his intentions any further. He is simply playing games with his wife, himself, and God. That is probably not the smartest move he can make.

    http://www.christiandomesticdiscipline.net/assets/a-few-thoughts-on-wives-by-no-one.pdf

    Like

    • I thought you were referring to the Skeptics Guide. Yes, I did read about the fundies spanking their wives. Disgusting. I have no respect for any woman who routinely lets herself be beaten in front of her children.

      Like

    • We really don’t need “God” sanctioned domestic violence, given the way the situation already is.

      Domestic Violence and Abuse

      South Africa has one of the highest incidences of domestic violence in the world. And, sadly, domestic violence is the most common and widespread human rights abuse in South Africa. Every day, women are murdered, physically and sexually assaulted, threatened and humiliated by their partners, within their own homes. Organisations estimate that one out of every six woman in South Africa is regularly assaulted by her partner. In at least 46 per cent of cases, the men involved also abuse the children living with the woman.

      Although the exact percentages are disputed, there is a large body of cross-cultural evidence that women are subjected to domestic violence significantly more than men.In addition, there is broad consensus that women are more often subjected to severe forms of abuse and are more likely to be injured by an abusive partner.

      Like

      • Die waarheid sal jou vry maak. Nie dat ek vir een oomblik getwyfel het nie. En as iemand ooit weer stry, stuur hulle hiernatoe. Dis makliker.
        Yes, South African women are more likely to be murdered by their husbands and partners, but THIS DOES NOT HOLD TRUE FOR WHITE SOUTH AFRICAN WOMEN. This was the only point we were trying to make and, boy, were we demonised for that. Yes, white men should be blamed for almost everything, but not this time.
        It may not occur to you that you are part of the problem if you do not find this article important. Are we wasting resources for crime prevention in the wrong places? Does this explain why we have not made a single dent in crime alleviation? Is this why we are still the murder capitol of the world? Because we are not allowed to verbalise our politically-incorrect realities? Even when our women are concerned?
        Kevin King doen die wiskunde en ontbloot dat ek en Sunette nie net reg was nie, maar dat daar ‘n heel ander “uncomfortable truth” is oor manlikheid in SA: lees hier http://stevehofmeyr.co.za/website/steve-se/280-so-who-is-killing

        Dan kom mens by die media. . . wie beheer die media? En waarom word daar altyd vinger gewys na “my”?

        Like

        • I couldn’t agree with you more. Of course white women are more likely to be killed by black men, and so are black men, black women and black children more likely to be killed by black men than by white men. But I still don’t think it’s a good idea for white women or white men to hold onto antiquated beliefs that does nobody any good.

          Like

          • “antiquated beliefs”
            Ek wonder net na watter “geloof” jy verwys, seker vewys jy na die ge-indoktrieerde “dogma” wat nog so ‘n vaste houvas het op die grondboontjie gallery, hulle glo dat ander mense aan dieselfde dogma glo wat hulle aan probeer glo het. En hule “glo” dis die dienkim truf.

            Like

        • Although I would add that I don’t believe Steve Hofmeyr and Sunette Bridges’ “statistics”. They are both out to exaggerate the true situation so they can sell their ghastly music. They appeal to an audience that believes that the Voortrekkers wrote the Bible and therefore their descendants have a monopoly on the truth.

          Like

          • Wel ek kan nou nie met ‘n “expert” redeneer oor wat “ghastly” musiek is of nie is nie, maar dit klink meer vir my soos ‘n “reaksie van die ego”, en ‘n reaksie teen die voortrekkers wat die rooinekke bloedneus geslaan het.

            Steve stofsuier het gedoen wat alle mans graag sou wou doen as hulle net die derms (guts) daarvoor gehad het, hy het toere na Mauritius geneem met jong mense en dan het hy lekker gevry in die bondel met meer as gewillige dogters van ma’s en pa’s wat by die huis gehoop het hul dogters kom nie op die paal terug nie (dit was in die dae voor die aap eetende boeties van Mallies die vigs virus van agterkant na agterkant versprei het)

            Like

            • Steve Hofmeyr modelled himself on Neil Diamond who was a hit with old ladies back in the seventies. Sunette Bridges modelled her songs on those of her father, who appealed to old Afrikaans ladies in the seventies. Oudoos se goed.

              Like

    • Entitlement mentality is extremely irritating, but when a man claims he has a “God” given entitlement to slap his wife around, it’s all ok, because it’s “Christian”?

      Like

      • Molie, ek kan nou nie die video kyk nie, want ek bly nie in ‘n klein dorpie nie en ook nie in ‘n stad nie, maar hoe kan jy nog so blind wees dat jy nie kan sien dat alle mense is nie soos “ons” (westerling) nie, dis die groot fout wat veral europeërs maak is om te dink en te glo dat as hulle met “africans” werk dat hulle met mense soos “ons” werk, dis soos om te dink dat die kleur “blou” wat ek sien dieselfde “blou” is wat jy sien, jy kan dit nie bepaal nie, africans kan dalk die gedrag van die westerling na-aap en jou “fool” vir ‘n tyd, maar een of ander tyd gaan die “facade” krake begin wys, die ergste van almal is die êfrican american, asseblief vertel my net jy verstaan wat ek bedoel, regtig verstaan.

        Like

    • Ek wonder wat is die gemiddelde spoed van daai mob, of dit onder 11 sekondes is vir die 100m. Laat my dink aan die bobbejane by Tsokwane piekniek plek in die wildtuin. Die bobbejane daar eye mens se kos permanent en as jy in ‘n situasie kom waar die bobbejane aggressief raak is dit beter om jou kos vir hulle te gee. Die bobbejaan voel nou honger, daarom wil hy nou daai kos he! Dis hoe hy voel en dis wat hy sal kry. ” Ek soek hom die kos, nou hy wil hom nie vir my gee, dan ek attack hom! “

      Like

  16. Getting to the time of year when the fundies pray for rain. This black rapper named himself after a suicide cult leader. Be careful who you hang out with.

    Like

  17. Pierre de Vos on Sunette Bridges.

    The astonishing self-denial of Sunette Bridges

    Sunette Bridges is probably not a household name for the vast majority of South Africans. They should count themselves lucky. Sunette Bridges is an Afrikaans singer, but I use the term “singer” rather generously here. For those who have not had the misfortune of encountering this artiste, I can only say: “Count your Blessings” (this is a pun: see next paragraph). Listening to the music of Sunette Bridges is about as gratifying as listening to the wonderful melody of a chainsaw being used by a sadist to sever your hands and feet from the rest of your body.

    Some years ago Sunette’s late father, Bless Bridges (pun explained!), sold quite a lot of CDs. He was famous for gallantly dishing out satin roses to the middle-aged women who swooned about his velvety voice and his ability to yodel (alas, a dying art amongst Afrikaans singers) as well as at his rendition of that classic Afrikaans ditty Ruiter van die Windjie (roughly translated as Jockey of the little wind).

    Sunette did not inherit her father’s musical talent (and that says quite a lot about her spectacular lack of talent). Unlike real artists like Amanda Strydom, Koos du Plessis and – more recently – Jan Blohm, she has also seemingly not inherited any social conscience or, come to think of it, even an ounce of decency and respect for others. She is a rabid racist but she is in deep denial of that fact.

    Sunette is in “trouble” (but maybe not in as much trouble as she should be) because she has exposed herself as a typical racist on her Facebook page. These days, most racist white South Africans will speak in code. They will mask their racism by talking about how the country is going to the dogs and how “they” cannot be trusted. But Sunette is one of the old school racists who does not feel any need to hide her hatred and disgust of black people behind code phrases. As the channel24 website reports:

    Singer Sunette Bridges, daughter of the Afrikaans singer Bles Bridges, has laughed off complaints about allegedly racist comments made on her Facebook profile. “It’s absolutely pathetic that people think it’s racist,” Bridges said, after Chris du Plessis brought the comments to Beeld‘s attention.

    On Tuesday afternoon Bridges posted a message to Facebook: “Of all the instruments one can use to build STRAIGHT – a spirit level, profiles, measuring tape, fishing line, square – a sjambok is the only one that works for this Greenie of mine!!! EISH!!!!! Sx.”

    Thirty people indicated that they “liked” this statement. By Thursday afternoon there were also 17 comments praising Bridges for her words. “That is, after all, the only language they’ve understood all these years. 3x hurrahs for you!” said a certain Rene Smit.

    Ms Bridges evidently believes that referring to a black South African as a “Greeny; referring to this (as yet unnamed) person as if he belonged to her and was in essence a slave; and indicating that she needed to whip him with a sjambok to ensure that he did his work properly, was not racist at all. In fact, she thinks its hilarious and informative. What planet is this sorry excuse for a human being living on?

    So much for the readers of this Blog who claim that hardly any white South Africans are still racists. Yeah right. Sunette and her many fans have obviously not received the memo that we now live in a democracy in which (at least) naked racism of this kind is frowned upon in polite society. This kind of thing is, of course, morally reprehensible and wrong. It is deeply dehumanising to the majority of South Africans. It is also rather counter productive as it fans the flames of racial hatred and intolerance.

    Imagine Julius Malema saying such a thing about any white South African.

    The outcry from white South Africans would have been harsh and prolonged. Why is there no similar outcry at the mad ravings of this untalented racist? Now is the time for all white South Africans (including the members of Afriforum and the leadership of the Democratic Alliance) to show some consistency by condemning these statement as disgusting and reprehensible. If they remain silent, we would know which side they are really on.

    But more interesting and important perhaps is the question of whether the statement by Sunette Bridges is illegal. It is not illegal in South Africa to make racist statements. If it was, hundreds of thousands of South Africans would have had to be brought to court every month, as racists statements (as well as sexist and homophobic statements) are made every day by thousands of South Africans who probably preface their statements by phrases such as : “I am not a racist/sexist/homophobe, but……”

    Some racists, sexists and homophobic South Africans are more sophisticated than Sunette Bridges, of course, and often say offensive things without realising that they are giving themselves away. Complimenting a black South African on her excellent command of the English language, say, or inadvertently referring to gay men and lesbians as engaging an “abnormal” sexual behaviour might be done with the best of intentions and one would seldom think that such statements – while objectionable – pass the threshold of illegality.

    But what about the statement by Sunette Bridges?

    Readers might recall that section 10 of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA) prohibits any person from publishing or communicating “words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds (including race), against any person, that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to (a) be hurtful; (b) be harmful or to incite harm; or (c) promote or propagate hatred.”

    As I have written before, I am far from convinced that this section will pass constitutional muster as it limits freedom of expression far more than is permitted by section 16 of the Bill of Rights. But as the section stands, it seems obvious that Miss Bridges will not be able to escape conviction for hate speech on the basis that she had no intention of saying something either hurtful or harmful about someone else based on that person’s race.

    What one has to determine is whether her words could reasonably be construed as having the intention of being hurtful or harmful towards black people in general or her employee in particular. I don’t think it would be too difficult to show that any reasonable person would construe her statement as having the intention to be hurtful or harmful to black South Africans. Afriforum therefore has every opportunity to win this case if it complained about Bridges’ statement to the Equality Court. The DA similarly might want to show some even-handedness and take this case to the Equality Court.

    Personally I am not holding my breath that this will happen, as both organisations are vying for the support of people like Sunette Bridges and her fans. I might be wrong, of course, and Helen Zille herself might announce in her weekly newsletter that the DA is submitting a complaint to the Equality Court about this outrageous statement. If that happens, I apologise in advance for assuming that the DA had a double standard and was – in effect – condoning the racism of a white public figure which it would have condemned if the public figure was black.

    Just another day in South Africa, I guess.

    PS: For a demonstration of the racism in the music of Sunette Bridges, see this Youtube version of her song “Genoeg“. Warning: it will make your stomach turn.

    http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/the-astonishing-self-denial-of-sunette-bridges/

    Like

    • Ek het amper halfpad deur die Pierre de vos se kots gelees toe verloor ek belangstelling, dit waarmee hy ander veroordeel is hy besig om self te doen – hy diskrimineer teen ander mense, in die geval die mense naaste aan hom, deur te verkondig dat hulle so “sleg”, onkonsekwent en rassisties is, eintlik is dit maklik om te sê Sunette is ‘n rassis en het nie talent nie, maar dan vertel hy ons nie wat rassisme of talent is nie. . . . . Wat hy eintlik doen is maar net galbraak teen die eks europeens sonder om te verwys na Mallies se swart boeties wat op verhoë sing(?) kill kill ens. . . .

      Daar is iets in hom vol van haat en nyd is en nou soek hy iemand om te blameer, miskien omdat hulle nie die insig het van die alternatiewe bewussyn wat hy nou ontwikkel het na al sy draks wat hy (soos ou Koos) gebruik het nie. Wat hy “verkondig as die heilige waarheid” is dat mense draks moet gebuirk om koel te wees, en aan die anderkant ondersteun hy seker Pagad (people against drugs).

      So jammer Mollie ek koop dit nie, wat sê jy – hoekom glo jy dat Steve en kie “ghastly” musiek maak?

      Like

      • The same people who pay to listen to Steve Hofmeyr and Sunette Bridges pay to attend Mighty Men and Worthy Women conventions. Fucked up in the head.

        Like

        • Thank you Mollie that explains it to me . . .everything!
          Om wit, “vrolik” en ‘n attijoot te wees en dan duidelik draks gebruik om jou besussyn te alter . . . .is koel, maar om Afrikaans, stryt en Christelik te wees dan is jy “Fucked up in the head.” Soos ek dit sien in my realiteit is dit ego gedrewe bevooroordeeling, rassisme wat dui op “vrees” vir dit wat “vêr” en buite die beheer van die ego is.
          ( Dit laat my ook dink aan die Nuwe SA waar jy nie moordenaars mag dood maak nie, maar wel onskuldinge fetusse!, m.a.w die doodstraf is af maar aborsie is ok)

          Jy moes al van die toneelspel “Little shop of horrors” gehoor het, . . .?, wel wat sou die simboliek agter die toneelstuk wees? (ek sal nou ook nie weet of “simboliek” aan die natuurlike of aan Mallies bo/on-natuurlik behoort nie, maar ek troos my daaraan hy weet ook nie).

          As die plant nou vervang word deur die “ego” in “little Shop of Horrors” dan blyk dit duidelik waar die skrywer die idee van die spel gekry het.

          Like

      • Johann ek dink daai Pierre gemors is ‘n stuk kots. Ek kan die stuk drel gemors nie vat nie. Hy laat my bloed kook. Daai bek van hom wat hy so sit en trek irriteer my grensloos. Ek moet met jou daar saamstem, wat hy praat is ‘n klomp kots. Dis ‘n cliché even vir ‘n swartmens.

        Like

        • Pierre de Vos does not see himself as an Afrikaner. He sees himself as white, gay and atheist. That’s his free choice.

          Like

        • Ek sal nou nie tot die ekstreem gaan soos jy nie, maar die “hanskakies” was nog altyd met ons en hy gee die “vrolikes” ‘n slegte beeld (wat hulle besig is om vinnig op te bou, – die “vrolikes” wys hul ware kleure en piss al meer mense af).

          Maar wat ek graag van jou wou hoor is. . . . kan jy ondersky tussen wat jou ego is, wat jou WIL is, wat jou emosies is, en kan jy jou soortvan distansieer daarvan of sal mens sê kan jy terug staan en in jou psige daarvan bewus word?

          Like

          • Jy weet, Johann is ‘n slim ou, ‘n diep ou, hy kan selfs vir jou wys hoe om te vermy dat jy in perdestront trap. Kom wys vir ons bietjie, Johann.

            Like

            • Adriaan, jy studeer mos sielkunde en daar is teorieë oor die “ego”, nou wil ek net weet of jy die ego in jouself herken of het die ego jou so oorgeneem dat jy jou self daarmee identifiseer, dat jy “glo” jy is jou ego. Dis nie ‘n paai in de skaai of net boeke kennis nie, dis realiteit waarmee ons elke dag mee lewe.

              En hoe erken mens jou ego? Die ego het hierdie onbevredigende behoeftes en begeertes, “feed me feed me feed me”, alle inligting wat inkom in die bewussyn word opgeklim en as dit nie die ego versterk nie dan word dit verwerp.

              Die ego in ons moun en biets oor alles (soos Mollie se ego so lief voor is) om dit self te versterk. Die ego koester ‘n wrok teenoor ander omdat dit “ingedoen” is (soos joune Adriaan).

              Die ego hou gewoonlik van aggressiewe “reaksie” vir iets wat gebeur het, soos die grondboontjie galery wat net wag vir die volgende ding om teenoor te reageer. (Dis hoekom hulle so stil is as daar nie iets is om teenoor te reageer nie, hul ego’s het eintlik nie ‘n alternatiewe vir “godsdiens” nie, behalwe dy kam ‘n laaif as hulle kan aanval ‘n têk ‘n têk, soos kremlins)

              En dan is daar iets wat die ego baie versterk en dit is – om reg te wees! ‘n Fariseer! en daaraan is al ons ego’s skuldig of sal ek sê dis hoe die ego opereer.Dis wat veroorsaak dat daar soveel bloedvergieting is en oorloë, ons is reg en hulle is verkeerd, fundamentaliste soos die atijoote, “vrolikes”, moelims, êfrican americans, jou ego en myne..

              Nou wil ek net van jou weet of jy jouself kan distansieer van jou ego en dit net sien as deel van jou, maar nie heeltemal daarmee identifiseer nie. Om bewus te wees dat jy ‘n ego het, maar te weet dat dit nie jy is nie. . . ?

              Like

              • Ek sal dit vir jou so verduidelik. Dis net ‘n kwessie van taalgebruik. Daar is twee soorte ego’s ( Ek probeer dit nou so eenvoudig as moontlik verduidelik. Die een ego was ‘n term wat Sigmund Freud gebruik het. Daar is basies drie verdedigings of coping meganismes in jou onderbewuste. Die ID, die ego en die super ego. Die ID is die impulsiewe vraatsugtige barbaar wat net wil he en selfbevrediging wil ervaar. Die super ego is dan die meester van die ID hy beheer hom. Daar moet alhoewel ‘n balans wees tussen die streng super ego en ID so dis dan waar die ego inkom. Hy stel jou instaat om jou angs wat jy ervaar wanneer jy iets wil bevredig te kan paai maar ter selfde tyd nie jouself in die moeilikheid laat beland nie. Byvoorbeeld – Jan stap af in die straat, hy is baie honger. Hy stap verby ‘n bakery verby sy ID se vir hom ” Vat vir jou van daai lekker koek en beesting!” Jan se super ego wat dan die meester is van die ID se dan ” Nee Jan, jy kan nie net instap en vir jou vat wat jy will he nie, jy moet eers daarvoor betaal!” Daar moet alhoewel ‘n kompromie tussen die twee gemaak word so dis dan waar die ego inkom. Hy se vir Jan – Jan kry vir jou geld of bekom geld op een of ander wyse en koop vir jou beesting en koek. So doende het die ID gekry wat hy gesoek het en die Super ego is ook tevrede want alles het beskaafd en georden geskied. Die ego was ‘n term vir ‘n soort verdedigings meganisme wat mens het. Dis Freud se term gewees. Dan is daar ‘n ander manier wat die word ego gebruik word nl. Jy het ‘n groot ego. Dit menende jou selfbelang word voor die belang van korrek wees geplaas. Jy kan met nader woorde nooit verkeerd wees nie, jy is ‘n te groot of belangrikke mens om te erken dat jy ook foute maak en voette van klei het. Die term ego in Freudian terme het niks te doen met die term ego wat as ‘n basiese term gebruik word om eintlik ‘n vorm van belangrikheids waan aan te dui. So ver ek weet hou die twee glad nie verband met mekaar nie.

                Like

                • Mooi Adriaan, wonder net of jy die twee verskillende ego’s in jouself kan erken. Jy beweer dat Freud se id, ego en super ego in die onbewuste opereer, of kom dit ook in die bewuste in. ( Hoe het Jan geweet hy is lus vir koek?)

                  Jung se teorie sê die ego behels alle “bewuste” aspekte van funksionering (sensasies, waarnemings, gevoelens, denke, evaluerings en aktiewe geheue) en die ego struktureer die bewuswording van die individu en gee die individu ‘ n eie identiteit ( wat redelik konstant bly oor tyd, soos Adriaan wat homself totaal geïdentifiseer het met sy ego)

                  Erikson sê weer dat die ego ‘n aspek van die persoonlikheid wat “gekoördineerde” en bepaalde funksionering moontlik maak. Deur die gedurende interaksie ts individu en die omgewing beleef die individu ‘n reeks sogenaamde krisisse waartydens die ego keuses oor sy verdere ontwikkeling maak ( nie meer ‘n kompromie ts die id en super ego nie) Wanner die ontwikkeling suksesvol verloop verkry die ego eienskappe soos hoop, wilskrag betroubaarheid, liefde sorgsaamheid.( Ek lei af as jy vol haat en nyd en frustrasie is dan was jou ego nie suksesvol ontwikkel nie), maar hy beweer die krisisse kan later met meer sukses opgelos word.

                  Dis al wat ek so gou kon opspoor, i.v.m. die opgeblaasde ego is dit duidelik te sien in die grondboontjie galery, self belang voor om korrek te wees.

                  Die uitdaging is net om terug te staan en die ego in jouself raak te sien, en te “sien” dat jy meer as die ego is, onderandere die “spasie” (bewussyn) waarin die ego opereer.

                  Like

                • Guys, I majored in psychology when pa fell off the bus way back in nineteen voetsek. Nobody takes Freud or Jung seriously anymore. Even then, their theories – let wel mense, teoriee is nie feite nie – were only referred to from a historical point of view. Sort of like the bible.

                  Like

                  • No nobody does except Johann. Johann as a matter of fact has a few of his own theories. He asks me a question and then start to elaborate and explains his own rubbish point of view. Nobody said that theories are facts. Especially psychological theories. I explained something to him because he asked me to. He still doesn’t really understand what I just explained to him. This guy is batshit crazy. Of course psychology isn’t an exact science. To Johann the bible and Freudian psychology are interwoven and a exact science. Again it proves that people who are incapable of understanding basic science usually resort to post modernism and religion.

                    Like

                    • Notice how religion and Freudian psychology both believe in a trinity: the father, son, the holy ghost; the superego, ego and id.

                      Like

                    • Adriaan ek het dit nie opgemaak nie, dis nie my teorieë nie dis die sielkundiges se eie “teorieë”, hulle het nie vasgesteek by Freud nie, daar is nog baie ander mense wat hul idee van die ego geboekstaaf het, so waarom jou “ego” nou so moet reageer is vir my duister (verdedigings meganisme?). Gaan kyk dan self wat Jung,Erikson ens beweer het. . .?

                      En jy vermy wat ek jou vra, herken/erken jy die “ego’ in jou psige of hardloop alles net in jou gedagtes doer vêr rond?

                      Like

                  • Nie-wetenskaplikes sukkel om die verskil tussen ‘n wetenskaplike teorie en ‘n hipotese te onderskei:

                    “Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.”
                    (United States National Academy of Sciences)

                    Like

                    • Yes, but psychology isn’t a science. Psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.

                      Like

                    • Koel Diek, “Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. Dan is dit net ‘n graad verskil? Wanneer besluit mens dat ‘n teorie “likely” of “unlikely” kan verander met nuwe getuies?

                      Is Freud se voorstelling oor die id, ego en super ego nou ‘n teorie of hipotese, want dit is wat dit is, en ek twyfel of “nuwe getuienis” dit gaan verander. . .?

                      Weereens kry ek die onderliggende “gees” agter jou ekspressie, van arrogansie. Ok miskien nie so aggressief nie, maar het jy nou ‘n ego of het die saaintes dit nog nie ge-teoriseer nie?

                      Like

                  • Old stuff that nobody takes seriously anymore then it should be easy peasy to recognize the phenomenon of the “ego that is referred to. . ? (If you take camera lenses eg. designed 150 (?) years ago, although refined today, pretty much the same thing)

                    En ek is seker dat Adriaan – wat nou sielkunde studeer – moet nog deur die ou historiese teorieë gaan om ‘n beter begrip te hê van wat vandag aangaan, maar ek kan raai dat daar nie veel verander het sedert 19 voertsek nie, miskien is die woorde verander of verfyn, maar ons identifiseer nogsteeds met die ego en al het daar ‘n evolusie in kultuur plaasgevind ( was dit ou Fanie/Adriaan wat beweer het dat evolusie net met spesies plaasvind en dat kulturele evolusie nie eens na verwys is nie. . ?) en daar ‘n kennis ontploffing was, stereotipeer die gemiddelde Amerikaner hulself as die domste generasie op die planeet. . . . ok van die punt af.

                    Wat ek graag sou wou weet of kan jy, Mollie, jouself distansieer van jou ego of sukkel jy met die term?

                    Like

                    • Johann, you don’t seem to listen to what others say. You must be a useless lay psychologist if you are deaf to others, so I suggest you leave it to the professionals.

                      Like

                    • Although the model is structural and makes reference to an apparatus, the id, ego and super-ego are purely symbolic concepts about the mind and do not correspond to actual (somatic) structures of the brain such as the kind dealt with by neuroscience.

                      n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego_and_super-ego

                      Like

                    • Mollie ek was onder die indruk dat ek wel na almal luister, goed luister, in Adriaan se geval, bv. is hy op sy ego trip en hy weet dit nie, en al wat ek van hom vra is “kan hy die ego in homself erken” en siende dat jy aan die professionele behoort hoekom dak en daaif jy dan so? (Adriaan het die professionele al vir hoe lank al gesien en lyk my hulle maak net geld uit hom uit. . .?)

                      Like

                    • I don’t think Adriaan is on any kind of “ego trip”, as you call it. He strikes me as a modest, sober minded young man. I think it is you who is on an “ego trip”.

                      Like

                    • Iv’e been called a womanizer also believe it or not. So according to certain people I am an arrogant womanizer. Or any case according to people who just randomly pass judgement on the internet. If you incorrectly sum it up.

                      Like

                    • Good for you. I’ve been called evil, but only by silly old men who I wouldn’t give the time of day. One of these silly old men made the mistake of trying to make a pass at me and I told him to fuck off. That makes me evil. I wish I could just beat up stupid old men. I once poured a glass of beer over a silly old man’s head. I don’t hate all old men, but some men get really silly when they get old, even sillier than when they were young and could get away with their silliness because of their younger looks.

                      Like

                    • Yes old men can be utterly irritating. I’m glad you tell them to fuck of and pour beer over their heads. Something that makes my blood boil is a group of old men that tell me they where ” groot wildjagters”. Thanks to that old fuck my generation can’t expierence what it is like to have rooikatte, rooijakkalse, bobbejane, blou apies, eagles, leopards etc. living on the Highveld. Seriously you must sommer bliksem them. Stupid old farts! Hulle is fokken lelik ook, dan wil hulle nog sex he.

                      Like

                    • Shame, Adriaan. You can always come and stay here if you would like to visit the Nambiti Game Reserve without spending a fortune on accommodation. I live in Ladysmith.

                      The Nambiti Game Reserve

                      Nambiti’s chief appeal is its exclusivity as the only big 5 reserve in the Natal 5.

                      Lion, elephant, leopard, buffalo and rhino are included in the 30 species of game in the malaria-free 22 000 acre reserve.

                      The Nambiti Private game reserve’s terrain is biodiverse – including savanna, woodland, grassland, thornveld and tall acacia trees providing visitors with access to rolling plains, valleys, mountains and the Sundays River that presents a stirring 40-metre waterfall in the reserve.

                      Whilst visiting, include the Kwa Cheetah project. There are now fewer than 10 000 cheetahs worldwide and the project, together with a number of other cheetah breeding projects around the country, aims to strengthen the gene pool, breed cheetahs in captivity and release the cubs into the wild.

                      Like

                    • I’ve been to the Krugerpark 7 times in my life. I’ve been to the Pilanesberg twice. I’ve been to the lion park in Randburg countless times. I’ve been to the rhino and lion reserve in Krugersdorp many times. I often go to the zoo at the hartebeespoort dam. I’ve been to the Krugersdorp game reserve many times. So yes I have seen wildlife in real life. I am just disappointed that the kiddies who are now babies are not going to have the oppurtinaty to see rhino’s in real life one day when they are my age. Many other animal species also. Here where I live there used to be baboons and vervet monkeys as well as jackals. They have been gone for the past 35years or so. In the kromdraai region there used to be leopards about 40 years ago. Lets not forget at one stage there where lions, bloubokke and bergkwaggas in the Cape province. Yes Natal is a beautiful province. It has the bushveld and the ocean in the same province. Natal has got many tree species unlike the Cape province where trees are few and far between ( The only ones being planted their by people). Many of the tree species that are found in the Kruger park are also found in Natal ( Knobthorn, scented pod, marula, leadwood, sekelbos, fever tree’s, sausage trees, jackal berry, apiesdoring, tamboti ).

                      Like

                • I’d love to visit a game reserve but am semi crippled from sciatica at the moment – but thankfully it’s not going to be for much longer. I can’t walk without a walking stick and am in constant pain. I hang onto the supermarket trolley as if it were a zimmer frame. I feel empathy for really old people who use zimmer frames and have no other prognosis. I am being operated on on the 15th of this month to relieve the pressure on the spinal nerve. I should be good to do anything I want six weeks after the op. I can’t wait until this is all over. To think that people suffered this condition in the past and could no nothing about it. I’ll also be very glad once summer returns, it seems this winter has been particularly chilly and long. You feel it more when electricity prices are so much more expensive than they used to be in more civilised days.

                  Like

  18. I am not left wing as Pierre de Vos is or right wing as Steve Hofmeyr fans are, because there is one thing both extremist groups have in common:

    Venereal disease

    Like

  19. Totally off topic, I read the following graffiti on a wall in Berlin: “When I was a kid I used to pray for a bike every night. Then I realised god does not work that way. So i stole a bike and asked him to forgive me.”

    Like

  20. Oppas vir die Moslems mense! Hulle is bitter barbaars en onbeskaafd. Dit moet absluut hel wees om ‘n vrou te wees in daai lande.

    Like

  21. Mense pas maar julle troeteldiere mooi op, soos ek verstaan is hierdie tyd van die jaar tipies die tyd wat Sataniste diere offer. Ek het nou al begin wonder as die honde so blaf snags of dit nie dalk noodwendig tsotsi’s is nie maar ook Satansaanbidders. In die een woonbuurt hier in my dorp raak katte net een na die ander weg. Nou die dag was daar ‘n afgeslagte has wat van ‘n lampaal afgehang het. Klomp low life bliksems!!!

    Like

    • Oppas vir moslims, satanaanbidders, Christene, attijoote, Jode, voorvader aanbidders, dronk bestuurders, draks, pedofiele, latente “vrolikes”, diewe, “africans”, bedrieërs, egosentriese ego’s, vals konsepte, identifisering met vals jy’s, harde musiek, gemorskos, kolestrol, verslawing, . . . . . en aan en aan.

      What is life . . .but an escape from death?

      Like

      • Gaan kyk hoe sny hulle ‘n ou se kop af in die naam van Alha. Beyond barbaars. Jy is sommer befok in jou kop. Sit en praat jy Satanisme en die Moslem geloof goed? O wat ‘n wonderlikke christen.

        Like

    • I don’t have cats. My neighbour to my right says Jesus has told her it’s ok to poison cats because they eat the birdies and Jesus loves birdies and hates cats. I don’t let my dogs out onto the street.

      Fuck Satanists, they have nothing on the Catholic Church for pure evil. With those pricks behind me proceeding with their Disneyland Jesus and Mary miracle park with turnstiles and pay booths, despite their neighbours’ protestations, one needs to be more proactive.

      It’s time to bring out the trebuchet.

      Wat’s ‘n trebuchet?

      From Wikipedia: “Records of the use of trebuchets suggest that the largest could fire rocks of up to 1,500 kg (although smaller stones must surely have been more typically used) and could achieve a rate of fire of one stone every 15 seconds. Maximum range varied but was probably between 200 and 300 feet. The trebuchet was the most advanced of the siege engines and was not replaced until the advent of gunpowder.”

      Like

      • In my “realiteit” lyk dit of jy, Mollie, probleme het met omtrent almal, dit kan net gebeur as mens met die ego identifiseer. Die ego snuffel negatiewe situasies uit om dit self te versterk en dit self beter oor dit self te laat voel. Geen wonder jy kan nie jou ego identifiseer en jouself daarvan kan distansieer nie. Is die ego net deel van die totaliteit van wie jy is of is dit wie jy is?

        Like

        • And I don’t let Dutchmen into my lounge. Last time there was a Dutchman sitting in my lounge I told my husband to take him outside and continue their discussion in the patio. “And try not to break the garden furniture, Dutchman.” By Dutchman I mean a retarded, clumsy, inconsiderate person who usually speaks Afrikaans. A “buffel”. Not all Afrikaans speakers are Dutchmen, you seldom get black people who are Dutchmen although there are a few real kaffirs of Dutchmen who think they are white.

          Like

        • I forgot to mention I don’t like people who wear leopard print and wraparound sunglasses. Leopard print shoes, handbags, tops, shorts or dresses, anyone who wears leopard print should be shot immediately. As for wraparound sunglasses: “Hellooooo, the nineties are calling, they want their glasses back.”

          Like

          • We can learn quite a lot from the 90’s. Grunge was born then. Kurt Cobain comes to mind. I just remember guys in their 20’s with goatees, long hair, Doc Martins. The motto of the 90’s was – Whatever man! Metallica rocked over kids stereos. I was a fan of the Offspring. Women where also stunningly good looking.

            Like

          • The only animal that looks good in leopard spots is a leopard. Leopards don’t wear wraparound sunglasses because they stay out of sunlight and nightclubs.

            The church next door has put up palisade fencing and a sliding gate for motor vehicles so I won’t be bothered by swarms of congregants scaling the walls and stealing out of the garden anymore. I did make a donation of a grand for this purpose which is more than they get out of their average parishioner. Remarks about my lack of Christian attitude are laughed off with the contempt they deserve.

            Like

            • Then only flight looks good when birds are flying.
              Leather looks good on cows.
              Rubber belongs on trees.
              Fins on fish.
              etc
              It seems that your ego one day decided that with leopard spots on material it can create these negative feelings and then incorperate that into it’s “dislike” files.

              And there you go re-enacting those feelings everytime you find yourself in that specific situation, maybe seeking out those leopard spots so you can experience those neg feelings . . . . “caught in a landslide, no escape from “your” reality” . . .egosentriek Trasilwaania

              Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s