KelnonsReader

Cool, the phrase says, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Though, I expect you meant to exclude that phrase, even though it's the exact phrase that deals with what you're asking. If we're just making stuff up like you want to, you can imply anything you want to. Considering that phrase explicitly exists to exclude those who are invading a country and diplomats, you claiming, "You can't use the part that excludes people entering the country unlawfully even though that's exactly what it's for". Pick your unlawful means of entry - With millions sneaking over border or with tanks, they are explicitly excluded.

@ReaderKelnon @KevinRobertsTX @Heritage Can you show me the explicit words in the 14th amendment? Keep in mind that "under the jurisdiction of" will not do it.

Just as the authors of the 14th Amendment intended. 🙃

As someone who got a similar letting from the IRS years ago, you have no idea what you're talking about. They always threaten that if they believe you have drastically underreported your taxes. While mine wasn't as bad as Asmongold in this clip, they wanted 6 figures from me because they claimed I under reported my income by 50% the previous year and were slapping me with heavy penalties. It took time to sort out, somehow they had my employer listed twice in their records for the exact same amount. So they literally thought my employer paid me double what they did. I did nothing wrong, they screwed up, and they still threatened to sieze property over it. And the real kick in the dick? After 5 years of sorting it out with them, they agreed they messed up, dropped the penalty fees, dropped the extra taxes. They did, however, insist I still owed them the late fee for taxes they agreed I didn't owe them. At that point, I was 5 years into sorring out their screw up and paid them the couple grand they wanted for that rather than spend another 5 years trying to fix that. If I had known how obstinate they would be about an obvious clerical error on their end when I started it, I would have paid someone else to do sort it out.

@RussellCapital_ @TheBigMoon67 @DramaAlert He got a letter in the mail from the IRS stating they are going to seize his property. That isnt oweing once or twice. This mfr hasnt payed at all and is getting audited 🤣🤣🤣 U retards legit know nothing and its hilarious

Asmongold was SHOCKED to find out he owes $400K to the IRS...

The male desire to protect others literally is their paternal instinct. It's not the same as women's maternal instinct, obviously, but to claim they simply don't have it when you see them repeatedly not only apply it to their own children, but to friends children, strangers children, rushing into burning buildings to save people, going in law enforcement (when done for the right reasons), the military, etc. Men exhibit their paternal instinct constantly, regardless of if they have children. You belittling that is more telling of your view of men than anything is says about men.

lots of strange reactions to this game. let’s clear some things up: childless men do not have paternal instincts the way that childless women have maternal instincts (we observe this even in the way little girls play vs. little boys). men first experience paternal instincts once they have their own children - and typically, those paternal instincts are only ever felt for their own children, and no one else’s. men are not nurturers. men don’t gush over cute kids in public. men don’t have baby fever. if a man wants to possess a child for any reason other than it being a product of his own lineage, he is likely a predator. and you’d be taking the feminist/radical gender abolitionist position to protest any of the above points. this should explain why a “dad simulator” game marketed to mostly childless men gives people the creeps.

@TinaDKev @Clay4MainStreet Considering it's obvious satire meant to engagement farm and you fell for it, are you sure he's the uneducated buffoon here?

@Clay4MainStreet FFS...I'm Australian and I know that Georgia was named after George II AND have a working knowledge of smart thermostats on AC units.. So what's your excuse for being an uneducated buffoon?

Just stayed at a hotel in Maryland for work. Turns out their AC units shut off while you sleep as part of some new woke Green New Deal nonsense. It's a terrible policy that's making their state like Europe. Just one more example of why they've never won an SEC Championship.

@EHPlimsoll1 @KevinRobertsTX @Heritage Make them? No. Exploit it? Obviously. The SCOTUS went directly against the document as written, and per uour request, we should require constiutional amendments to do so.

@ReaderKelnon @KevinRobertsTX @Heritage No. lol the DNC didn't make birthright citizenship part of natural law and make the Supreme Court verify it.

@EHPlimsoll1 @big1042245 @KevinRobertsTX It explicitly states, "under the jurisdiction thereof". Illegal presence would obviously mean they were not subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

@ReaderKelnon @big1042245 @KevinRobertsTX You added the illegally present part. That is nonsense.

@EHPlimsoll1 @KevinRobertsTX @Heritage You mean like how the 14th went from explicitly excluding illegals because they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to being flipped on its head to include them by the SCOTUS? I agree, we should enforce it, not let the DNC just use courts to rewrite it.

@KevinRobertsTX @Heritage Don't be so lazy. Try to amend the Constitution if you don't like it. Don't expect the court to do your work for you.

We should apply that to the 14th Amendment then. Which one xplicitly states that someone must be subject to the jurisdiction thereof to get citizenship. Which is why foreign diplomats, invading armies, and illegally present foreign invaders are not subject to it. Unfortunately, in 1898, the SCOTUS decided to rewrite it to include the last group instead of pushing congress to pass another constitutional amendment to include them. I absolutely agree - Trying to bypass the constiution through the SCOTUS is utterly unAmerican and we should revert to treating it as written. Because, let's be entirely clear, that's how it was written and executed for the first 30 years of it existing.

@KevinRobertsTX If you don't like an amendment, the proper path for an American patriot is to try to repeal it like we did with the 18th Amendment. Being a whiney dipshit trying to go around it isn't just lazy as fuck, it's utterly unAmerican.

@TheAKGuy Now we see where Brandon got his good looks!

Even at 93 (almost 94), and still happy to hit the dance floor. So privileged to be able to spent time with one of the most amazing women I know. I love you Oma.

>Yes, the article says there is "extreme dualism". Yes, it says White farmers do commercial farming and Black farmers do subsistence. BUT DO YOU KNOW WHY? White people moved into effectively uninhabited land and set up, apartheid maintained it. I've never disputed that. >You stole the best land, you gave them no money, no tools, no infrastructure, and then you are surprised that they produce LESS? We've covered this, the land was effectively uninhabited. Even sparse rural will have ~10-50 people per sq km. South Africa was well below that. The best land was not stolen, it was settled. >You created the problem, and now you are using your own created problem as proof that we are incapable? That is the biggest joke of the century. Black South Africans moved there specifically because the white settlers were producing food and trade. If you consider taking effectively uninhabited land, making it productive, and someone else wanting the benefits of that a problem, sure, they created the problem. Also, I'm not sure how many times I have to say this - You keep saying, "You". Wasn't me, I'm not a Boer. >AND READ BETWEEN THE LINES, the article says 1.69 MILLION are in subsistence, and 44,000 commercial owners. Do the math. Who is doing the work? Who is the majority? WE ARE. You do the majority of labor on subsistence farms. Not on commercial farms. They are significantly more productive with significantly less people on the commercial farms. Are you arguing you do more farm labor and produce less food? We agree there. But there is a clear divide here - The commercial farms, run and worked by white Afrikaners, produce significantly more food with significantly less physical labor per unit of food produced. If your argument is that you could dig a hole and fill it back up over and over and get nothing out of it, but you did my work, sure. But the crops don't care how much you work to produce little. And the article you claimed you read addressed exactly that - The commercial farms aren't using your labor to produce food, they are using machines to do it. >The article also says "many failed efforts to grow the sector in an inclusive manner" — BECAUSE YOU NEVER WANTED TO INCLUDE US. You wanted workers, not partners. I didn't do anything, yet again. You seem to believe everyone on the internet is inside your small murder hovel of South Africa. Did they want workers in other sectors? Sure, and apartheid enabled that. Once they mechanized agriculture, they weren't reliant on your labor for it. >AND READ BETWEEN THE LINES, the article says 1.69 MILLION are in subsistence, and 44,000 commercial owners. Do the math. Who is doing the work? Who is the majority? WE ARE. Once again, you may be doing more physical work to produce significantly less crops. Those 44,000 people produce about 9x the amount of crops that the other 1.69 million people produce. You working fields poorly (be it for whatever reason) doesn't mean you are suddenly the food producer. >You own the company, yes. But WE ARE THE LABOR. Without us, your 90% production drops to ZERO in one week. So stop saying "White people do it all". You are the managers, we are the engine. If you read the article, you'd know they were talking about two different sets of farms. You are the labor on unproductive (relative) farms. The food production doesn't drop to zero without those 1.69 million people, it drops to 90% of the total output of the country currently. >2. ABOUT THE LAND BEING "SPARSELY POPULATED" You quote 0.38 people per km² and you think that means "EMPTY" and "NOBODY OWNED IT"? That's literally what it means. Effectively uninhabited generally starts at 10 people per sq/km. South Africa was WELL below that. >That is the COLONIAL MENTALITY FALLACY. Just because population density was low compared to London, does not mean the land had no owners. No, that's a normal way of looking at it. For example, your country currently has a population density of 54 people per sq/km. Even accounting for the massive amounts of farm land. The Amazon rain forest, today, is considered effectively uninhabited. It has a population density of 3-6 people per sq/km. That's roughly 10-20 times the population density of South Africa when the settlers arrived. >The Xhosa, Zulu, Sotho, Khoisan, they had territories, they had kings, they had boundaries. You are using "low population" as an excuse to say "Finders Keepers". That is theft logic. If I have a big house and I am alone inside, does that mean you can break in and take it because it is "sparsely inhabited"? NO. That is stealing. When you're talking about land that large with effectively nobody living there, it's settling unsettled land. In a house sense - If you had 1000 houses and never spent time in 962 of them, those 962 would have been considered abandoned long ago. That's roughly what we're talking about with the population density. >3. ABOUT "KILL THE BOER" & MURDER STATS You are throwing numbers comparing Germany and Sweden to look like victims. But let's be honest, Crime in SA is high for EVERYONE, not just you. I keep telling you I don't live in South Africa, I'm not sure why that is hard for you. I outright gave you the out you chose to take - South Africa is just a murderous place. Fair enough, you're killing the Boers and everyone else. That doesn't help your case. "we sing about killing people who we think have done us wrong by having more, but really, we kill everyone who has stuff we want!" isn't some big argument in favor of it. Perhaps you should work culturally to not celebrate murdering people. >You are not "killed" because you are farmers, you are targeted because you are seen as wealthy and protected by a system that oppressed others. But instead of fixing the inequality, you just cry victim. I am not killed because I don't live in South Africa. I can keep hammering this to you since you keep seeming to miss it. And you hit the nail on the head - You're murdering people to take from them. That isn't some "win". >You act like this is a RACE COMPETITION. Like "We are winning, you are losing". Like "We feed you, you are useless". WHY DO YOU FEEL THE NEED TO PROVE SUPERIORITY? Superiority? No, you're missing it. Your racist policies, following previously racist policies, are going to harm you. That's been my entire point. Zimbabwe made this same mistake - They kicked out the people who knew how to accomplish what they needed before learning how to do it themselves. If tomorrow, those 28% of farmland that was owned and run by black farmers in South Africa were suddenly producing 28% of the crop output, you'd be in a good place to start trying to undo the mistakes of the past and discuss what a shift would look like. You aren't there. Their skin color is irrelevant in general, but it's the easiest identifier - They produce the vast VAST majority of your food. Agriculture of that scale isn't something you can just show up and go, "I run this now" and get the same results out of. >Deep down, you are insecure. You know you took the land. You know you made the laws. You know you kept us out of opportunity for centuries. And now that things are changing, you are terrified that maybe, just maybe, we are equal or better than you. You've repeatedly failed to even grasp that I'm not in South Africa, have never lived in South Africa, and am trying to explain to you how to avoid famine in your country. I'm not worried that you're better than me. I wrote and participated in ZERO of your laws. I kept zero of you out of opportunities. My only fear is you're going to cause a humanitarian crisis like Zimbabwe did and, much like them, demand the rest of the world, including where I live, prop up your failed policies with handouts. >So you hide behind statistics, links, and "facts" to build a wall between us. We don't hate you because you are White. We hate the INJUSTICE. We want the land back because it is ours. We want the economy because we work for it. Frankly, I don't care if you hate me. I neither caused nor propped up the past injustices in your country. You can feel free to hate me, just don't turn to us for help when you inevitably collapse the same way Zimbabwe did. I'd rather avoid starvation globally, but you seem dead set on chasing it. >And if you think removing you means failure, tell me this, WHY IS IT THAT WHEN WHITE PEOPLE COME TO AFRICA TO WORK FOR BLACK COMPANIES NOWADAYS, THEY WORK PERFECTLY WELL? You won't be removing me. I know I sound like a broken record, but you keep failing to grasp I'm not in South Africa. Why do white people work well for companies when they move to Africa? Because you don't bring in workers who can't do the job, that'd be stupid. That'd be like asking why an engineering firm always seems to bring in engineers - Because that's who they hire. That's true regardless of skin color. >Because skin color has nothing to do with intelligence. It is all about OPPORTUNITY AND SYSTEMS. You are not gods. You are just people who got a head start through violence. And now your time of monopoly is over. Ironically, you're setting up a system where our time of monopoly is about to start. As I've repeatedly told you, I'm not South African. But just like Zimbabwe, the time of western dominance in your country will start as soon as you fail to feed yourself and will become entirely reliant on outsiders, like myself, to feed you. You think you're building a better future - Once again, look at your power grid. You can't keep it up and running after being handed one of the most stable power grids in the world. Apply that to food and you have mass starvation. I'd like to avoid that for you, but if most of your countrymen keep thinking like you do, it's inevitable. You keep making this about race alone. I wouldn't hand a pile of white baseball players an electrical grid either. And you can absolutely argue apartheid is why you didn't learn how to run it, great, we agree. But you need to learn how it works before taking over the system or the system collapses. Much like your "white workers in Africa" question - You absolutely should not put people in charge who don't know how to do something, the reason it works there is those people were trained for the job. Learn how to run a mechanized farm, probably spend a generation doing apprenticeships, and you'll likely be able to run them just fine. At that point, you'd have the knowledge and be able to pass it down. Right now, you don't have that. You didn't have that with the power grid. And you'll guarantee starvation and begging for handouts from people like me if you move forward right now, with your current systems.

My brother, relax. 😂 You are throwing links and numbers like you just discovered the internet, but let me save you the energy, I HAVE READ YOUR ARTICLES for 3 hours. Now I know exactly what Leeds University and the research papers say. You are not teaching me anything new. You are just copying and pasting what supports your ego while ignoring the main point. 1. ABOUT THE "TWO AGRICULTURES" Yes, the article says there is "extreme dualism". Yes, it says White farmers do commercial farming and Black farmers do subsistence. BUT DO YOU KNOW WHY? It is because APARTHEID LAWS FORCED IT. You stole the best land, you gave them no money, no tools, no infrastructure, and then you are surprised that they produce LESS? You created the problem, and now you are using your own created problem as proof that we are incapable? That is the biggest joke of the century. The article also says "many failed efforts to grow the sector in an inclusive manner" — BECAUSE YOU NEVER WANTED TO INCLUDE US. You wanted workers, not partners. AND READ BETWEEN THE LINES, the article says 1.69 MILLION are in subsistence, and 44,000 commercial owners. Do the math. Who is doing the work? Who is the majority? WE ARE. You own the company, yes. But WE ARE THE LABOR. Without us, your 90% production drops to ZERO in one week. So stop saying "White people do it all". You are the managers, we are the engine. 2. ABOUT THE LAND BEING "SPARSELY POPULATED" You quote 0.38 people per km² and you think that means "EMPTY" and "NOBODY OWNED IT"? That is the COLONIAL MENTALITY FALLACY. Just because population density was low compared to London, does not mean the land had no owners. The Xhosa, Zulu, Sotho, Khoisan, they had territories, they had kings, they had boundaries. You are using "low population" as an excuse to say "Finders Keepers". That is theft logic. If I have a big house and I am alone inside, does that mean you can break in and take it because it is "sparsely inhabited"? NO. That is stealing. 3. ABOUT "KILL THE BOER" & MURDER STATS You are throwing numbers comparing Germany and Sweden to look like victims. But let's be honest, Crime in SA is high for EVERYONE, not just you. And you know very well the song is political, not a murder warrant. You are deliberately translating it literally because you want sympathy. You are not "killed" because you are farmers, you are targeted because you are seen as wealthy and protected by a system that oppressed others. But instead of fixing the inequality, you just cry victim. 4. AND FINALLY... You act like this is a RACE COMPETITION. Like "We are winning, you are losing". Like "We feed you, you are useless". WHY DO YOU FEEL THE NEED TO PROVE SUPERIORITY? Deep down, you are insecure. You know you took the land. You know you made the laws. You know you kept us out of opportunity for centuries. And now that things are changing, you are terrified that maybe, just maybe, we are equal or better than you. So you hide behind statistics, links, and "facts" to build a wall between us. We don't hate you because you are White. We hate the INJUSTICE. We want the land back because it is ours. We want the economy because we work for it. And if you think removing you means failure, tell me this, WHY IS IT THAT WHEN WHITE PEOPLE COME TO AFRICA TO WORK FOR BLACK COMPANIES NOWADAYS, THEY WORK PERFECTLY WELL? Because skin color has nothing to do with intelligence. It is all about OPPORTUNITY AND SYSTEMS. You are not gods. You are just people who got a head start through violence. And now your time of monopoly is over.

South Africa is going to regret driving out its white population, which is producing: 95.3% of their corn 98.7 % of their wheat 97.6 % of their cotton 97.2 % of their citrus 99% of their potatoes 91.4% of their tomatoes 96.9% of their soybean 95.8% of their poultry 66% of their cattle 89% of their wool

>I'm actually enjoying this bcuz you are literally proving my point while thinking you are winning 😂 You repeatedly stating lies to make yourself feel better and me providing true answers in response isn't you proving yourself. This time, I will HEAVILY provide citations for you, if you can't come back with anything but, "I DON'T LIKE THAT, IT'S NOT TRUE!" hich has been your standard operation throughout, I will simply mock you moving forward rather than bothering to provide actual answers to you. >You say I am the child, yet look at what you just wrote, you admitted that farming is industrial, you admitted that machines are used, and deep down, you know very well that BLACK HANDS ARE THE ONES OPERATING THEM. You are just too proud to say it clearly. So when you say "Boers do it all", you are actually saying "Boers own it all" and that is exactly what I told you! You are repeating my words back to me as if they are facts, not realizing you just debunked your own "we feed you" myth. They are not. I've literally provided evidence about this. Black farms do subsistence farming there, white farmers do industrial farming, generally speaking. Now, you keep saying there is no way that 4 million people provide most of your food, it must be the black workers: business.leeds.ac.uk/cees/dir-recor… "In addition to commercially sized farms, which represent a labour force of approximately 44,000, there are a further 1,690,000 employed in "subsistence agriculture," which plays a crucial role in food security for families living in the poorest circumstances. Sihlobo and Kirsten (2021) regard the country as having two agricultures, explaining there is "extreme dualism between predominantly white commercial farmers and mainly black smallholder farmers, and many failed efforts to grow the sector in an inclusive and transformed manner.”" Shocking, it's primarily white people working in the commercial farming sector. As you've already agreed, those provide upwards of 90% of the total food. SO yes, there are tons of black farmers doing subsistence farming, they are making a tiny slice of the food. Like it or not, that's reality. >And about the land being "empty"? That is the greatest fallacy you are swallowing. You are using the argumentum ad ignorantiam, believing that bcuz your history books wrote little about us, we didn't exist. The truth is, Kingdoms were here, borders were here, people were here. You didn't find a vacuum, you found a home and you took it. That is theft wrapped in nice words. I did in fact say mostly empty. Allow me to provide citation, page 27 of this peer reviewed research paper that distinctly calls it both an open frontier and sparsely populated: researchgate.net/publication/36… "An estimated fifty thousand people in the south-western Cape, an area of approximately 130,000 km2, gives us a population density of 0.38 per km2, while an estimate of two hundred thousand gives us 0.65 per km2. In either case, the Cape was, by 1650, a typical open frontier, not empty but sparsely populated by scattered groups." So yes, it was mostly uninhabited/lowly inhabited. This is historical fact. >You also use the slippery slope fallacy, crying that if we take over, we will starve. That is just fearmongering. Food grows because of nature and work, not because of your surname. And since we are already the ones doing the work, why would we suddenly FAIL? We would just stop being your employees and start being the owners 😂. It would help if you know what a slippery slope fallacy is before you claim someone is utilizing it. Claiming that you will continue to farm with the same efficiency as you currently farm when you chop off the highly efficient group of farmers is neither a slippery slope, nor a fallacy. You keep claiming you're "already doing the work", yet I provided both the easy version, Grok, and now actual citation that states you don't. Yes, lots of black people in South Africa work in farming. They produce very little food relative to your need. I guess the more technically correct version would be, to feed your 63 million people (no idea where you keep pulling 100 million from), assuming you then remove 4.5 million white people, to keep up your food production utilizing the current food output of your black farmers, you would need to shift to having... 18 million of your remaining 58.5 million people in agriculture. Or about 31% of your population in agriculture. If we limit it to you 14-64 crowd for working age, of those 39 million once we remove the whites, you'd need about 46.2% of your working population in agriculture. So yes, it's feasible for you to farm the way your non-white farmers farm and feed your people, but it isn't going to be a clean shift, and likely, due to not having the experience and, if your population is like yourself and allergic to factual information, not being able to deal with facts that hurt your feelings, you will likely fail. Also, given black subsistence farmers farm about 28% of the farm land to achieve 10% of your current output, you'd need to expand your farming operations to 280% of the current size to achieve that. Arguing, "But if we kicked out the people currently did it, we would suddenly be much better at it" is an argument with no basis in reality. >And please, stop acting scared of "Kill the Boer". That is not a death sentence, it is a political statement against oppression. You are deliberately taking it literally to play the victim, which is the false equivalence fallacy, equating a song with actual crime. I'm neither scared nor intimidated by you. I feel no victimization from you, I'm just providing you with factual information. I've explained now, this being the third time, I am not a Boer. You have, for the third time this reply, made up a fallacy to claim that isn't present. This is known as the fallacy fallacy. Continuously claiming fallacies that are not present. So let's talk hard facts. If you want to argue "We murder everyone in South Africa", given your murder rate is well above the global average, fair enough. If you want to argue that in recent years, you've killed less Boers than the decades before it, also accurate. But here's the hard, statistical numbers for it. The murder rate of white South Africans is about 10-12 per 100,000, annually. For a point of comparison, the murder rate of white Germans is 0.8-1 per 100,000, annually again. For white Swedes? 0.4-0.7 per 100,000, annually. You literally are "killing the Boers". Say it's just a chant for being anti-oppression or whatever other garbage you want to throw out there. Statistically, factually, South Africa is literally killing the Boers. >AND LET ME ASK YOU THIS SIMPLE QUESTION, IF APARTHEID EXCLUDED US AND WE WERE STARVING, HOW COMES THE BLACK POPULATION GREW AT A CRAZY RATE DESPITE SEGREGATION? BECAUSE WE KNOW HOW TO FARM. BECAUSE WE KNOW HOW TO SURVIVE. BECAUSE WE FEED OURSELVES. You were still fed under apartheid. By the same people you are currently discussing taking the land from. You were excluded from the ownership class, often by law, but you were still fed. That would be like asking how the black population in southern America grew despite slavery - Because they weren't genociding you. Because they still fed you despite you being a legal underclass at the time. That isn't some sort of a gotcha question - People who are legal underclasses have been fed all over the world. And once again, I'm not excusing apartheid, it was obviously bad. There is an old saying about this - Two wrongs don't make a right. The white Afrikaners were wrong in apartheid and you're wrong today. >You are not arguing with reality, my friend. You are arguing with logic. And the fact that you repeat exactly what I say just proves who is actually thinking here 😂 You've yet to think because your own racism and hatred towards white Afrikaners won't let you. I provide hard facts and you get increasingly angry yelling at the sky, "IT CAN'T BE! THAT WOULD HURT MY FEELINGS!". Good luck being a second Rhodesia/Zimbabwe when you achieve your goals. You've already proven what the food situation will look like with your power grid. Removing the people who know how to run it, even in spite of how they were the only ones who knew how to run it (apartheid in your case) doesn't lead to positive outcomes. You went from one of the most stable power grids in the world, selling power outside South Africa, to one where blackouts are the norm. You removed those who knew how to run it and were incentivized to do so and replaced it with people who didn't. And now you want to do that to farming. But hey, I'm sure you'll make sure you're first in line at the UN food aid vehicles when they inevitably have to bail you out like they did for Zimbabwe.

My brother I'm actually enjoying this bcuz you are literally proving my point while thinking you are winning 😂😂. You say I am the child, yet look at what you just wrote, you admitted that farming is industrial, you admitted that machines are used, and deep down, you know very well that BLACK HANDS ARE THE ONES OPERATING THEM. You are just too proud to say it clearly. So when you say "Boers do it all", you are actually saying "Boers own it all" and that is exactly what I told you! You are repeating my words back to me as if they are facts, not realizing you just debunked your own "we feed you" myth. And about the land being "empty"? That is the greatest fallacy you are swallowing. You are using the argumentum ad ignorantiam, believing that bcuz your history books wrote little about us, we didn't exist. The truth is, Kingdoms were here, borders were here, people were here. You didn't find a vacuum, you found a home and you took it. That is theft wrapped in nice words. You also use the slippery slope fallacy, crying that if we take over, we will starve. That is just fearmongering. Food grows because of nature and work, not because of your surname. And since we are already the ones doing the work, why would we suddenly FAIL? We would just stop being your employees and start being the owners 😂. And please, stop acting scared of "Kill the Boer". That is not a death sentence, it is a political statement against oppression. You are deliberately taking it literally to play the victim, which is the false equivalence fallacy, equating a song with actual crime. AND LET ME ASK YOU THIS SIMPLE QUESTION, IF APARTHEID EXCLUDED US AND WE WERE STARVING, HOW COMES THE BLACK POPULATION GREW AT A CRAZY RATE DESPITE SEGREGATION? BECAUSE WE KNOW HOW TO FARM. BECAUSE WE KNOW HOW TO SURVIVE. BECAUSE WE FEED OURSELVES. You are not arguing with reality, my friend. You are arguing with logic. And the fact that you repeat exactly what I say just proves who is actually thinking here 😂

>You say when Boers arrived, South Africa was mostly uninhabited? NO. The land was full of people. It was full of Kingdoms. It was full of homes. Yes, it literally was. You dislike historical facts because it doesn't back up your desire for theft. >Do you really expect me to believe that 40,000 white men are doing EVERYTHING alone? That they are driving every tractor? That they are picking every orange? That they are packing every box? That they are fixing every machine? Apparently, you're the child here, since they literally do do it. This isn't some magic box, this is how the entire world's industrialized farming works. The fact that you refuse to accept baseline reality is why you can't be trusted to take over it either. >We are not coming to kill you. We are coming to TAKE BACK WHAT IS OURS. You're coming to take what others built because you failed to build it yourself. The violent crime rates in South Africa show it should be taken literally since you repeatedly do literally "Kill the Boer". >You act like if you leave, the soil will refuse to grow food? Food grows because of RAIN and SUN and SEEDS, not because of your skin color. The large population of black subsistence farmers proves you won't though. It's not skin color that makes the crops grow - It's putting in the work and using modern tools, which you subsistence farmers fail on at least one of those two things. >We farmed this land for thousands of years before you came. We feed ourselves every day. And on your own farms, WE ARE THE ONES GROWING THE FOOD ANYWAY. You didn't farm it for thousands of years. South Africa was mostly uninhabited before the Boers came, this is historical fact. And the Boers grow 80-90% of your crops now, so you aren't feeding yourself now either. >Stop acting like gods. You are just managers who got the job through theft. And now your time is up. You keep acting like I'm a Boer. No, I just know historical reality. The Boers aren't gods, but the might as well be to you since they showed up on mostly uninhabited land, built a society, and now you think it was theft for them to allow you to join them because it was totally yours the entire time and not you just leeching off them. You're trying to bite the hand that feeds you, literally. And frankly, I hope you succeed, the Boers move to countries that appreciate them for their work ethic, and unlike Zimbabwe, the west doesn't bail you out. It will force you actually figure it out instead of constantly complaining that someone else held you down when the only foot on you these days is your own.

LISTEN CAREFULLY, BECAUSE I WILL EXPLAIN THIS TO YOU LIKE YOU ARE 5 YEARS OLD SO THAT YOUR BRAIN CAN FINALLY UNDERSTAND 1. ABOUT THE LAND BEING "EMPTY" THAT IS THE BIGGEST LIE YOU WERE EVER TAUGHT. You say when Boers arrived, South Africa was mostly uninhabited? NO. The land was full of people. It was full of Kingdoms. It was full of homes. You did not find empty land. You found people living, and you KILLED them and CHASED them away to take their space. That is not "finding empty space". That is STEALING. And don't tell me stories, because my ancestors were there before your ships even arrived. 2. ABOUT "BOERS RUN AND PLANT AND HARVEST 90%" OKAY, LET ME GIVE YOU THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT. Let us agree with your numbers. Let us say you own 90%. BUT LET US BE REALISTIC, you are 4 million people total. Actual farmers are only about 40,000 families. Do you really expect me to believe that 40,000 white men are doing EVERYTHING alone? That they are driving every tractor? That they are picking every orange? That they are packing every box? That they are fixing every machine? NO, MY FRIEND. Even a child knows that is impossible. YOU ARE NOT DOING THE WORK. YOU ARE MANAGING THE WORK. Black people are the ones doing the actual production. Without us, your machines are just metal. Without us, your farms are just dust. 3. ABOUT "KILL THE BOER" YOU ARE DELIBERATELY MISUNDERSTANDING THIS TO LOOK LIKE A VICTIM. "Kill the Boer" is not a command to go and murder white people in their beds. It is a political chant. "The Boer" represents the OPPRESSOR, the LAND THIEF, the SYSTEM that kept us down. It means "Kill the power that oppresses us". It means "Kill the inequality". You are translating it literally because you want the world to feel sorry for you and say "Look how dangerous they are". We are not coming to kill you. We are coming to TAKE BACK WHAT IS OURS. 4. ABOUT STARVING IF YOU LEAVE PLEASE STOP INSULTING US. You act like if you leave, the soil will refuse to grow food? Food grows because of RAIN and SUN and SEEDS, not because of your skin color. We farmed this land for thousands of years before you came. We feed ourselves every day. And on your own farms, WE ARE THE ONES GROWING THE FOOD ANYWAY. If you leave, we will keep the farms, we will keep the machines, and we will feed ourselves even better because we will keep the profit too. YOU ARE NOT FEEDING US. WE ARE FEEDING OURSELVES WHILE YOU TAKE THE MONEY. Stop acting like gods. You are just managers who got the job through theft. And now your time is up.

Ironically, I posted a follow up reply before you ever got to this where I addressed the black farmers, and outlined the math. Even accounting for the black farming, black farmers make up 10-20% of the total farm output. You talk about stolen land, but when the Boers showed up, South Africa was mostly low/uninhabited. You moved to where they brought food and trade, they stole nothing. The Boers do in fact run and plant, harvest, etc 80-90% of all the crops in South Africa. Sure, if you want to argue someone has to eat it, black people do a ton, but that's not what the conversation is about. Black people don't feed South Africa, the Boers do. Now, want to argue they didn't give you something after they colonized mostly unihabited land? Sure. They didn't build something, wait for you to show up, and hand it to you. But much like Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, if you simply take it from them, one of two things will happen - Your country will starve or you will become entirely dependant on handouts from the west to eat. And your power grid is a great example of that. You are quite literally trying to bite the hand that feeds you. And if successful, you will create a humanitarian crisis. You keep claiming the facts are trying to manipulate me because you dislike the facts. Which, ironically, explains why you think this will work out, you think the facts are racist. Did apartheid South Africa mistreat the black people? Obviously. Will you successfully run the country after you, "Kill the Boer"? Your own history in that country shows that won't work out for you.

Let me break this down for you clearly, bcuz you are still confusing "OWNERSHIP" with "PRODUCTION" and "LABOR" and Grok is feeding you half-truths that you swallow whole. FIRST, WHAT GROK IS ACTUALLY SAYING Grok is NOT wrong that white-owned commercial farms produce the MAJORITY of the country's formal, sold crops around 90% of commercial output. BUT HERE IS THE LIE YOU ARE BELIEVING, it does NOT mean "white people grow all the food alone with machines". It means, they own the land, the machines, and the businesses. But they do NOT do the work alone. Even with the biggest tractors and harvesters - Someone has to drive them. - Someone has to maintain them. - Someone has to plant, spray, pick, pack, and transport. - AND THAT SOMEONE IS BLACK. Over 900,000 people work directly in agriculture in South Africa and the vast majority are black workers. So yes, the output comes from white-owned farms, but it is built on black sweat and labor.   THE MATH STILL DOESN'T ADD UP You say 4% can feed everyone because of machines. But let's be real, - White population is ~4 million. - That includes babies, old people, doctors, lawyers, teachers, businessmen, and people who have never touched a spade in their life. - The actual number of white FARMERS is only about 43,000 households. Do you honestly believe 43,000 people can physically and mentally manage everything to feed 100+ million people? IT IS BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. They are managers and owners. We are the producers and workers. AND WHAT ABOUT THE FOOD WE GROW FOR OURSELVES? Grok only counts commercial crops, the ones that are sold and make money. But there are over 2.8 MILLION BLACK HOUSEHOLDS involved in farming – mostly small-scale and subsistence. They grow mealies, vegetables, and rear animals to feed their own families and communities. This food never gets counted in Grok's statistics, but it keeps millions of people alive. So we are not only working on your farms, we are feeding ourselves too. 🚨 THE REAL PROBLEM YOU ARE BEING MANIPULATED You are using Grok like it is a Bible, but AI only knows what it is taught. It is fed data that focuses on money and ownership, not on people and reality. You are using these numbers to say, "See? We are superior, we feed you, you need us." But the truth is, - You have the land because you stole it. - You have the money because you exploited us. - You have the machines because you kept us poor. And now you want to use statistics to pretend you do it all by magic. WE FEED THIS COUNTRY. With our hands, our backs, and our blood. You just own the companies that sell it.

@WajingaFinder @EndWokeness Oh, and before you try to claim the white farmers don't output the majority of your crops: grok.com/share/c2hhcmQt… They do. The vast majority, in spite of being the vast minority of your farmers.

I'm literally not mixing them up. You can ask Grok yourself, the majority of crops in South Africa is done by machines: grok.com/share/c2hhcmQt… Which means, once again, yes, that 4% can easily feed most of your country. And acting like you need saviors? I'm working within the bounds of reality. Your country went from an emerging first world nation to one that can't maintain your own power grid. You have people like yourself that are convinced reality isn't reality when it comes to your own food supply because you prefer your racist made up world to the reality there.

@WajingaFinder @EndWokeness You do realize that in most of the civilized world, only 2-3% are farmers, yet those countries have so much food they export extra. So yes, it's entirely possible.

AND LET US TALK ABOUT THE NUMBERS. There are over 100 MILLION Black people in this country (including the region and growth). Do you honestly believe that 4 million White people are physically feeding 100 million people? That is impossible. White people own the farms, yes. BUT BLACK PEOPLE ARE THE ONES GROWING THE FOOD. Black hands plant the seeds, Black hands pick the fruit, Black hands plough the lands, and Black hands harvest the crops. You are not feeding us. WE ARE FEEDING OURSELVES WHILE YOU TAKE THE CREDIT AND THE PROFIT. You are just the managers sitting in the office while we do the hard work in the sun. So stop acting like you are our providers. We feed this nation with our sweat. You just control the bank account.

@SenMarkey Why lie? We all know your stance on killing preborn children. You've taken a consistent anti-pope stance. Why pretend like you're suddenly pro-pope?

To be clear, I'm on team Pope.

@AndrewYang It's clear that you did too many drugs if you think giving people something for nothing is a good long term plan

It’s clear that AI will wind up funding universal income. Let’s make that happen ASAP.

@reddit_lies "low cost of living places are hard when you're free loading" Yeah, requiring people to pay their own bills keeps the cost of living way down

This post brought to you by Blue states that want your taxes.

@teameffujoe @WIRED That was painful. When he says he did high protein, I'm thinking like eggs, steak, chicken, etc. That dude ate junk food and is surprised he felt bad.

So @WIRED wanted to test RFK’s high protein recommendations, and proceeded to consume everything that WASN’T protein.