Editing Ontology:Q2488 (section)

== Prototype notes (2) ==

* assuming this was true, this could have happened for several reasons. maybe there was a conflict on the farm <cite>Pern</cite> style and the tenant farmers stopped working until the land was transferred. maybe the White owners were careless with the farm, and only agreed to give it back at the point it had failed and it wasn't of any use to them. there are a lot of epistemically possible reasons based on only this statement.
* ... makes the claim that "every farm" in South Africa failed ridiculous due to sample size
* "White people didn't take the land" - you can claim that, but it has no bearing on the most relevant questions. if nobody in California stole houses from homeless people it doesn't make the problem of homeless people go away.
* "they sold the farm" - this is the only believable accusation. there are many times when a government program backfires because it doesn't understand how bad things are and subsequently things like fishing permits or food stamps get sold. I really doubt the presenter understands why this happens or how to prevent it.
* the presenter is so convinced that this is facts just because he had a big long paper of apparently true anecdotes. but we need to stop and look at the real elephant in the room. even if 20 farms utterly failed, and we assume that is a true event, only people who believe in historical materialism can actually jump to the conclusion that this is a reliable pattern. if you believe it's not possible to predict history then you literally can't know that the next expropriated farm is going to fail. this is the deepest irony within anticommunism — only if you believe history contains predictable patterns can you even say that "Communism doesn't work", at which point you've already accepted a portion of Communism. if you make this argument about transferring farms, the whole point of it is to argue that there are actual causes for why this happens and the causes are repeatable causes. but what even are the stated causes here? even if you answer "racism", that isn't logically coherent, because a concept of racism doesn't actually explain how the farms fail.
* this presenter misleadingly brings up "compensation" when he doesn't even care whether farmers are compensated, he just doesn't want the farms transferred for any price.
* the only two ideologies are small government and big government. as if there are not multiple methods for each of those? "it's about advancing a political agenda!" for the only other ideology called Big Government.
* oh he shockingly provided an answer. tribes in Southern Africa didn't farm, therefore they still won't. well, that's logically flawed but at least it's something.
* "why not invest into those areas and build infrastructure" - he literally doesn't understand that this is a full eminent domain program and it can be used to build public roads etc, so he's griping that it doesn't do the thing it does. the reason it hasn't built public facilities is literally that it hasn't been going fast enough because the land holders have been resisting it
* two groups of people being created equal "has no basis in reality"
* trying to make two people-groups equal is Marxism. so, there is Marxism in the United States declaration of independence. all men are created equal. Protestants and Irish people living in harmony is Marxism, apparently.
* this is such a disgusting definition of "free enterprise", it's like, Chunk Enterprise, the system where White people have the right to chunk-compete over other populations and stopping White people from committing imperialism or trying to build a parliament over them is unacceptable Big Government. I think about that pamphlet that inadvertently claimed Latin America didn't need democracy and the way democracy works is you persuade the upper-rank people to campaign and vote as their way of controlling people instead of other ways. the center-Liberals were sounding like Lenin. is this to say that Toryism is actually a kind of chunk anarchy where small expanding chunks of people want Freedom from the realities of chunk competition and inevitable State regulation of resulting death and violence? <i>no Big Government no I wanted to kill people you bastards</i>
* so, Afrikaners used to have a tradition of "[https://theconversation.com/how-afrikaner-identity-can-be-re-imagined-in-a-post-apartheid-world-56222 conformity]" where if you weren't totally loyal to the empire for the sake of it you were the enemy. if transferring land to a group of people to connect that group of people changes nothing... why was that necessary? being a connected group of people on a particular constellation of lands clearly meant something to the Afrikaners, rather than having no impact.


[[Category:Anticommunist propositions ontology]] [[Category:Historical materialism ontology]]