C.S. Anxogael

Hangin'

[C.S. Anxogael @JorriesSi]

@penuelist_ Are you okay?

[C.S. Anxogael @JorriesSi]

@Recon1_ZA Yes. But any argument about Lesufi being racist I think has been settled for many years. Also thay he has a strong preference for bullying women and children...

[C.S. Anxogael @JorriesSi]

@iamDonaldBrown Don't waste your vote by voting for a party who you do not agree with most from the options on the table

[C.S. Anxogael @JorriesSi]

@Paratus2014 Their mentality is one where they'd only be satisfied if we shut up, pay taxes and become passive consumer-slaves.

[C.S. Anxogael @JorriesSi]

@MulderCorn @AdHabb Jealousy is a nasty thing, Adam

[Gina @ginnydmm]

More brilliance from the Alt Afrikaner:

“The Most Progressive and Privileged People in the Room Are Calling You "Privileged"

I've just been watching what I can only describe as the Platonic ideal of a South African panel discussion, which is to say four people who agree entirely with one another taking turns to say so in slightly different accents.

First up, Oom Max Somebody-or-Other, veteran journalist and South Africa's longest-serving disappointed Afrikaner. He's built a career explaining why his own people embarrass him, mostly to foreign audiences who nod sympathetically and buy hardcovers. He hasn't queued at Home Affairs since the Botha administration, his last township visit was a guided tour with a Danish film crew, and he considers your concerns about crime "coded language." For what, exactly, he won't say. He just raises an eyebrow. Very effective. He learned it from London editors.
He did a documentary on Orania once. Found it "chilling." The residents offered him coffee. He declined. Can't humanise them. The Guardian wouldn't like it.

Next, a woman calling in from what appears to be a panic room in Sandton, though she assures us it's just a study. Lovely bookshelves. Charming artwork. Electric fencing just out of frame. She'd like us to know that crime is "really not that bad if you're sensible," which is a fascinating position to take whilst sitting behind three metres of concrete, two armed response subscriptions, and a husband who sleeps with a Glock under his pillow like some sort of Highveld Wyatt Earp.
Her domestic worker, I learn, takes three taxis to get home to Diepsloot every evening, but I suppose that's not really germane to the discussion about whether South Africa is safe. Different conversation entirely. Separate issues.

Then there's the chap from London. Left in the early 2000s. Comes back every year or two for a funeral or a wedding, stays in Camps Bay, eats at Kloof Street House, gets a bit misty about the mountain, posts something on LinkedIn about "the Rainbow Nation's ongoing journey." His most recent brush with loadshedding occurred when the hotel generator kicked in during breakfast and briefly interrupted the omelette station. Traumatic, I'm sure. He's been processing it ever since.
He's got opinions, though. Lots of opinions. He thinks people who complain about South Africa are "playing into a narrative." He doesn't specify whose narrative, or what it's narrating, but he says it with tremendous confidence, which I suppose is the main thing when you're speaking from a flat in Hampstead.

And finally, my personal favourite: the NGO director calling in from the V&A Waterfront. Lanyard still on. MacBook glowing. Salary paid in euros by a foundation whose name contains at least three abstract nouns. She's here to explain that my concerns about employment are "valid but perhaps lack nuance." The nuance, it turns out, is that I should have more empathy for the people who got the job I was told I couldn't have because of the colour of my skin. She learned this at a conference in Geneva. There was a panel. Canapés. A communiqué was issued.
She also thinks Orania is "deeply troubling," except she lives in Sea Point, which is essentially the same thing but with better coffee and a Woolworths. The difference, I gather, is intention. Her enclave is aspirational. Theirs is ideological according to her. It's all very complex. You'd need a lanyard to understand.
Combined exposure to consequences: none.
Combined opinions: endless.
Combined time spent in a Home Affairs queue: I'm going to estimate forty-five seconds, and that was only because someone's driver double-parked and they had to fetch their own passport from the counter.

But please. Do go on. Tell us more about my country.
From your privileged progressive position.”

[C.S. Anxogael @JorriesSi]

@MzwaneleManyi @ErnstRoets Ai...and these intellectual giants sit in parliament. That explains a lot

[C.S. Anxogael @JorriesSi]

@ginnydmm Maxosaurus Bracchiola

[C.S. Anxogael @JorriesSi]

@denialmustend Me too. I feel right at home despite the political elite trying their utmost to vilify my culture and history, and to put Afrikaners on the sideline economically and otherwise. My land, South Africa

[Conscious Caracal 🇿🇦 @ConCaracal]

4 crucial maps in the land debate in South Africa:

1. Arable land
2. Grazing capacity
3. Rainfall
4. Black population density map

[C.S. Anxogael @JorriesSi]

@ConCaracal @brieflyza That's funny...how a "journalist" came to that conclusion 🤪

[C.S. Anxogael @JorriesSi]

@T3tr4gr4mm4t0n_ @chrischameleon @KR3Wmatic And considering the historical context, I see it as very unlikely that the early church would have come into existence if there were not enough witnesses of the true events, as written down. Of course, we can just ignore that. But it seems unreasonable to me

[C.S. Anxogael @JorriesSi]

@T3tr4gr4mm4t0n_ @chrischameleon @KR3Wmatic Yes. Demonstrating that it is reliable history is a different argument altogether. But would you agree that it's wildly significant, even if you were convinced of it being historically accurate?

[C.S. Anxogael @JorriesSi]

@T3tr4gr4mm4t0n_ @chrischameleon @KR3Wmatic I can easily imagine something as potentially significant if true. But that doesn't establish it as true. Of all ancient texts, the gospels are the most referenced, with the most internal validity.

[C.S. Anxogael @JorriesSi]

@T3tr4gr4mm4t0n_ @chrischameleon @KR3Wmatic If John was interpretation of historical events, surely it's different to John describing a new set of historical events that seem to match the description in Isaiah 53 (and other prophecies). I struggle to replace the subject in Isaiah with "Israel"...seems like a long shot

[C.S. Anxogael @JorriesSi]

@T3tr4gr4mm4t0n_ @chrischameleon @KR3Wmatic So the focus of the Book of John (and all the gospels) is historical, not interpretation.

[C.S. Anxogael @JorriesSi]

@T3tr4gr4mm4t0n_ @chrischameleon @KR3Wmatic Remember, the fulfillment of the prediction were actual events, in a different age. And originally not part of scripture, but taken up because of its significance.

[C.S. Anxogael @JorriesSi]

@wwe_africa2 @PeterDermauw

[C.S. Anxogael @JorriesSi]

@T3tr4gr4mm4t0n_ @chrischameleon @KR3Wmatic History and Biblical revelation is filled with symbolism, metaphors and irony. I'm comfortable with an interpretation where some texts refer to both Israel and Christ. But the reference to Christ seems too obvious, in the light of rest of Scripture.

[C.S. Anxogael @JorriesSi]

@T3tr4gr4mm4t0n_ @chrischameleon @KR3Wmatic True if John was purely an interpretation. But if it is history (with some commentary), it's a different matter, isn't it?