Karma vs Ubuntu

[Kradmelder]

Last week I was gone for a few days for work, and while I was away I had an alarm at my house. The control room called me and said as it was about 17:00 all our armed response guys were on their way home from work and in traffic, but they can organise an ADT guard to go. I said OK send one of those, give him the code for the armoured box where a key is kept to access the property, and call me back. It was a false alarm.

I got home next day and I found a watch lying just inside my gate where the guard would have accessed. It was a very nice watch. A Swatch. I call ADT and ask them to ask Molefe or Moleke (could'nt quite read his signature on his log) to call me if he lost something. Yesterday evening I hear black voices in the dark outside my gate. He says he is Moleke. I turn on the flood lights and tell him step forward into the light where I can see you. I give him his watch and he is so grateful. He says he wants to thank me for my Unbuntu, no one else would have done such a thing, God bless you etc etc. He said it was a present from his mother 7 years ago and he thought one of the other guards had stolen it from the guard room. Typical, even black security guards steal from each other.

Now what is strange is that a darkie wold never say you have Ubuntu to a white man. Ubuntu is a tribal thing, like you should help your fellow black man. But blacks think it is OK to steal from whites and say so. It is similar to jewish talmudic thinking that you must help a fellow jew but should not help a goy and are obliged to screw him. So to get back an expensive watch, especially from from an Mlungu who would have no love for darkies, was quite a shock to him. As he said, no one else would do that, especially a black despite their so called Ubuntu.

Based on the context of Africanisation propagated by the political thinkers in the 1960s period of decolonisation, ubuntu was used as a term for a specifically African (or Southern African) kind of socialism or humanism found in blacks, but lacking in whites,

I have had plenty stuff stolen by blacks, even a watch which my ex gave me as her first christmas present to me when we first started going out.

So now I am thinking how different cultures see things. Asian mindsets like Winston would say keep the watch as it karma for my watch or other stuff that was stolen, as he recently described in his brothel and hotel saga. If that is your culture and belief system, that is the right and correct. A jew would say it doesn't belong to another jew so I will keep it.

Talmudic thinking

Baba Mezia 24a: If a Jew finds an object lost by a Gentile it does not have to be returned. (Affirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b).

Sanhedrin 57a: When a Jew murders a Christian ("Cuthean"), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a Gentile he may keep.

Baba Kamma 37b: Gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has "exposed their money to Israel."

At the time of the Cholhamoed the transaction of any kind of business is forbidden. But it is permitted to cheat a goy, because cheating of goyim at any time pleases the Lord." -Chuichan Qruch, Orach ChaiD 539

A bantu culture darkie, as the guard said, would not return it despite ubuntu. A christian white would say it is my christian duty to return it. But i would have sought out the man and returned it even if I was atheist, so it is not my faith that makes me do it. I don't know why. I just did it because that is what crossed my mind as soon as i saw it and realised the guard must have dropped it sticking his hand through the bars to unlock the gate. It would not cross my mind to do otherwise. Never would I put it on and wear it. It is not mine.

I thought he would just come get his watch, say thank you and go. But he praised my Ubuntu, which no white man should be granted, and told me the sentimental value it had, what village he is from etc. He started telling me things thieves look for to break in and what i should do, but I already knew all that.

So now I have ubuntu and am a brother. Can i still be a Good White Man if I have a black brother and have ubuntu Or am I now a kafferboetie (term used for liberal whites who love blacks). Oh well, at least I have one black guard who will watch my back and look after me

Jews and blacks have a culture belief that it is OK to take from others but you must not screw your own race. Yet they call white people racist. Feature that.

I am interested in how an asian would see this. And a muslim, if any one is muslim.

[Wolfeye]

You're still a Good White Man, your way of being has just given you good rep with people that are not necessarily on your side. Similar things have happened to me, actually. I notice blacks in America tend to think highly of that type of thing, too. I guess honor (or "quixotic alignment," if you prefer- since "honor" frequently means "sucker who does anything for a pat on the head") is held in high regard for most blacks, it's just not necessarily EXPECTED. It's a little like water in the desert, I think.

You certainly don't sound like the type of guy that would be f***ing over old friends for sake of new friends, so you should be clear with other whites. You'd know the other SA whites better than me. Speaking of which, what are SA women like? Fit, fierce creatures? I'm picturing lovely blondes with some meat on them that know how to cook & how to shoot (kind of like the, hopefully true, stereotype about Southern women in America). Or did that feminazi trend get to South Africa like it did to Britain & Australia? Looks like that shit's coming more & more to a close, though.

[Russian1860]

Every human being has multiple traits, which form him as a personality. But we are unable to treat every single person as a personality, since it’s too complicated. Thus we have to generalize, and actually I don’t see anything wrong with generalization. Indeed, certain groups of people have similar way of thinking, similar mentality, similar behavior etc. But it’s important to understand, that those similarities are based not only on nationality, or religion. It depends on many other factors such as environment, social status, profession, inherent features of character, age, life experience, gender and so on and so forth.

Thus, your reasoning about 1.2 billion of population of Africa, whom you generalize as “black thieves”, and question about 4.5 billion of Asians and 1.6 billion of muslims look quite naive. Do you really think, that opinion of handful of Asians and muslims on here will reflect the actual state of affairs? You seem to be a wise kind man, Kradmelder. But your problem is you tend to generalize too much.

[Blue Murder]

Every human being has multiple traits, which form him as a personality. But we are unable to treat every single person as a personality, since it’s too complicated. Thus we have to generalize, and actually I don’t see anything wrong with generalization. Indeed, certain groups of people have similar way of thinking, similar mentality, similar behavior etc. But it’s important to understand, that those similarities are based not only on nationality, or religion. It depends on many other factors such as environment, social status, profession, inherent features of character, age, life experience, gender and so on and so forth.

Thus, your reasoning about 1.2 billion of population of Africa, whom you generalize as “black thieves”, and question about 4.5 billion of Asians and 1.6 billion of muslims look quite naive. Do you really think, that opinion of handful of Asians and muslims on here will reflect the actual state of affairs? You seem to be a wise kind man, Kradmelder. But your problem is you tend to generalize too much.

You just said you see nothing wrong with generalisations, but turn around and say someone does it too much. Which is it?

[Russian1860]

You just said you see nothing wrong with generalisations, but turn around and say someone does it too much. Which is it?

Yes, generalization is useful, if you generalize correctly. As I said, you should consider multiple factors, so that to be able to conclude. When you consider just one factor, and dismiss others, your conclusion will be inaccurate.

If you assume, that a 20s year old jobless drug addicted black male from the slums of Rio de Janeiro with criminal records, without education, who never seen his father and who has prostitute mother, is tend to be a thief, you will be 70% right. 30% that you are wrong, since you don’t consider his personal features of character and other factors. Still it is correct generalization.

If you assume, that all 1.2 billion of Indians are crooks just because you had a bummer with 3-5 nationals of India, then your conclusion is wrong. Because your judgement is based on incomplete retrieval. Even if to imagine, that 50% of Indians are crooks, it doesn’t mean that you have a right to accuse all of them.

Get me?

[Kradmelder]

Every human being has multiple traits, which form him as a personality. But we are unable to treat every single person as a personality, since it’s too complicated. Thus we have to generalize, and actually I don’t see anything wrong with generalization. Indeed, certain groups of people have similar way of thinking, similar mentality, similar behavior etc. But it’s important to understand, that those similarities are based not only on nationality, or religion. It depends on many other factors such as environment, social status, profession, inherent features of character, age, life experience, gender and so on and so forth.

Thus, your reasoning about 1.2 billion of population of Africa, whom you generalize as “black thieves”, and question about 4.5 billion of Asians and 1.6 billion of muslims look quite naive. Do you really think, that opinion of handful of Asians and muslims on here will reflect the actual state of affairs? You seem to be a wise kind man, Kradmelder. But your problem is you tend to generalize too much.

There are NOT 6 billion world views. In the winstongate hotel saga there were two: the western christian view that he stole, and the eastern (Winston and Starchild) about karma and he was entitled to keep the money. Winston and starchild are indian and chinese, very different, but both with an eastern outlook. Very different background yet same general outlook. The rest of us were western christian views. It made no difference what nation, profession, socioeconomic class, age, or how we part our hair. People from all over the world, different nations, class profession etc, grouped into 2 views. One cannot say one is right and the other wrong; it just depends on your outlook. Same with things like muslim terrorism. You either think yes this is islam or no it is not. There are not 1 billion options.

Christians generally share a common moralistic view. Maybe only a few major splits. Muslims as well, and I talk not about how they worship. Asians, I do not know. If you want to slice the pie into 6 billion, go do it elsewhere.

If you want to not see the forest for the trees, please make another thread, something like 6 billion people are all different hence no genral views can be drawn. I will be sure to ignore it as a total waste of time.

[Wolfeye]

Well, we're hitting the point where we all understand specific situations & that they tend toward general themes. In my own concept of things, what happens is what occurs & whether there's a specific occurrence or a broad pattern, that's what's there. The problem is basically trying to predict the future. I think there ARE general trends, particularly among religious & cultural lines, but the thing is you can always run into someone that's not "Johnny Law" even though he grew up in kind of a "cop cult" environment just like you can run into someone that's not all crazy about jihad that grew up in a country that ends in "-stan."

For myself, I wasn't raised with much in the way of traditions (not Italian, not Ukrainian/Russian/Slavic, not Irish/English/Celtic) & I still wound up being a way that's much more those styles than what I've seen of what's functionally American. Weird, but sometimes the math doesn't add up a certain way & the reality does.

[Russian1860]

There are NOT 6 billion world views. In the winstongate hotel saga there were two: the western christian view that he stole, and the eastern (Winston and Starchild) about karma and he was entitled to keep the money. Winston and starchild are indian and chinese, very different, but both with an eastern outlook. Very different background yet same general outlook. The rest of us were western christian views. It made no difference what nation, profession, socioeconomic class, age, or how we part our hair. People from all over the world, different nations, class profession etc, grouped into 2 views. One cannot say one is right and the other wrong; it just depends on your outlook. Same with things like muslim terrorism. You either think yes this is islam or no it is not. There are not 1 billion options.

Christians generally share a common moralistic view. Maybe only a few major splits. Muslims as well, and I talk not about how they worship. Asians, I do not know. If you want to slice the pie into 6 billion, go do it elsewhere.

If you want to not see the forest for the trees, please make another thread, something like 6 billion people are all different hence no genral views can be drawn. I will be sure to ignore it as a total waste of time.

I got your point, but still I disagree. The word “virtue” has the equal meaning for all people in the world by default. But due to multiple factors, mentioned above, it may transform, though it won’t be traditional sense of this word anymore. All countries and cultures have equal handling of law. If a one stole, or killed, he must be punished. That is one of the basic principles of the society since ancient times. If it wasn’t honored by majority, it would lead to anarchy. Think of that.

Now when you ask about Asians and muslims, what do you expect to listen? That they encourage sins, or what? It is bullshit to think so. Sins might be encouraged by minor groups, but not by majority. Otherwise their societies would be collapsed thousands years ago. You mix up the behavior of certain social groups of people with mankind. They are two different things.

Look at the conflict in Syria for an instance. They are all muslims. But they fight each other, because they have different beliefs. They must be considered as different social groups, but not according to their common religion. A muslim vendor in Norhthern Africa and a muslim preacher at a mosque derive from completely different social groups and behave differently accordingly. Get me? That is why it is naive to generalize people according to nationality or religion. And by the way psychology as a science generalizes people by social groups and not by nation/race/religion too. Or maybe psychology is bullshit, thought up by jews?

Regarding people, who behave differently towards friend or foe, in fact all we do the same. Not just blacks. We entrust ourselves to friends or relatives, and are suspicious towards strangers at the same time. You said, you consider disgusting to dine together with blacks, so you treat them otherwise than white fellows, isn’t it? They do the same. The thing is what is stronger: the bias or morality? You are a decent man, who thinks that morality must prevail over bias. Others might put bias over morality. Simple as that. But anyway most of us have that friend-foe mindset.

You seem to be irritated with me for some reason, though I don’t impose you my point of view. The ancient Latin saying says: discussio mater veritas est, which is translated as truth is born of arguments. If you don’t want to listen different point of view, you shouldn’t post this topic on here.

[Kradmelder]

not all groups define sin the same. What is wrong for one may not be wrong for another. It is common for blacks to think it is OK to steal from whites

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/ ... s-20040322

Winston did not see it as stealing a deposit from a hotel as he saw it is karma for being cheated by another. that is an eastern view westerners will not have. it is certainly a position that is alien to me. it is not the same as saying Winston condones theft because he does not see it as theft. it is only theft to many westerners.

To a jew as well it may not be theft as the Talmud tells you it is good to swindle the goyim.

some Muslims do not see terrorism against infidels as murder or sin. they see it as a key to paradise.

these are racial religious view points. rich jew or poor if you follow the Talmud you will think this way no matter what social class. from President Zuma to Township blacks, they think taking from whites is ok. it goes beyond class and is thinking in their race. so to say thinking is only class based is total bs. yes mostly promoted by jews, like communist jews

[Russian1860]

Exactly! You told the key word “group”! People must be generalized by social groups, not by nationality, or race. Kaffirs who rob people, are not the same with overall poor black people, who might be decent. You know it better than me. I admit, that due to certain concourse of circumstances, many blacks can be defined as kaffirs. But what I want to imply is that not all of them are like that. Get to understand this. When you shake a black hand or return a missed item, you are not a hero. You are just a decent human being, and in theory everyone should be like you. Unfortunately in practice they are not. Have you been scammed by white Christian man? Me, I have. Many times. They are worse than decent honest black men. You should define not by nationality or race, but by overall behavior instead.

Winston has very sophisticated mindset. But I don’t think that all 4 billions of Asians are like him. Look at the upcoming elections in USA. 50% of americans are for Trump, and 50% are against. All they are americans, but they are divided into different social groups. Same here.

Regarding jews, just a simple example. Who is worse: innocent jewish child, or a white racist Christian South African, who killed his brother for the sake of legacy?

[Russian1860]

I reread you again, and I got a sensation, that you don’t fully understand the term “social group”. Actually, that is one of the basic and fundamental terms in psychology and sociology. You can read this to get to understand better:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_group

For your information sociology as a science was described for the first time by French philosopher Auguste Comte. I didn’t know, that he was jew. But actually the basis of sociology derives from ancient time philosophers, such as Aristotle. I always thought, he was greek.

In simple words a certain social group may consist of people with the same race/nationality/religion, who have some common unique features. But we can’t apply the same on the contrary. People with the same race/nationality/religion consist of multiple social groups. Get me, or not completely?

Regarding jews, there is a special term in psychology – “enabler”. It is something or someone, who encourages an individual to do bad things, or who allows and doesn’t stop the negative behavior. For example, a bad environment and poverty are the “enablers” for a kaffir from slums of Joburg to commit a crime. When you mentioned jews, from the point of view of psychology Talmud is their “enabler” as well. But it is crucial to understand, that “enabler” doesn’t force an individual to do a bad thing, he just doesn’t prevent him from doing that. In other words it means, that everyone still has a possibility to choose his own life values. Not all jews cheat other people just because it is written so in Talmud. Not all people, who live in slums are criminals. Get me?