Gameface777
Well-Known Member
Haters gonna hate
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
Yeah you make a good point. But that's irrelevant to the narrative.I don't understand the term "apartheid beneficiary" in the context of Johann Rupert. Is the presumption that this individual would not have been able to break the ranks of the ultra-rich if there was no apartheid?
Further, would there simply have been no ultra-rich South Africans or would there have been a different set of ultra-rich South Africans? Countries that didn't have apartheid still have ultra-rich people.
Yeah you make a good point. But that's irrelevant to the narrative.
White /endI don't understand the term "apartheid beneficiary" in the context of Johann Rupert. Is the presumption that this individual would not have been able to break the ranks of the ultra-rich if there was no apartheid?
Further, would there simply have been no ultra-rich South Africans or would there have been a different set of ultra-rich South Africans? Countries that didn't have apartheid still have ultra-rich people.
Ja, Tom Eaton (whoever that may be) should have watched the whole interview. He would have learnt that Johann Rupert did not take over from his dad but created his own fortune before he started managing his father's riches. Also, the idiot tries to make a point about hard work, cancer and apartheid which do not seem to make sense.
Explain ...It makes perfect sense.
Explain ...
Fokof net ..... Jy babbel kak en kan nie argumenteer nie.What is there to explain?
Fokof net ..... Jy babbel kak en kan nie argumenteer nie.
I like him speaking freely and honestly, why sugar coat nonsense, plus he will brilliant as HODOR in GoT
You just trying to make an argument out of nothing either freddl is too stupid or he doesnt know the history. which when you do makes perfect sense what the tweet is saying.