CapeXit 2

[vigras rojara]

It's hard to say exactly.... but history shows that (near/)economic collapse is a factor.

The NDRer's have resorted to gradualist approach.

The interview above (FMF-IRR) appears to indicate the NDR comes from Lenin's style of implementation. But Lenin was not a solely a theorist. He was a violent, implementer that had no patience to sit out a gradual 'capitalistic suicide', as they saw it.

But it appears as though the ANC has incorporated what you might call a Fabian approach.... that of gradualism. A long war of attrition against bottom-up rule/increasing middle-class influence.

In '89, it wasn't Fabian Socialism that failed. It was the radical, violent revolutionary approach to Communism.

This is exactly what we have seen vi the ANC and other RET parties. Despite some factions being more radical and Lenninist, in their approach, they are all still moving in unison towards ending privacy of person and property, and ruturning to a 2-tier system of socio-economic control.

Don't you think it's strange that the ANC, generally accepted to be incompetent and corrupt, cunningly play this well planned and executed long game with extreme patience, to ensure their revolution? It's almost like the "4D chess" that some questionable folk believe in.

Doesn't add up .

 

[Brian_G]

The WC premier has the constitution power to call a referendum.

If he can see that the WC people cannot get the govt they vote for, and the party they do vote for is denied federal powers, he has a duty to call a referendum.

According to his oath, the premier may not invoke his own personal preference to override that of the people.

Unfortunately, the part in bold isn't the practical case - remember the election results....

 

[ToxicBunny]

Don't you think it's strange that the ANC, generally accepted to be incompetent and corrupt, cunningly play this well planned and executed long game with extreme patience, to ensure their revolution? It's almost like the "4D chess" that some questionable folk believe in.

Doesn't add up .

They're that sneaky, you know communists are crafty little buggers.

 

[lexity]

But they got the government they voted for, what you actually mean is the WC people didn't get the government you wanted.
He doesn't have a duty to call a referendum because you don't like the outcome in the slightest though.

No.

Slow down..... they voted for a DA national govt.

Which they have never gotten.

All they got was a local govt that - despite it's outward commitment to Federalism - defers to the authority of the central government, and doesn't push back on the Socialist trajectory that negatively affects those who have voted against it for 32 years (one reason is because it, the DA, answers to its donors - who are Fabian Socialist, in ideological leaning - rather than the WC people).

 

[ToxicBunny]

No.

Slow down..... they voted for a DA national govt.

Which they have never gotten.

All they got was a local govt that - despite it's outward commitment to Federalism - defers to the authority of the central government, and doesn't push back on the Socialist trajectory that negatively affects those who have voted against it for 32 years (one reason is because it, the DA, answers to its donors - who are Fabian Socialist, in ideological leaning - rather than the WC people).

Some of them voted for the DA, some for other parties, and all of their portion of the votes were counted towards the national total as they are a province of RSA. Like every other province.

You struggle to understand how democracy works it seems. If the result isn't what I want, then its not democractic is kind of a strange position to take lexy.

 

[Brian_G]

You have zero evidence that most people want an independant WC though...

BS, there's the (very scientific and widely respected) polls. It's just a matter of how much they actually want it when push comes to shove.

 

[ToxicBunny]

BS, there's the (very scientific and widely respected) polls. It's just a matter of how much they actually want it when push comes to shove.

But we all know how much they don't want it when push comes to shove. You have the local government elections as well as previous national elections as a yard stick, you don't need a referendum to give you the answer.

 

[Brian_G]

Don't you think it's strange that the ANC, generally accepted to be incompetent and corrupt, cunningly play this well planned and executed long game with extreme patience, to ensure their revolution? It's almost like the "4D chess" that some questionable folk believe in.

Doesn't add up .

There are outside forces guiding them, the purse string holders. Nothing else explains it.

 

[lexity]

Oh, locally I agree.

BTW, in what way is your idea of separatist lifestyle not apartheid?

It's voluntary association, which requires consent from both/all associates.

Pre-94 Apartheid, and post-94 AA, both override the requirement for consent across all prospective associates.

 

[vigras rojara]

There are outside forces guiding them, the purse string holders. Nothing else explains it.

Well either that, or it's just not happening.

 

[ToxicBunny]

There are outside forces guiding them, the purse string holders. Nothing else explains it.

Are we devolving to the turd forces now?

 

[Cray]

It's voluntary association, which requires consent from both/all associates.

Pre-94 Apartheid, and post-94 AA, both override the requirement for consent across all prospective associates.

What aspect of consent is overriden post 1994?

 

[lexity]

Some of them voted for the DA, some for other parties, and all of their portion of the votes were counted towards the national total as they are a province of RSA. Like every other province.

You struggle to understand how democracy works it seems. If the result isn't what I want, then its not democractic is kind of a strange position to take lexy.

This demonstrates the 2 interpretations of democracy at play in SA.

When you use the word, you mean that a majojrity can vote on the bill of rights, in an election. And that whatever they vote away, the minority has to remain in that political union and live with it.

This amounts to mob-rule.

It was never the intention to implement Democracy without a BoRs that reflected the singular moral code of a single people... referred to in international law as 'the people'. Nowhere was it understood that 'the peoples' legitimately formed a nation.

Only in the Socialist eyes of the Rainbow Project framers was this concept successfully pushed onto people with distinct - or indistinguished - moral positions.

So it amounts to people coming together under a then-euphoric political climate, on the presumption that most people share the core values of strict protection of privacy of person and property. That was more or less a given, going into the referendum deciding to end Apartheid.

If the '92 referendum wording were to be changed, to state that if a province has not gotten the national govt it votes for, after 30 years of voting against a Socialist/Communist govt, there will be nothing it will be allowed do about it, and if they try it will be met with the force of the govt they have been voting against for those 3 decades.

Nobody would have voted for this except die-hard Lefties/Commies.

Even a majority of ANC-supporters - who were not hardline Commies, they're actually quite conservative - would recognize that their understanding was not to replace one form of domination by another.

Democracy implies a pre-existing set of morays, which are not voted on... except if you want to exit the union. That's the only time you can vote on a bill of rights, but even then you are not forcing your values onto anyone.

 

[Splinter]

What's your timeline on this communism, which you seem to think is inevitable?

One would have thought the ANC would have started this process when they had more than 50% of the vote....

 

[lexity]

What aspect of consent is overriden post 1994?

If you choose not to associate with someone, legal terms and conditions are imposed (by an uninvited 3rd party) to that prospective association.

Those terms and conditions are backed by threats of violence.

 

[Brian_G]

The WC premier has the constitution power to call a referendum.

If he can see that the WC people cannot get the govt they vote for, and the party they do vote for is denied federal powers, he has a duty to call a referendum.

According to his oath, the premier may not invoke his own personal preference to override that of the people.

What makes you think the WC-ians will vote yes, if the question is phrased similar to (initially or later);
"Do you want the WC and (its ruling party) to begin negotiations for separating from SA?"

No, I tell you, the answer will not only be NO, it will remain that way until the true issue is tackled - for the WC-ians to get to see and understand where SA (including WC) are heading. Until Phil does that, there's no game to play with here.

And if the referendum question is watered down, the (outcome) results will be worse.


/done

and bye

 

[Splinter]

What aspect of consent is overriden post 1994?

You do realise that lexy is answering you through a chatbot/AI?

 

[Splinter]

You do realise that lexy is answering you through a chatbot/AI?

To clarify - all of you.

Except me, of course

 

[Cray]

If you choose not to associate with someone, legal terms and conditions are imposed (by an uninvited 3rd party) to that prospective association.

Those terms and conditions are backed by threats of violence.

Can you give me an example of this? I choose not to associate with 99.9% of people in this country, no one has told me I have to associate with anyone, nor have any legal terms or conditions been imposed on me.

 

[ToxicBunny]

This demonstrates the 2 interpretations of democracy at play in SA.

When you use the word, you mean that a majojrity can vote on the bill of rights, in an election. And that whatever they vote away, the minority has to remain in that political union and live with it.

This amounts to mob-rule.

It was never the intention to implement Democracy without a BoRs that reflected the singular moral code of a single people... referred to in international law as 'the people'. Nowhere was it understood that 'the peoples' legitimately formed a nation.

Only in the Socialist eyes of the Rainbow Project framers was this concept successfully pushed onto people with distinct - or indistinguished - moral positions.

So it amounts to people coming together under a then-euphoric political climate, on the presumption that most people share the core values of strict protection of privacy of person and property. That was more or less a given, going into the referendum deciding to end Apartheid.

If the '92 referendum wording were to be changed, to state that if a province has not gotten the national govt it votes for, after 30 years of voting against a Socialist/Communist govt, there will be nothing it will be allowed do about it, and if they try it will be met with the force of the govt they have been voting against for those 3 decades.

Nobody would have voted for this except die-hard Lefties/Commies.

Even a majority of ANC-supporters - who were not hardline Commies, they're actually quite conservative - would recognize that their understanding was not to replace one form of domination by another.

Democracy implies a pre-existing set of morays, which are not voted on... except if you want to exit the union. That's the only time you can vote on a bill of rights, but even then you are not forcing your values onto anyone.

No, there is only 1 definition of Democracy, not 2.

The rest of your wall-o-waffle is just an attempt to deflect away from things and define them in your own RDF.