CapeXit 2

[Brian_G]

@Grant , something is missing - the ability to say no to all questions but still have one's vote counted.

So I think you need to add;

I am DISAGREEING with ALL the questions

 

[Grant]

@Grant , something is missing - the ability to say no to all questions but still have one's vote counted.

So I think you need to add;

I am DISAGREEING with ALL the questions

done

 

[NoStepOnSnek88]

Sounds like another nutter-driven secession attempt.

Did you do any research to come to this conclusion ?

 

[NoStepOnSnek88]

I think it means different things to different parties.

Some genuinely want out and to be free to stand on their own 2 feet.

Others are dead-set on Alberta's resources i.e. oil, and generally find central-planning of society to be the best rote for everyone to take..... they like speaking for the little people.


I think the Cape is blessed in one respect.... it is not over-endowed wrt natural resources. Not counting natural/scenic assets.

And although there is an alternative i.e. strategic port and tourism and .... let's be honest Stellenbosch and Table mountain/waterfront/winelands.... the globalist elites will not find a world class natural resource in the Cape as the reason to make it their HQ.

So the Cape is blessed in that sense. Whereas Alberta attracts the worst of them in spades because Alberta is blessed with a lot of oil.

The Cape is attractive to globalist elites for historical and sentimental reasons i.e. the Cecil Rhodes destiny. Which they have been aggressively pursuing through-out the world with the assistance of the US military funded by the Fed.

Hypothetical scenario, by some chance it happens in the next few months, and you are given the opportunity to move there would you ever consider something like that, or is this you, South Africa patriot forever, or until XYZ...

 

[vigras rojara]

Did you do any research to come to this conclusion ?

I read all about how the poor citizens of Alberta were being "oppressed" by the government, Europe, China, the WHO and the WEF.

So yes, it's clear that the usual nutter/sovereign citizen weirdos are behind it. As usual.

 

[NoStepOnSnek88]

I read all about how the poor citizens of Alberta were being "oppressed" by the government, Europe, China, the WHO and the WEF.

So yes, it's clear that the usual nutter/sovereign citizen weirdos are behind it. As usual.

Hmmm... I kinda sort of followed Canada politics just before and around the covid times, as we all did to see what other governments were doing etc etc, there were talks about a new firearm Bill being introduced etc etc, and obviously Trudeau was the PM over that period...

I'm going to have to agree with them on the following "the government, the WHO and the WEF " there might be a connection about China and Europe, but I honestly didn't follow it that closely.

Anyways...

 

[lexity]

You need to first solve the legal framework to allow a secession.

All you need is 50%+ people of the WC supporting it.

People need to be willing to semigrate, too.

This would mean that "NO/REMAIN" voters are not affected by the new laws.

If one were to stop forcing one's legal rule-set onto others, some will no doubt throw their toys out of the cot because it would mean they lose their existing control over large groups of people. But after a while they would self-correct their anti-social behavior.... or starve.

Getting a 50%+1 YES result, is only part of the formula.

 

[quovadis]

People need to be willing to semigrate, too.

This would mean that "NO/REMAIN" voters are not affected by the new laws.

If one were to stop forcing one's legal rule-set onto others, some will no doubt throw their toys out of the cot because it would mean they lose their existing control over large groups of people. But after a while they would self-correct their anti-social behavior.... or starve.

Getting a 50%+1 YES result, is only part of the formula.

What is it that you expect no voters/remain to do?

 

[lexity]

In terms of political bias, it is interesting to note that Gareth van Onselen's is pro-DA.

Victory Research is Van Onselen's baby, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[quovadis]

How people can dismiss the Canadian trucker movement, and totally avoid mentioning the attempt to shut ordinary people out of the economy like a light (via closure of their bank accounts) should be a warning to all of us. It's an indication that central-planners are still being born into the world(into each country we see on a world map) and that by elevating them into positions of mass influence, we are playing civilizational Russian Roulette.

Ahh yes the truckers who couldn’t work because of Canadian covid mandates preventing them from crossing the border but failed to mention that they couldn’t enter the US anyway because they had their own mandate.

And it wasn’t closures it was temporary freezes for a week or so under their emergencies act. At least be accurate, there is ongoing court litigation.

 

[Brian_G]

To end current involvement here's another angle for consideration, but not looking for further debate nor minute scrutiny as these are not new concepts here, and as all are entitled to their opinions let them rather ask questions as I see it.

As such, the arguments that are of note to me are stripped of their author (who I now choose not to engage with anyway), more for general consideration then.


Initially we need to first bear in mind that if it were as simple as what makes more logic sense, we wouldn't have these problems.

The best tool that I know of to draw legitimate borders, is the humble referendum. I don't have exposure to debate on the merits and drawbacks of online referenda (certainly not so far on this forum), but there has to be a way to hold a referendum that is way cheaper and still retains a level of sufficient integrity.

If it's possible to transact reliably for large sums online, and fraud or robbery online is not a huge problem, for example using smart contracts, it just seems it should be possible to conduct referenda frequently and reliably.. To me that is the holy grail of achieving a thriving planet.... multiple, openly competing, rivalrous, self-determined jurisdictions, who's legitimate borders on a map are responsive to the real de facto expressed group alliances formed from grass-roots.

Many people just accept the notion that the human condition is a fixed state of un-ending misery. I don't agree with that sentiment. I think most of the world's problems go away when individuals take decision-making responsibility (reclaiming it from the State and its cronies). And you probably need a few people, who understand this, to demonstrate its workability, in separate economic zones which are self-determined units i.e. have their own national borders where only their rules apply.

People could be brought over to better ideas this way i.e. via simple comparative analysis, in the real world (free markets in jurisdictions).

More than a few desire this kind of new direction, myself included.
Practically we're in a country where (and typically more widely in this world too presently) the easily manipulated masses are already safely in their pen, automatically cooperating, with a stubborn unwillingness to move in such more-sensible direction.
I won't go into detail why, but I imagine we all have a fair idea about that set of conditions by now.

This doesn't suggest we give up, at all, just that we should know that to change direction will take massive effort and time.
But even among those desiring change, few in today's world are prepared to stand up it seems. And fewer still in this country.

Can we start moving away in small (but therefore far less widely-influential) groups? I don't see why not, but I also don't see much interest being shown.
There also appears to be a lack of workable models for that idea, which is why I feel there's no choice but to label it as more of a modern hippy idea than a practical one. Unless current democratic models are first used and then new growth achieved that more sensible and stable way.

Can we and should we separate from existing firm control in our specific conditions in SA, which as we all know are reaching a point of major crisis now? Absolutely, we must try and with the required passion. And with healthy respect for those being left behind. The masses may change the leaders but they won't be changing direction.

But more crisis is "needed" before enough will be motivated to attempt it. That, or someone competent enough to reveal the extent of the dangers developing well enough.

Bottom line though is, if the people won't effectively budge it won't happen. Not because they can't, rather due to a wide lack of political self confidence and willingness to be that motivated.
Further, this has become a far more lazy civilisation, ease and convenience of gadgetry keeps too many of us "happy enough".

 

[Brian_G]

This is a hot topic, some will be passionately trying to stop the debates. Try to be careful not to give them the excuses needed to do so, such as by being excessively rude, or gullible.

 

[Brian_G]

Will I personally shed my blood for my political interests?

No

 

[quovadis]

Can we start moving away in small (but therefore far less widely-influential) groups? I don't see why not, but I also don't see much interest being shown.

There's no interest because there's very little benefit unless you are the rich and affluent or perfectly happy with homesteading your way through your existence. If you have more and more moving away into small groups it simply lets the powerful retreat into well-resourced enclaves while everyone else is left with fragmented scraps, no leverage and no realistic way to shield themselves from the influence of those who’ve escaped collective obligations. The problem is that everyone sees themselves as part of the rich and affluent but they rarely are.

 

[Brian_G]

Poll has been added ^^^^^^
Thanks to the OP, Grant.

It's experimental, tries to allow for multiple questions.

 

[Grant]

I am loyal to a nation who's borders are self-determined.

As Jack Miller(CIP) has been saying for decades, "South Africa" is the name of a region on a map. It's an artificial construct, in terms of borders.

The borders have been - and are still being determined from the top down, not the bottom up. They are not self-determined, they are other-determined.

are there many nations who's borders are completely self determined ?
self determination often appears to lead to encroachment upon each other in attempts to expand & conquor (that animal instinct to be "alpha-male").

one needs just take a glimpse at current conflicts:
n & s sudan
palestine / israel
russia / ukraine
china / taiwan
.
.
.
remove the current "artificial" borders & mayhem will probably ensue

 

[cat41]

There's no interest because there's very little benefit unless you are the rich and affluent or perfectly happy with homesteading your way through your existence. If you have more and more moving away into small groups it simply lets the powerful retreat into well-resourced enclaves while everyone else is left with fragmented scraps, no leverage and no realistic way to shield themselves from the influence of those who’ve escaped collective obligations. The problem is that everyone sees themselves as part of the rich and affluent but they rarely are.

Groups tend to self regulate. Are all small groups, such as a bowls club or a chain of small glider groups across the country in a state of anarchy? Certainly not.

On the flip side of the coin Libertarian ideology is asleep, massively not realising the strrong necessity for secure structure, in all regards.
They are anyway influential so must partake in these discussions. I agree too with others that they are just a smallish part of the developing landscape, really should know their humble place in threads like these ones.

 

[lexity]

Ahh yes the truckers who couldn’t work because of Canadian covid mandates preventing them from crossing the border but failed to mention that they couldn’t enter the US anyway because they had their own mandate.

And it wasn’t closures it was temporary freezes for a week or so under their emergencies act. At least be accurate, there is ongoing court litigation.

To come back and say it was only for a week....

The nerve.

And lack of self-awareness.

 

[lexity]

What is it that you expect no voters/remain to do?

about what?

 

[quovadis]

To come back and say it was only for a week....

The nerve.

And lack of self-awareness.

You’re nitpicking “a week or so” ? Not all accounts were frozen on day one but you go with being dishonest about them being closed.