The Crucified Carpenter

The legal term “genocide” refers to certain acts committed with the INTENT to destroy, in WHOLE or in PART, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.

@CitizenScoopX I have just gone over the law: In no way shape or form is your present argument entertained, under conditions that could be conceivably met. The change from provincial to national interest.. I have all the legal pleadings and arguments used. By Cape Independence and The State.

Liam, you're not engaging the core premise. Every time I bring it back to "ANC says X at ICJ... why not Y at home?", you pivot to: • Individual rights/voting/freedom • Apartheid history • Orania as the only possible expression (and its supposed flaws) • Section 235 already being fulfilled (because Orania exists) This is just goalpost-moving plus strawman. You're debating a version of the argument you prefer (race-based secession / apartheid revival) instead of the one I'm actually making (legal hypocrisy in applying self-determination). You attached the Constitution text just to use it to say "see, Orania exists, end of story". But that dodges the bigger point, that the ANC is rhetorically expanding the concept of self-determination on the world stage far beyond what Section 235 allows domestically. You're either genuinely missing the distinction between internal vs. broader/international self-determination, or you're deliberately reframing to avoid conceding the inconsistency.

@Concreteisland2 Probably not: There is no part of the missile that could not be fabricated in an underground workshop.

This is not true though is it?

@CitizenScoopX Secession is expressly mentioned as a no go: Also How would the Western Cape, compensate for all the infrastructure, the land, the harbour, and loss of future revenue?

No Liam, you're still dodging!! We're not looking for a "discriminatory system" or Apartheid 2.0. Cape Independence is explicitly multi-racial - Coloured, Black, White, all living together under better governance in the Western Cape. No race tests. No exclusion. The only thing we're asking is simple consistency: The ANC told the ICJ on 15 March 2026 that denying self-determination is a serious human rights violation (for Palestinians). SA's own Constitution (Section 235) says the exact same right exists here for cultural communities like Afrikaners or the Western Cape. Why champion it abroad but call it "untenable" at home? That’s the hypocrisy. Nothing more!! Read the linked sources (especially the Presidency statement and Grant Gochin's pieces) and answer the actual question instead of inventing racist motives. Still waiting. 🤷‍♀️

@CitizenScoopX Here is the section you refer to, and under this section, Oranje exists. What you argue has no relevance in law.

Liam, here's the simple version: ----- The ANC told the ICJ (March 15, 2026): Denying people self-determination is a serious violation of human rights. They said this for Palestinians. But SA's own Constitution (Section 235) says cultural/language communities inside SA - like Afrikaners or Western Cape people - also have that right to self-determination (autonomy, etc.). So why push it hard for Palestinians abroad, but say "no way" at home for our own groups? That's the hypocrisy that this is about. Not race. Not Orania details. Just legal double standards. The sources (Presidency statement, Gochin articles) explain it with ANC's own words. Read one before calling it full of holes? The Orania numbers and/or land debates are only distractions and do not address the double standard. Question stands: Why the selective principle? 🤷‍♀️

@RediTlhabi I'm damn good at digging: Dololo: Only as mentioned the FMF/Solidarity "study" with zero explanation of methodology, range or perspective.

I also looked for it and asked a friend at the IMF to share it with me. Dololo. Maybe I'm not checking properly. And if this is just a letter from a reader, why elevate it to a headline and make it look like it is an IMF publication?

@CitizenScoopX Lorraine, You are not looking for relief, you are looking for justification to impose a discriminatory system. Yet If the relief you seek were granted, the product of that relief would be untenable.

Liam, you keeps pivoting to "they have rights/voting/freedom" (true today) or apartheid history (irrelevant to current law), but you don't engage the actual legal argument: Why invoke self-determination as a universal right abroad, but treat it as off-limits at home for communities the Constitution protects? @NiekerkSteve is spot-on!! The reasons the @MYANC cites for Palestinians (no state, no real voice, systemic denial) mirror arguments some SA groups make about marginalisation under current policies (race-based laws, economic exclusion, cultural suppression). If it's valid internationally, consistency demands addressing it domestically. x.com/i/status/20347… This is exactly the hypocrisy @grantgochin highlights: SA's own words create a "Palestine Precedent" that's now on the @CIJ_ICJ record and can't be cherry-picked.

@CitizenScoopX Define an Afrikaaner state that in no way discriminates based on race: (Any ethnic discrimination) How many Afrikaaners fit that discription? How many of them are willing to give up, without compensation, their land, and livelyhood, to be part of an expanded Oranje?

Liam, let's address your latest points head-on, because they still miss the core legal argument entirely. 1. "You HAVE self determination within a democratic state" No, that's not how international law or South Africa's own Constitution defines it. Self-determination is a collective right of a people/peoples to freely determine their political status - which can include autonomy, federation, or even secession in certain contexts (remedial or when internal options are blocked). Being able to vote in national elections as individuals doesn't fulfill it if the group wants a different political arrangement based on shared culture/language/history. That's exactly what Section 235 of the SA Constitution protects: "The right of the South African people as a whole to self-determination... shall not be construed so as to preclude... any community sharing a common cultural and language heritage within a territorial entity in the Republic or in any other way, from exercising such a right." It's explicitly for minorities/cultural groups within the state. The @MYANC invokes this principle abroad (Palestine) but blocks it domestically. 2. "You are a minority, and can seek protective rights." Protective rights (like language/cultural preservation under Section 30/31) are not the same as self-determination. The latter is about political status, not just minority protections within the existing framework. @CIJ_ICJ precedents (e.g., Western Sahara, Kosovo Advisory Opinion) and the African Charter Article 20 affirm this distinction - including external forms when internal self-determination is substantively denied. 3. "When one day you are the majority, you can make your own rules. Like before, based on race." This is a red herring and ad hominem pivot to apartheid history. The argument isn't about race-based supremacy or reversing 1994. It's about consistent application of law: • The ANC's March 15, 2026 ICJ statement says denying self-determination is a violation of fundamental rights. • @grantgochin's analysis (which you haven't read) explains how SA's own filing created a "Palestine Precedent" - where self-determination trumps full effective control, and it's now on the ICJ record with 19 intervening states. • That precedent applies universally - including to Afrikaners, Western Cape communities, etc., who meet criteria of shared heritage and democratic will (eg., repeated DA majorities in WC). No one's calling for racial segregation. Cape Independence advocates (eg., CIAG) emphasize a multi-racial, democratic entity. The point is hypocrisy... champion the right abroad, deny it at home. 4. "And again the world will not accept that" The "world" (via ICJ/UN) increasingly accepts remedial self-determination when groups face systemic marginalisation - even if they're minorities in a democracy (see Quebec Secession Reference, Catalonia debates). SA can't invoke it selectively. You've consistently avoided the links/sources: • @PresidencyZA statement (direct ANC words). • @LetsFreeTheCape CIAG press release. •Grant Gochin's pieces (Times of Israel + Substack). • MRP's response. Read them, then debate the actual legal points, not strawmen about apartheid redux or individual rights. The question remains (as @NiekerkSteve asked): Why does the ANC champion self-determination for Palestinians at the ICJ, but refuse it for cultural communities at home under the very Constitution and international law they cite? x.com/i/status/20347… It's not about race or history, it's about legal consistency and hypocrisy. You're welcome to actually engage with the sources. 🤷‍♀️

@NiekerkSteve @CitizenScoopX @CyrilRamaphosa @CIJ_ICJ @MYANC You miss the point Steve: Afrikaaners already have a country. The P's do not.

@LiamCusack12 @CitizenScoopX @CyrilRamaphosa @CIJ_ICJ @MYANC Why is the ANC requesting it for the Palestinians? For exactly those reasons Afrikaners can request it from the SA government. In fact the very same ANC is busy dividing SA along racial lines.In fact SA is the most race regulated country on the planet.

So... @CyrilRamaphosa told the @CIJ_ICJ that denying Palestinians their right to self-determination is an international crime. Ok, but what about at home?? The @MYANC refuses the exact same right to millions of South Africans who want autonomy. This is hypocrisy on steroids, not leadership!! #CapeIndependence #SelfDetermination ---------- On 15 March 2026, the @PresidencyZA proudly declared: Israel denies Palestinians "the most basic of human rights - including the right to self-determination." So, the ANC invoked the ICJ, the UN Charter, and binding provisional measures. Fine words!! But Section 235 of OUR Constitution already recognises self-determination for cultural/linguistic communities inside SA. So... why only abroad? thepresidency.gov.za/south-africa-n… ---------- Cape Independence Advocacy Group (@LetsFreeTheCape) then nailed it the very next day: "Ramaphosa invokes self-determination at the ICJ - but not in South Africa." The Western Cape has voted overwhelmingly for different governance for years. Yet Pretoria blocks meaningful devolution. Double standards much? capeindependence.org/post/press-rel… ---------- Then, legal expert @grantgochin, drops the bomb: "South Africa loaded a weapon and pointed it at its own territory." By arguing before the ICJ that denial of self-determination is wrongful, SA (i.o.w the ANC) created the "Palestine Precedent." Now that precedent applies here too - to the Cape, to Afrikaners, to Khoe-San… and even across the border to Matabele/Mthwakazi. blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-implosion-… x.com/LetsFreeTheCap… ---------- Back to Gochin again (THIS is an ABSOLUTE must-read): "SELF-DETERMINATION IS NOT A FRANCHISE." The ANC can't go and champion it for Palestine while denying it at home. The ICJ record is permanent!! 19 Intervening states make this binding. South Africa's own lawyers just gave separatist movements the strongest legal ammunition in decades. grantgochin.substack.com/p/self-determi… As Gochin very eloquently stated: "Self-determination is not a franchise granted to some peoples and withheld from others by the political preferences of states that find it convenient abroad and dangerous at home. It is law. They said so themselves." ---------- Even the Mthwakazi Republic Party (Matabele nation in Zimbabwe) seized the moment: They treated Ramaphosa's statement as implied recognition of their right to break away - citing the exact same African Charter Article 20 SA loves to quote for Palestine. So... The. Game. Is. Now. On!! static-cdn.toi-media.com/blogs/uploads/… ---------- So the Bottom Line here is: 1. The ANC wanted to virtue-signal on the world stage. 2. Instead, they accidentally armed every suppressed people in Southern Africa with international law. 3. The implosion has begun. Who’s next? Western Cape? KwaZulu? Matabeleland? It is NOW time to talk real self-determination - here at home!! #CapeExit #ImplosionOfSouthAfrica #RamaphosaHypocrisy

@vlok_andre A excellent choice of words there, Andre.

This is not a paradox, striking or otherwise. It is simple identity conflict dynamics, which no political party studies, understands or applies. These barriers can be crossed, but not using the tools parties like the DA are using at the moment. No paradoxes here, just the unlearning of outdated wisdom

@CitizenScoopX @NiekerkSteve @CyrilRamaphosa @CIJ_ICJ @MYANC You HAVE self determination within a democratic state You are a minority, and can seek protective rights. When one day you are the majority, you can make your own rules. Like before, based on race. (Your history) And again the world will not accept that You're welcome.

@LiamCusack12, it seems like you didn't engage with any of the linked sources. Your reply focuses entirely on comparing the current civic rights of white South Africans (post-1994) to Palestinians under occupation, which is a completely different angle from the actual argument in my original post. My post (and the sources) isn't claiming white South Africans lack basic rights or are oppressed like Palestinians. The core point is legal and principled: • The @MYANC @GovernmentZA explicitly told the @CIJ_ICJ (in their March 15, 2026 statement) that denying a people the right to self-determination is a grave violation of international law. • They invoked it as a fundamental human right, tied to the UN Charter, African Charter Article 20, ICJ precedents, etc. • Yet the same government (ANC, incase you forgot) refuses to apply that principle domestically to groups like Afrikaners, the Western Cape population, Khoe-San in certain contexts, etc., who seek forms of autonomy or independence based on shared culture, language, history, and democratic majorities (exactly as Section 235 of the SA Constitution allows for). Your list of rights (voting, speech, travel, etc.) is accurate for white (or any other colour) South Africans today, yes, but it's irrelevant to the self-determination claim. Self-determination isn't about individual civil rights within an existing state... it's about a people's collective right to freely determine their political status (eg, independence, autonomy, federation), even if they're already enfranchised citizens. The "holes" you see only exist if you ignore: 1. The Palestine Precedent created by SA's own ICJ filing (per @grantgochin's analysis): recognition based primarily on self-determination, not full effective control. 2. SA's Constitution (Section 235) explicitly recognising internal self-determination. 3. The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (ratified by SA), which affirms self-determination including external forms when internal is denied. 4. Real-world examples in the articles: Cape Independence's democratic mandate, Afrikaner cultural claims, even cross-border Matabele claims using the same logic. You're welcome!!

@NiekerkSteve @CitizenScoopX @CyrilRamaphosa @CIJ_ICJ @MYANC Why should one group be allowed to divide a country on racial lines? That will not fly in any court in the world. IF the Afrikaaners were herded into a settlement, the same would apply in their defence. What justification can be offered for the segregation?

So what is the issue then? Why does the ANC not want to allow the Afrikaners their own independent homeland. That is exactly the question being asked and that you are not answering? Why can Afrikaners not be granted the right to self determination in their own independent territory. Exactly in the way the ANC put it forward for the Palestinians in their ICJ case against Israel?

@NiekerkSteve @CitizenScoopX @CyrilRamaphosa @CIJ_ICJ @MYANC White South Africans are fully enfranchised Palestinians never have been WSA's have full recourse to all aspects of law and life, no less than any other Citizen P's never had WSA have FULL voting rights P's did not Freedom: Of speech, travel, association, business, work P's? No.

@LiamCusack12 @CitizenScoopX @CyrilRamaphosa @CIJ_ICJ @MYANC Well enlightened us then.

@jvgraz He's still posting on his X account. two hours ago. Looks like wishful thinking

If this is true, the world couldn't ask for better news. Bennett is probably the most dangerous person in Israel right now, and would use nukes on Iran in a heartbeat.

@IsraelArmyStan NO under no circumstances

Do you stand with Israel in current global issues? 🇮🇱 A) Yes, strongly B) Yes, somewhat C) Not sure D) No

@Anunakin Our enrichment capacity is enough for radio isotopes: The large centrofuge4s and the cascades were dismantled and sold/destroyed: IAEA inspect randomly at any time. No Sir: Wedo not have a nuclear warhead.

@LiamCusack12 They wouldn’t make it public if we had 🤷🏾‍♂️

I don’t have the evidence, but we have 1 or 2 nukes.

@Dannyjokes One day you'll contract a terminal dose of Plumbago toxicity.

@MahyarTousi So what?

@wiesiede @ShaykhSulaiman It does! until he moved..

@ShaykhSulaiman Looks like he is wearing a tinfoil hat…

BREAKING: Qatar’s Prime Minister: This war needs to stop immediately. The aggression needs to stop immediately. Because everyone knows who the main beneficiary of this war is, and dragging the whole region into this conflict is.

@mishtal The land was only "Holy" because of Christians The Jews refused to return wirh Ezra. The Hasmoneans later forced everyone to become Jewish. They are not even a tribe There never was a "Land of Israel" The Philistines "Palestinians" were there from 1100Bce.