ricky

Normal person, opinionated, know something about most things,joker, scientific thinker, doubter........

[ricky @chatter1007]

@AdriaanBasson @USAmbRSA @ATKVSA @AgriSA1904 @KurtOfficial @RassieRugby @Our_DA Hulle verteenwoordig my👊

[ricky @chatter1007]

@SupaVanSA @EdSmith56886768 I wonder who employs him?

[Delia Byliefeldt @DeliaByliefeldt]

.@AdriaanBasson: Pot, meet kettle.
Right at the top of your hit piece, you brand @elonmusk a "vile, drug-using racist and sexist" who "perpetuates lies about a white genocide."

Spoken like the captured @News24 editor who's spent years burying the real genocide: thousands of white farmers slaughtered, "Kill the Boer" chants glorified, BBBEE racism enforced, and families driven into refugee status while you shield the ANC.

You're not a journalist, Basson. You're a propagandist who puts profits over morals. You peddle paywalled lies that protect killers and silence victims, all while South Africa drowns in blood and denial.

Elon built empires and speaks raw truth. You monetise misery.

The world sees you now.
South Africa's persecuted see you. And God sees you.
Keep coping. Truth is winning.

[Ernst Roets @ErnstRoets]

Open Letter to Ambassador Roelf Meyer

(video link below)

Dear Mr Meyer,

Lex Libertas is a South Africa-based think tank and advocacy group committed to the advancement of the unchanging principles of constitutionalism, freedom, and genuine self-governance for the diverse peoples residing in the territory known as South Africa. We conduct evidence-based research into South Africa’s political and constitutional challenges, with a particular focus on the protection of minority rights, the dangers of centralised majoritarian rule, and the pursuit of sustainable, decentralised solutions that can provide long-term stability and justice for all communities.

Our activities are not limited to research, however, as we are also involved with a variety of campaigns and projects, including the White Cross Project, through which we intend to display 3,000 crosses on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., to raise awareness about the crisis in South Africa and to channel that awareness into support for tangible solutions.

The purpose of this letter is twofold.

First, we wish to respectfully express our concerns regarding your appointment as South Africa’s Ambassador to the United States. We have expressed these concerns publicly and we wish to bring them under your immediate attention.

Second, we wish to urge you to discharge your duties with honesty and courage by presenting a truthful account of the profound challenges facing the peoples of South Africa. I say this because it is not hard to imagine a scenario in which the positions you take in your capacity as Ambassador would default to defending the actions of the South African government, when those actions are, in many cases, the source of the problem.

With that said, I will explain our concern with your appointment first.

While we respect the office and the importance of diplomatic engagement, your appointment raises serious questions about the nature of the representation South Africa will receive in Washington.

As the chief negotiator for the National Party during the constitutional negotiations of the early 1990s, you played a central role in shaping the political settlement that followed the 1992 referendum. That referendum was widely understood — not only by those who voted ‘Yes’, but by the broader public — as a mandate for a settlement that would include meaningful power-sharing, strong protections for minorities, the safeguarding of property rights, and the devolution of power away from centralised control. I am sure you recall that those were the promises made by the National Party at the time regarding what they intended to do with the so-called ‘yes’ vote. The National Party – and you personally – even campaigned under the banner: ‘Are you scared of a majoritarian government? Vote “yes”.’

The ‘yes’ vote provided a very specific mandate, but you treated it like an open mandate and eventually conceded on most of these commitments that were described to your constituency as ‘non-negotiable.’

Following the transition, you joined the African National Congress – the party you vowed to keep out of power. More than three decades later, in 2026, you remain, as far as we are aware, a member of that party. When you were asked about the criticism you often receive regarding your conduct during the negotiations during a more recent television interview, you shrugged it off, saying that it is indeed the case that politicians like yourself sometimes make promises, knowing that you have no intention of keeping them. This is because, in your own words, that is just the way of politics.

This pro-ANC defence is difficult to reconcile with the scale of institutional decay, economic decline, and human suffering that has occurred under ANC governance since 1994. It is reasonable for observers to ask whether someone with your history and continued political affiliation is likely to present a full and honest account of South Africa’s challenges to the United States government, or whether you will instead default to defending the ruling party’s narrative and minimising the very real crises facing minority communities.

Second, on the point of honesty regarding the issues facing the peoples of South Africa.

We wish to draw your attention to four specific policy areas that are of deep concern to various communities in South Africa – particularly pro-American communities. In each case, we set out what we anticipate you may be inclined to argue when engaging with the United States government, and what we respectfully urge you to also state publicly.

Farm Attacks

We expect that you may argue that farm attacks are a serious concern but that they form part of the broader crime crisis affecting all communities in South Africa. We expect that you will emphasise that farm attacks constitute a small percentage of all crimes in South Africa and, in so far as you concede that the problem exists (something the President was not prepared to do), we expect that you will say that it affects everyone and that it is a consequence of economic inequality. Therefore, you might say that the solution is economic growth and the way to achieve this is American investment in South Africa.

We sincerely hope, however, that you will also state the following: Farm attacks stand apart as exceptionally brutal. They constitute the only major crime phenomenon in the country with regard to which treating the matter as a priority crime is regarded as politically inconvenient. It is also the only significant crime phenomenon with regard to which some of the most influential politicians in the country have either denied that the problem exists, or have actively encouraged it — not only through songs and chants, but also through public statements on social media. There is ample evidence of this political incitement. This is not ordinary criminality; it is criminality combined with political incitement and victim-blaming by those in power, and it demands specific and honest acknowledgment.

Hate Speech

We expect that you may argue that the African National Congress has largely moved away from chanting ‘Kill the Boer, Kill the Farmer’, that South Africa respects freedom of speech, that these matters are best left to the courts under the Constitution, and that the chant itself should be regarded as a historical struggle chant rather than a literal call to violence. We also expect you to say that those who chant such slogans are not in the Government of National Unity (GNU) and that this is why President Ramaphosa needs more support.

We sincerely hope, however, that you will also state the following: While the courts must do their work, political leadership cannot hide behind conveniences when urgent intervention is needed for the sake of peace and stability. The repeated use of slogans such as ‘Kill the Boer, Kill the Farmer’ and ‘Dubula i’Bhunu’ (sometimes chanted at political rallies, sometimes during farm attacks, sometimes painted on farmhouses during or before attacks, and sometimes even written with the blood of murdered farmers on farmhouse walls) has real and documented consequences. There is ample testimony of perpetrators being influenced by this rhetoric and farm attacks increasing as a result of such rhetoric. Furthermore, senior politicians who publicly chant or defend these slogans, such as Julius Malema, sit on the Judicial Service Commission and play a direct role in the appointment of judges. It is, therefore, naïve to expect judges to rule firmly against speech that is openly used by those who decide their career prospects. Political leaders have a duty to clearly and unequivocally reject these calls to violence. Lastly, there is also ample evidence of President Ramaphosa himself and other leaders within the ANC encouraging those who chant these slogans publicly to join the ANC.

Property Rights

We expect that you may argue that South Africa has a destructive history of land dispossession and land injustice, and that land reform and restitution are, therefore, necessary to correct these historical imbalances. We also expect that you would say that issues like the confiscation of property would be treated responsibly.

We sincerely hope, however, that you will also state the following: There is a fundamental difference between restitution and redistribution. The South African political elite has placed a question mark over white land ownership per definition, regardless of how the land was acquired. The vast majority of land claims have been filed in urban areas, with more than 90 percent of claimants indicating that they would prefer monetary compensation rather than land. According to the government’s own data, more than 90 percent of government land reform projects have failed, with productive commercial farms converted into subsistence farms, and subsistence farms converted into squatter camps. Furthermore, the amount of people in South Africa who have indicated that they believe more land reform would improve their lives is 1%.

The threat to property rights extends far beyond the Expropriation Act. Based on available data, it is reasonable to estimate that 10,000 land invasions occur in South Africa each year, and legislation such as the PIE Act frequently protects illegal invaders at the expense of lawful property owners. Significant public opposition to the Expropriation Act and to attempts to undermine title deeds was largely ignored by the government. Senior politicians have openly encouraged illegal farm invasions and have made particularly alarming, inflammatory statements in this regard. President Ramaphosa promised to create a ‘Garden of Eden’ and the ‘ultimate paradise’ through the confiscation of land from white people. Former Deputy President David Mabuza warned of a violent takeover if white landowners do not voluntarily hand over their land. Minister Zweli Mkhize stated that only property belonging to white people would be confiscated. These statements, combined with vague legislation, create massive uncertainty and open the door to abuse. Laws and policies in this area must be judged by their actual consequences, not merely by their stated intentions.

The claim that land reform will be dealt with responsibly is diametrically opposed to the fact that those in power – including President Ramaphosa himself – openly celebrate the leadership of the former Zimbabwean president, Robert Mugabe, and his land reform policies in particular.

Race Laws

We do not expect that you would deny the existence of race laws in South Africa as many in the media do. We do expect, however, that you may argue that South Africa has a history of segregation and serious inequality, and that race laws are, therefore, necessary to address these historical imbalances and promote transformation.

We sincerely hope, however, that you will also state the following: There appears to be some confusion, and at times outright doublespeak, in how these policies are defended. Some claim there are no race laws in South Africa, while others defend them as necessary — sometimes in the same breath. The reality is that South Africa now has far more race laws than existed during the apartheid era.

Perhaps most importantly, these laws have not achieved their stated goals. Unemployment, poverty, and inequality have all worsened since their introduction. Instead, these policies have facilitated massive corruption, with only a small, politically connected elite benefitting. They have also been highly destructive to the South African economy, driving away investment and crippling both large corporations and small businesses. Laws should ultimately be judged by their consequences, not by their intentions. You might remember that you have argued this before with regard to National Party legislation during the apartheid era. Surely, this principle should also be applied to ANC legislation. The undeniable consequences of South Africa’s current race laws have been economic destruction, increased racial friction, and the systematic exclusion of minorities from the economy.

The four issues outlined above are not isolated policy failures. They are symptoms of a deeper structural problem that lies at the heart of South Africa’s constitutional order.
In our report Reclaiming Freedom, published in July 2025, we set out the argument that South Africa’s fundamental challenge is not merely poor implementation or corrupt leadership, but the design of the constitutional framework itself. South Africa is not a single, homogenous nation. It is a deeply diverse country comprising multiple nations, cultures, languages and communities with often fundamentally different values, histories and aspirations. A highly centralised, majoritarian constitutional model was imposed on this reality, concentrating power in a single government in Pretoria with minimal meaningful checks, devolution, or protection for minority communities.

One might argue that these checks and balances exist in theory by pointing to particular passages in the Constitution, but they certainly do not exist in reality. This is the crux of the matter.

The result has been predictable: the systematic marginalisation of minorities, the erosion of property rights, the normalisation of racial exclusion through legislation, and the inability of communities to protect themselves against state failure and political incitement. The current constitutional architecture has proven incapable of accommodating South Africa’s diversity in a manner that is just and sustainable. Continuing to defend this model while merely promising better ‘implementation’ is, in our view, to misdiagnose the problem.

We respectfully submit that any honest assessment of South Africa’s trajectory must acknowledge that genuine, lasting solutions will require a fundamental reconsideration of the centralised constitutional model. This includes serious exploration of decentralisation, meaningful self-governance for communities, and constitutional arrangements that can accommodate the reality that South Africa is a country of nations rather than a single nation. Without such structural reform, the micro-political crises we have described will continue to intensify, regardless of who occupies the Union Buildings.

Mr Meyer, as South Africa’s Ambassador to the United States, you carry a significant responsibility. You are not merely the representative of the African National Congress or even of the current government. You are the Ambassador of the Republic of South Africa — a country that is not a single, homogenous nation, but a collection of diverse nations, cultures, languages and communities with often profoundly different histories, values, experiences and aspirations.

Your duty, therefore, cannot be limited to conveying the official positions and narratives of the ruling party. It requires you to present a full, honest, and balanced account of the challenges facing our country, including the very real concerns of minority communities whose safety, property rights, and future prospects are under increasing threat.

We respectfully submit that any approach which downplays, minimises or omits these realities — whether through selective emphasis or silence — does not serve the long-term interests of South Africa. It would be far more constructive, and ultimately more credible, for you to acknowledge both the perspectives of the government and the legitimate concerns of those communities who feel increasingly marginalised and excluded.

We intend to continue raising these issues directly with the United States government, members of Congress, and other international partners. Later this year, through our White Cross project and related initiatives, we will present detailed evidence of the challenges facing minority communities in South Africa, including farm attacks, the erosion of property rights, the impact of race-based legislation, and the broader constitutional questions that remain unresolved.

In this context, it would serve both your credibility and the long-term interests of the peoples of South Africa if you were to present a full and honest account of these matters to the American government, rather than defaulting to selective emphasis or omission. Dishonesty by omission remains a form of lying, and it ultimately serves no one — least of all the peoples of South Africa — when the full reality of the challenges facing this beautiful country is withheld from those with whom we seek to maintain constructive relations.

We remain available to provide further documentation, evidence, or clarification on any of the issues raised in this letter. We respectfully urge you to discharge your responsibilities as Ambassador with the courage and integrity that the gravity of South Africa’s situation demands.

In this regard, we are keen to work with you and support your ventures to help improve the prospects of our fellow citizens.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Ernst Roets
Executive Director
Lex Libertas

[ricky @chatter1007]

@GrootAfrikaner @Stef19744593 Poor @geordinhl only got 256 likes on his post vs over 1.6k likes on Pieter’s reply😂

[ricky @chatter1007]

@CityofCT Piss off

[ricky @chatter1007]

@SAgovnews You don’t restore dignity by destroying other peoples dignity. Build something, name it and give people dignity. There you have a solution

[ricky @chatter1007]

@elonmusk @stchouse100 But he uses white advocates to keep him out of jail, the irony in that is remarkable. Why would any white person even defend this racist lunatic, never sell your soul for money

[ricky @chatter1007]

@DadaMorero With affluent suburbs you mean the tax payers? Also look after the goose that lays the golden eggs, sounds clever to me

[ricky @chatter1007]

@TumishoMasha Fantastic, then let the youth stay jobless to protect 100 families getting rich out of BEE and to protect Cyril’s ego

[ricky @chatter1007]

@geordinhl @CityofCT @Our_DA @WesternCapeDA @DAGauteng Their free homes comes from taxing other people out of their paid homes!

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

The South African laws are literally super racist, plain and simple.

It’s not complicated: imagine if the law was called “White Empowerment”, instead of “Black Empowerment”! People would have a seizure 😂

South Africa now has more anti-White laws than Apartheid had anti-Black laws. Think about that for a second …

The current South African government has objectively implemented Apartheid 2.0. Shame on them.

[ricky @chatter1007]

@CyrilRamaphosa 32k views and 468 likes, 1.5% approval on this appointment. Keep fooling yourself

[ricky @chatter1007]

@MbalulaFikile “Racist Afriforum” is coming for you! Loot now, you will have lots of legal bills to pay

[ricky @chatter1007]

@MbuyiseniNdlozi So you say he can break the law because he has a voice in parliament? Says everything I need to know about an EFF voter🤷‍♂️

[ricky @chatter1007]

@Leon_Schreib Try and get an online appointed at a bank, nearly impossible!!

[ricky @chatter1007]

@WHLeavitt A: and I am a white South African, it is very very bad over here!

[🆆🅸🅻🅻 🆂🅲🅾🆃🆃 ♿ 🇮🇱 @guillum]

This guy is 100% socialist. He believes in employing Robin Hood economics – rob from the rich, give to the poor. The @Our_DA is now totally @MYANC-lite.

I could never, in good conscience, vote for a party that would use my rates and taxes to promote an influx of indigent people from other areas of the country to live a subsidized existence.

That is simply NOT democratic. It is simply NOT sustainable. And, most importantly, it is 100% NOT equitable.

[ricky @chatter1007]

@geordinhl George Soros must be delighted!

[ricky @chatter1007]

@BlakeSNeff @yoalexrapz @RealCandaceO Do you ever read your comments section? I would shut-up if I were you😂