Why We Are White Refugees
On 01 February 2011, the following email -- CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE AS DAVID vs. GOLIATH IN CONCOURT: CCT # 06-11 BLACKLISTED BY SA MEDIA; BLACKLIST ENDORSED BY TUTU -- was emailed to a few hundred of SA's Advocates, all the different Law Societies and Bar Councils; all the non-profit Legal Aid Agencies, from Afriforum to F.W's Center for Constitutional Rights.
On 02 February, the SAPA news article further below -- WOMAN WANTS EDITORS IN CONCOURT OVER CENSORSHIP -- was released, and published on News 24 and Mail and Guardian.
Can Goliath ANC's Political Correctness Cuckoo's Nest be Liberated?
In How Will World War IV be Fought, Mike Smith writes:The question to ask is whether we are intellectually, culturally, sociologically and psychologically prepared for such a war. The battlefield has shifted from jungles and desserts to the media and cyberspace, the prize to fight for is the minds of people. Arming yourself with rifles is one thing, but are we arming ourselves psychologically? The winners of World War IV will be the ones who possesses the most social and cultural intelligence.
So how do we win such a war?
I have a few ideas, but the most important is the training of our “soldiers” for this kind of war. Our educational institutions are where the soldiers are trained and armed and where we have to shape and form their minds, arm them with the best and sharpest tools.
Perception shaping is another. Let us face is that Whites in South Africa has more enemies than friends in the world. We need to change that perception, of what the world thinks of us. This should be a national effort from each and every White person in SA, driven by our Academics who understand these things. Not only should they change the perception the world has of us, but also that of our enemy.
In How David Beats Goliath: When underdogs break the rules, Malcolm Gladwell writes, among others:David’s victory over Goliath, in the Biblical account, is held to be an anomaly. It was not. Davids win all the time. The political scientist Ivan Arreguín-Toft recently looked at every war fought in the past two hundred years between strong and weak combatants. The Goliaths, he found, won in 71.5 per cent of the cases. That is a remarkable fact. Arreguín-Toft was analyzing conflicts in which one side was at least ten times as powerful—in terms of armed might and population—as its opponent, and even in those lopsided contests the underdog won almost a third of the time.
In the Biblical story of David and Goliath, David initially put on a coat of mail and a brass helmet and girded himself with a sword: he prepared to wage a conventional battle of swords against Goliath. But then he stopped. “I cannot walk in these, for I am unused to it,” he said (in Robert Alter’s translation), and picked up those five smooth stones. What happened, Arreguín-Toft wondered, when the underdogs likewise acknowledged their weakness and chose an unconventional strategy? He went back and re-analyzed his data. In those cases, David’s winning percentage went from 28.5 to 63.6. When underdogs choose not to play by Goliath’s rules, they win, Arreguín-Toft concluded, “even when everything we think we know about power says they shouldn’t.”
In Increasing Your Odds by Rethinking The Rules, Casey Flanagan summarizes as follows:Power is good, but itʼs no guarantee. Davidʼs odds werenʼt as bad as youʼd think. Of the 200 conflicts studied between 1800-2003, David won 28.5% of the time.
The times (and odds) are changing. Between 1800-49, the stronger side won 88% of the conflicts studied. That number dropped to 80% between 1850-99 and dropped (again) to 65% between 1900-49. Between 1950-99, it dropped, wait for it, to only 49%. Now, on average, the strong side possessed ten times the power – where “power” is measured in terms of armed forces and population – than their adversaries. And between the years 1950-99, they lost more than they won.
Itʼs about making your own rules. Why would you play by the rules that Goliath has already won on (see: Google)? When a David wins, it tends to do so by changing the rules. In his study, Toft found that by choosing an unconventional strategy, the underdogʼs winning percentage went from 28.5% to 63.6%.
Whats more unconventional in a world of hypocrisy, sycophancy and public relations bullshitting, than simply telling the truth??
» » » » [Increasing Your Odds by Rethinking The Rules] [How Underdogs can Win: How David Beats Goliath] [How Will World War IV be Fought?]
Email to Advocates, Attorneys, Law Societies & Bar Councils
Subject: David vs. Goliath in Concourt (CCT 06-11) Goliath's blacklist endorsed by Tutu
Request: If you are aware of any Attorney who may wish to participate in this ground-breaking action, who is willing to offer Pro Bono Assistance of Counsel services, please forward this information to them for their attention and consideration.
Litigant in Person, Pro Se
Box 5042, George East, 6539
Cel: (071) 170 1954
CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE AS DAVID vs. GOLIATH IN CONCOURT:
CCT # 06-11 BLACKLISTED BY SA MEDIA; BLACKLIST ENDORSED BY TUTU
On 28 January 2011 the Concourt Registrar Mr. Delano Louw received the Applicants final Proof of Service documentation, in the matter of Radical Honesty SA and others vs. SANEF and others (CCT 06-11).
The Applicants in the matter are Radical Honesty SA and Lara Johnstone, who filed an Application with the Constitutional Court for direct access, as a Pauperis Propria Persona / Litigant in Person; for a [I] writ of Habeus Mentem and [II] writ of Certiorari/Review.
The Application was filed against 88 respondents: (a) three administrators of the SA Press Council; (v) SANEF and its chairman: Mondli Makhanya, (c) 36 SANEF and related media publications and their respective editors, managerial officials; (d) eight Media Professors from Univ. of Rhodes and Wits Journalism faculty departments; (e) Media Monitoring Africa: Mr. William Bird; and finally (f) Projourn Steering Committee.
CCT 06-11 WRIT OF HABEUS MENTEM:
A writ of Habeus Mentem refers to the right of a man or woman to their own mind. The Applicants – members of the Radical Honesty culture and religion - have invoked this right in accordance with the SA Constitutional right to invoking their cultural law and the right to Psychological Integrity; as per Sections 12, 15 (3), 30, 31, and 185.
Among others; the writ of Habeus Mentem shall confirm that applicants are members of the Radical Honesty culture and religion; and that their rights to practice and uphold the rights of their culture and religion were infringed.
CCT 06-11 WRIT OF CERTIORARI/REVIEW:
SA MEDIA'S CENSORSHIP OF CCT 23-10 RADICAL HONESTY AMICUS CURIAE
The applicants were originally approved to file an Amicus Curiae in the Constitutional matter of The Citizen v. Robert McBride (CCT 23-10), where they argued in support of a Population Policy Common Sense Interpretation of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation (TRC) Act.
The Radical Honesty SA Amicus was supported by the expert witness statements of (i) Dr. T. Michael Maher, Head of Communication Dept. at University of Louisiana at Lafayette, author of the study: How and Why Journalists Avoid Population – Environment Connection; and (ii) Dr. Brad Blanton, founder of the Radical Honesty movement, former candidate for U.S. Congress from Virginia in 2004 and 2006 and author of the Radical Honesty series of books.
Radical Honesty SA's Population Policy Common Sense Ecolaw argues that "any legislation or jurisprudence such as the TRC Social Contract, which professes to advocate on behalf of human rights, peace and social justice, while ignoring their ecological basis – a stable human population at slightly less than the eco-systems carrying capacity – is endorsing and practicing legal dishonesty and hypocrisy; i.e. fraud. It is legislation and jurisprudence deliberately indifferent to the laws of sustainability, advocating misery."
The Radical Honesty SA Amicus argues, among others, that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission committed fraud, because it failed to uphold its mandate to investigate the population policy factors for the Nature & Causes of Apartheid. If it had done so, within International Just War and Population Policy theories and principles, it would have concluded that Apartheid was not a 'crime against humanity'; to the contrary: Apartheid was a Just War for the Demographic Survival of Boer-Afrikaners.
This much is equally obvious to American attorney and author of “Humans: An Endangered Species”, Jason G. Brent:“We must all understand that the most potent weapons of war are the penis and the womb. Therefore, if you cannot convince a group to control its population by discussion, debate, intelligent analysis etc., you must consider their action in using the penis and the womb to increase population an act of war.”
Additionally much of Apartheid's racial resource war violence was a consequence of the ANC's 'breeding war' policies, which resulted in huge demographic youth bulges of unemployed poverty stricken youth; the ANC's ‘People’s War’ teenage generals, teenage street committee’s and teenage ‘necklacing’ executioners cannon fodder; who terrorized black Africans who did not want black rule, to support the ANC.
Among others, the Amicus also argues that the media act as Access-to-Discourse-Gatekeepers, who censor citizens non-violent political grievances and problem solving activism, and thereby facilitate a pressure cooker socio-political reality to enable them to reap ‘If it Bleads, it Leads’ financial profits from consequent political violence, such as the Magoo's bombing, by McBride. This argument is supported by among others Dr. Maher's study: How and Why Journalists Avoid Population – Environment connection; and Rev. John Gogotya, in ANC: VIP’s of Violence: “The moderate blacks were not selling the papers. We were presenting a non-violent strategy, that did not say ‘Burn, baby Burn’. A strategy that said people must come together and sit down around a negotiating table. And this is not sensational stuff; it does not sell the papers.”
The Radical Honesty SA Amicus Curiae and argument were totally censored by the South African media in all its news reports about the Citizen/McBride case before the Constitutional Court.
Radical Honesty SA filed complaints to the Press Council Ombudsman against all the publications, all the way up to the Press Appeals Panel. The Press Ombudsman and Press Appeals Panel endorsed the media publication's censorship of the Radical Honesty SA Amicus, and its arguments from the South African people's right to know.
Radical Honesty SA then filed an application for direct access to the Constitutional Court to review the rulings of the Press Council's decisions, which endorsed the media's censorship of the Amicus and its Population Policy Common Sense arguments.
The Application for Review also requests the Constitutional Court to review the conduct of SANEF’s Press Council’s administrative procedures, in regards to their commitment, or not, to transparency, accurate record keeping, scientific journalism and public accountability. Among others to require the Press Council to publicize the information about all cases filed with the Press Council, including all cases refused a hearing by the Ombudsman, and/or refused appeals by the Press Council Appeals Panel (for past and future decisions), to be made publicly and transparently available on the Press Council website, including all parties arguments in accordance with Wikileaks scientific journalism principles.
It also requests the court to review the Media's repudiation of scientific journalism and censorship of root cause problem solving regarding the psycho-political and socio-cultural consequences of how sincere forgiveness vs fake forgiveness affects the common law ‘reasonable reader’, 'reasonable citizen', 'reasonable justice system', 'reasonable politicians'; etc.; as detailed in Dr. Brad Blanton’s expert witness affidavits to the Cape High Court and Constitutional Courts: Radical Honesty About Anger and Forgiveness
Media 24 Respondents have filed their Notice to Abide, on behalf of: CITY PRESS (16); FERIAL HAFFAJEE (17) ANDREW TRENCH (21); NEWS 24 (36), JANNIE MOMBERG (37); BEELD (50); TIM DU PLESSIS (51); DAILY SUN (52); THEMBA KHUMALO (53); DIE BURGER (54); HENRY JEFFERY (55); BUN BOOYSEN (56); FINWEEK (61); COLLEEN NAUDE (62); RAPPORT (69); LISA ALBRECHT (70); VOLKSBLAD (77); AINSLEY MOOS (78).
The other 70 respondents have yet to provide notice of their decisions.
Blacklist endorsed by Tutu
Meanwhile Johnstone wrote to Archbishop Desmond Tutu to ask him why he was endorsing the Media's blacklist of TRC FRAUD critics and evidence? Johnstone writes:
Channel Four News: Population Explosion is the cause of Third World Poverty
In 1868, whites were 50% of the population and blacks and coloureds were 50% of the South African population. The majority of white people chose to focus their lives on getting an education, keeping a job, and only procreating children once they were in a committed loving relationship. They focussed on concentrating their wealth, by saving their earnings and investing it, what is known as financial personal responsibility. Blacks - and coloureds to a lesser extent - on the other hand chose to focus their lives on avoiding getting an education, and instead on breeding as many children by as many partners as possible, avoid committing to one loving relationship, and avoid saving and concentrating their wealth. What they earned was predominantly spent at the bottle store, in a yet further search to totally avoid taking personal responsibility for their misery.
Imagine if the ANC had been sincere about liberating Black Africans out of their poverty and misery, it could simply have started a non-violent cultural campaign to educate them to change their values: to value the importance of education, the importance of avoiding procreating until married in a committed loving relationship; the importance of concentrating wealth by saving, the importance of small committed families, dedicated to nurturing their children, to accept personal responsibility for their lives. If more Africans had adopted these value systems, they would have had no problem lifting themselves out of poverty, without any help from any white person, and they would not be suffering from any inferiority complexes as a result of BEE policies. They would know they earned their worth, by studying and hard work. They would also have sent the Apartheid voters and government a strong message that Africans were starting to take personal responsibility for their families, for how they breed, for their children's future, that such responsibility was worthy of national political suffrage reward for those individuals. They would have said – we are willing to take personal responsibility for our children’s future, by our actions, and we prove this to you, we are worthy of the vote.
If the ANC had done that: South Africa would currently be populated by 10 million people, 50% whites, and 50% blacks and coloureds, the majority of them educated, middle class and from small loving families. It would be a country similar to any in Europe demographically and politically and socio-culturally.
Instead the ANC chose to instruct their poor black Africans to conduct a breeding war, and so South Africa sits with millions of poor black Africans in thousands of squatter camps, all with inferiority complexes, thanks to the decision-making of black political and religious ‘leaders’. The ANC decided to encourage blacks to breed like rabbits, to keep them in misery and poverty, because they could blame the poor blacks poverty and misery on apartheid and whites, and the more blacks bred more poverty-stricken black babies, the more their leaders could blame the poverty and misery on apartheid and whites. And the more blacks avoided taking personal responsibility, the less able they are to help themselves, the greater grew their inferiority complexes. So the cycle of poverty and misery and inferiority complexes continued, thanks to ANC decision-making, all conveniently blamed on Apartheid and whites. You lie to them, bribe them to breed to keep them in poverty, so that you can blame their poverty on apartheid and white people!
As of date there has been no response from Archbishop Tutu.
Scientific Journalism Sources:
CCT 23-10: Citizen v. McBride
- Radical Honesty Amicus Curiae Heads of Argument (PDF)
- Affidavit of Brad Blanton, Ph.D, evidencing the legal, psychological, and socio-political ‘citizens privilege’, Nuremberg Principles skills and competencies of Individual Responsibility, required for acts of civil disobedience to perceived illegitimate authority; and their application to the common law ‘reasonableness test’ (PDF)
- Statement of Consent by Dr. T. Michael Maher to testify as expert witness for How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection and Media Framing and Salience of the Population Issue (PDF)
CCT 06-11: Radical Honesty & Others v. SANEF & Others
- DIRECT ACCESS: Notice of Motion (PDF); Founding Affidavit (PDF); Proof of Service Affidavit (PDF); Evidentiary Emails (PDF)
- CONDONATION: Notice of Motion & Affidavit (PDF); Proof of Service Affidavit (PDF); Evidentiary Emails (PDF)
- RESPONDENTS: Notice to Abide from Media 24 Respondents (PDF)
- SA Concourt: Was ANC's 'liberation struggle' a Just War, or Spectacular Fraud?
- Archbishop Tutu announces retirement after TRC fraud allegations
- Radical Honesty SA v. SANEF Press Council, et al: Radical Honesty takes 88 SA Media Elite to Concourt for Censorship of Media Corruption
- Peak Oil & Ecological Overshoot raised in SA Constitutional Court Media Corruption case
- CCT # 06-11: Concourt to review SANEF censorship of TRC Fraud & Ecolaw Media Corruption
- Open Letter to Archbishop Desmond Tutu: Why do you endorse blacklisting of Concourt TRC Fraud Critics and Evidence? (PDF)
Woman wants editors in ConCourt over censorship
News 24 / SAPA
Johannesburg - A Western Cape woman is hoping to take 88 editors and journalism professors to the Constitutional Court on the grounds that they are censoring her.
She also accuses them of being part of what she describes as her persecution as a "Radical Honesty White Refugee".
The SA Press Association and its editor, Mark van der Velden, are listed as sixth and seventh respondents respectively.
Some of the editors are also guilty of bribery by not reporting on her issues, Lara Johnstone contends.
The papers she submitted detail lengthy unsuccessful attempts at getting editors to respond to or report on her assertions that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was a fake and a fraudulent public relations "stunt".
This, she submits in her papers, is because no true peace or healing or advocacy of human rights can be achieved unless ecological and sustainability issues are properly addressed - most notably population control.
Interest of honesty
As the only representative of the group Radical Honesty SA in South Africa, she says that the group, whose leader is a Dr Brad Blanton in the US, also known as "the pope of the futilitarian church" advocates true forgiveness through non-stop face-to-face contact working through an issue until it is resolved.
According to Blanton's teachings on his website, this may include using speech considered offensive, in the interests of honesty.
She has previously submitted a "friends of the court" application to the Constitutional Court which was to decide whether Robert McBride can still be called a murderer - given that he was given amnesty by the TRC for his part in the bombing of the Magoo's bar in Durban during apartheid.
The object of a "friends of the court" application is to be of assistance to the court in deliberating a matter and to raise legal arguments that might help the judges.
Johnstone was unhappy that her written submission was given no coverage in the press and refers to this as censorship.
In that submission she argued that the Citizen newspaper which referred to him as a murderer, and judges who dealt with McBride who was challenging this, were confused because they did not realise the TRC was a fake.
Her theories are based on sustainability "ecolaw" issues and until these are resolved she considers other efforts at promoting or advancing human rights is futile.
In the McBride case she said the TRC had also made no attempt to find out how much of apartheid violence was actually caused by rapid population growth "colliding" with scarce natural resources.
This included what she termed the ANC's "breeding war policies".
McBride also apparently suffered from "battered TRC fraud syndrome" and that only a "social forgiveness contract" would work in South Africa, she continued.
Johnstone made another eleventh-hour "friends of the court" application to the "Reitz Four" case of student racist abuse before judgment in Bloemfontein last year.
In that matter she included her complaint that the media had censored her submission to the McBride case, the contents of which may have been relevant to the Reitz case, "had they been aware of it".
She revisited her argument about the "fake" TRC and wanted the court to clarify whether the defendants belonged to different cultures.
She questioned whether their counsel had told them of their constitutional rights to invoke cultural law and for the presiding officer to decide which legal system applied to them in the matter.
Johnstone believed the media's "censorship" of her organisation's concerns about the earth's sustainability would lead to instability and anarchy.
She is also unhappy that various complaints about media coverage and non coverage have not been heeded by the press ombudsman and she wants the court to have the ombudsman's decisions reviewed.
Johnstone's complaint against Sapa's editor Mark van der Velden relates in part to Independent Democrats' leader Patricia de Lille's crimen injuria complaint against her.
Aids is man-made
She had been trying to get various newspaper representatives and politicians to act on information she had that she said claimed that Aids was man-made.
According to lengthy background she provides on one of several websites she uses, including one called "media prosetitutes (sic), at times using different names which include Lara Braveheart and Andrea Muhrrtuyn, she had not been getting anyone to act on important information she had.
She then allegedly sent racially offensive SMSes to De Lille which led to De Lille laying the complaint and her having to go to court to defend herself.
According to a reporter covering the case for Sapa, an orderly told the presiding officer Johnstone was being hostile and would not go up to court leading to a warning that she might have to go for psychiatric evaluation if she continued in that fashion.
Johnstone writes on her website that the reason she did not go up was because there was no proper warrant for her arrest, and that this also meant she did not have to participate in an interview with a psychologist she was supposed to have seen.
She felt that Sapa refused to correct the report to give her side of the story, and accused Sapa of lies and fraud on the grounds of its slogan "if Sapa knows ... South Africa knows".
The press ombudsman would also not help with this, she submits.
Government punishing her
Van der Velden commented that Sapa's response at the time to Johnstone, in 2009, was that the news agency had reported, in good faith, on information available in the court and from authorised court officials.
Johnstone believes the law of crimen injuria is "ridiculous" and dates back to a belief in curses from witches.
Johnstone says the government is deliberately punishing her for her beliefs and asked editors for their comment on whether they objected to her "legal and political persecution by De Lille and the [National Prosecuting Authority]".
Many ignored her or said they were not going to comment.
In her papers to the Constitutional Court, she states that she made and later withdrew a complaint against the "Green Scorpions" because the Sunday Times was not publishing her views.
The bribery allegation is because "Sanef editors' conspiracy to censor the details of the Radical Honesty SA Amicus before the ConCourt from the people of South Africa, are an unlawful and intentional indirect offer to state officials (the ConCourt Justices, and other SA TRC elite politicians whose reputations would prefer the contents of the Radical Honesty SA Amicus to the ConCourt to remain censored) to pressure and/or bribe the justices with the opportunity to ignore the Radical Honesty SA Amicus in their deliberations, as if its arguments and allegations do not exist, because its contents have been censored from public discourse; in return for such officials' consideration in return for action or inaction in their official capacities."
Johnstone intends representing herself if granted access, because she believes there is no legal counsel in South Africa with the ability to understand her theories.
» » » » [News 24] [Mail & Guardian] [The New Age]