Note to Readers:

Please Note: The editor of White Refugee blog is a member of the Ecology of Peace culture.

Summary of Ecology of Peace Problem Solving: The problems of poverty, unemployment, war, crime, violence, food shortages, food price increases, inflation, police brutality, political instability, loss of civil rights, vanishing species, garbage and pollution, urban sprawl, traffic jams, toxic waste, racism, sexism, Nazism, Islamism, feminism, Zionism etc; are the ecological overshoot consequences of humans living in accordance to a Masonic War is Peace international law social contract that provides humans the ‘right to breed and consume’ with total disregard for ecological carrying capacity limits.

Ecology of Peace factual reality: 1. Earth is not flat; 2. Resources are finite; 3. When humans breed or consume above ecological carrying capacity limits, it results in resource conflict; 4. If individuals, families, tribes, races, religions, and/or nations want to reduce class, racial and/or religious local, national and international resource war conflict; they should cooperate to implement an Ecology of Peace international law social contract that restricts all the worlds citizens to breed and consume below ecological carrying capacity limits; to sustainably protect and conserve natural resources.

EoP v WiP NWO negotiations are documented at MILED Clerk Notice.

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

[III] “You DUMB FUCK, stupid, uneducated, undereducated.. YOU ARE A RACIST” - Adv. JP van der Veen





‘I challenge you to send this e mail to 50 universities' philosophy departments. Ask them if I am wrong. Go ahead. I dare you.’ - Adv. JP van der Veen

Q to Adv. van der Veen: If you are 'wrong'; should you lose all your educational philosophy degrees; your right to practice law; and make a public apology to Dr. Braun?

If you are 'right'; should these philosophy departments make an official submission to the United Nations, to appoint you as the World's Philosophy 'Racism' Czar?



02 March 2011
Andrea Muhrrteyn
Why We Are White Refugees



In Rainbow Hypocrisy SA
To be, or not to be; a Racist
is no different than
In Anti-Apartheid Struggle SA
To be, or not to be; a Witch

A legal definition of 'racist'
is as irrelevant, as
a legal definition of 'witch'

For legal definitions require factual evidence
to prove guilt or innocence
for 'racism' or 'witchcraft'

And innocence is problematic
for the practitioners of
ANC Occult Struggle Witchhunt Politics



In a recent Google search, I came across a blog called the Troublemaker Times, written by “a lawyer, a dreamer, a writer, an atheist” JP aka The Troublemaker Times “(educated, part time faggot, jew wanna be, kaffir lover, friend to niggers and white as the driven snow).”

The most popular post on his blog is, a criticism of (in my interpretation) insincere liberals, in A Tribute to Winnie Mandela or Welcome Back to our Politics, we missed you Mamma Afrika, wherein he concludes his appreciation of Winnie with “welcome back Mamma Africa, we missed you. Thank you, for liberating us, with just a box of matches!” (Note: I differentiate between sincere and insincere liberals and conservatives. I have no problem with sincere liberals or conservatives, i.e. those who sincerely hold their beliefs, based upon the information available to them, who are willing to hear contradictory information, and if the contradictory evidence is of sufficient weight to change their minds/beliefs. I have little time for insincere (fake) fundamentalist dogmatic liberals or conservatives.)

Adv. JP seems to think that in this wonderful new 'democracy' brought to us by Mama Afrika's Anti-Apartheid Movement (sic), also known as the KGB's foremost Stalinist Front; the Supreme Court of Appeal is committed to Descartian Rule of Law principles of Evidence. For an Advocate, he is blisfully in denial about an entire Justice System, where political cases are given KANGAROO COURT RUBBER STAMPS, where Descartian Rule of Law EVIDENCE IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.

Anyway, so on 09 April 2009, JP wrote a post: An open letter to my black president, from a long time white supporter or could you possibly fire Mike Sutcliffe.

JP is a friend of Jacob Zuma's son, Duduzane. JP was very involved in Zuma's election efforts, and one of Zuma's aide's had informed him that “its good to have a white boy like you here, very good, but don’t be mistaken, you are far from the only one....... While white people are very important, particularly as a stabilizing force in our country, they have become, other than that, in political terms, largely irrelevant.”

JP wanted Zuma to change the ANC's decision to deny white South Africans their historical South African history, which the ANC seem hell bent on eradicating as if it never existed.

Doberman, from I Luv SA; but I Hate My Goverment, wrote a response thereto (since deleted); wherein he described JP's letter to Zuma as “the pitiful level some whites have reached… pass me a bucket.” Doberman described JP's letter to Zuma as “Sir, sir, sir all the time. Sheesh, why not just say “Baas” My Kroon Zuma, My big navigator, I am begging for scraps, ‘semblief my baas… Se moer! That is why I left Azania, I REFUSE to go on my knees.”

JP took serious offense, and responded with: Klu Klux Klanning Around – The South African Franchise or Have you Met the Idiots at I luv SA, but I hate my Government.

I read JP's Klu Klux Klanning article, and sent him my perspective feedback: asking him to provide his definition of 'racism/racist'. The following is the verbatim text of our correspondence: [I] “You DUMB FUCK, stupid, uneducated, undereducated.. YOU ARE A RACIST” - Adv. JP van der Veen. Adv. van der Veen then indicated he had nothing further to say, and it was posted. He then changed his mind. Part II is here. This is Part III.


From: JP Vanderveen; Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 8:50 PM

Dear Madam

Unlike you, I have read Voltaire, I have a degree in philosophy, from one of those "boring" universities you so readily trash for your hard knocks,(a couple actually) and your somewhat perverse interpretation of linguistics which you twist into a volley ball match of definitions. I have, I confess been baiting you. I have insulted you to get to see the real you. Ha, it has worked nevertheless.

What can I say?

At the end of the day, madam, you have no credibility in intellectual circles, you haven't read, you haven't been tested. Your rabid responses and quick bites to what are obviously tactical baiting have revealed all.

So without further ado, whilst you may practice linguistics without reading Chomsky.
Analyze history without glancing at Foucault
Talk about meaning without knowing who Derrida or Wittgenstein is.
Spit about Voltaire, without knowing French.
Elevate crackpots like Braun with no consideration of Hume.
Mock Academics as boring and useless.
All whilst praising your hard knocks school of back pack travel and racism.
And quote things about "kaffirs"

And then say you are not a racist.
And that racism is not violent or hateful.


You do so on your own.

I challenge you to send this e mail to 50 universities' philosophy departments.

Ask them if I am wrong.

Go ahead.

I dare you.


From: JP Vanderveen; Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 11:14 PM

Ps on Voltaire:

In his last illness he sent for Dr. Tronchin. When the Doctor came, he found Voltaire in the greatest agony, exclaiming with the utmost horror -- "I am abandoned by God and man." He then said, "Doctor, I will give you half of what I am worth, if you will give me six months' life." The doctor answered, "Sir, you cannot live six weeks." Voltaire replied, "Then I shall go to hell, and you will go with me!" and soon after expired.

LOL



From: JP Vanderveen; Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 11:15 PM

You too, are abandoned by God and man.


From: JP Vanderveen; Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 11:49 PM

However, by and large, the most astonishing claim that you make is that everyone can have their own definition of words. You constantly say things like, "my understanding of" X " may not be the same of your understanding of " X.

This is laughable.

I suppose it depends on what your definition of "is"

All the words I use are in the Oxford dictionary.

Twit!!


From: JP Vanderveen; Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 11:50 PM

sorry what your definition of "is" is.


From: Lara Johnstone; Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 12:10 PM

Adv. Van der Veen,

QUESTIONS: REQUESTS FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION:

* Where did I provide you with a 'rabid response'?

* Where did I say I 'practice linguistics'?

* Where did I 'spit about Voltaire'?

* Where did I 'praise racism'?

* Where did I say that 'racism is not violent or hateful'?

* Is Lenny Bruce being violent, racist and hateful in:
Are there any niggers here tonight?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOnkv76rNL4

* Does context matter: i.e. is it important to only consider the words used, according to the listener's definition, and not the speakers; or to consider the speakers definition and meaning, and the context wherein they are used, to interpret the accurate meaning of the message being conveyed?


MEANING AND UNDERSTANDING OF 'IS':

The definition of 'is' has been debated for many years by those interested in living in the here and now reality. There is even a Zen Koan, "What is 'is'?" There are quite a few different interpretations of what 'is' is; in fact.

According to the Sufi's, the meanings of what 'is' is; differ depending on the level of consciousness you are at, at the given time in which you consider the meaning of 'is'.

Your current response would be on the lowest level of consciousness; known as the level of belief; where about 92% of humanity spend about 92% of their lives, in terms of consciousness.

The understanding and meaning of what 'is' is; would accordingly be very different for someone whose consciousness is at the level of belief, to someone whose consciousness is at the level of pure reason.

That is simply one example of different perspectives to the meaning of 'is'. I am sure there are many other examples.

So, I imagine it depends on the context of the discussion wherein 'is' was used.

Unless you consider context irrelevant.


LIFE EXPERIENCE AND CONSCIOUSNESS DETERMINE WORDS MEANINGS:

You think that everyone should have the same meaning about any word as you do. Hence if they use any word which could have multiple meanings, you don't verify with them what THEIR meaning is; cause according to you it SHOULD be EXACTLY THE SAME AS YOURS.

I am of the opinion that every single person I meet has had thier own life experiences, which contributed a great deal to the meaning they attach to words they communicate. Consequently any abstract word they use, is charged with their life experiences meaning; and a result of their level of consciousness.

So when I come across someone who uses an abstract term, particularly one where they wish to demonize another group of people, and want me to join in their little mobjustice bigotry game of witchhunting; then I ask them to define what they mean and provide the evidence.

So I asked you to provide your definition and the results of your impartial enquiry. Your response was very enlightening.

It reminded me of a ditty written by a great friend philosopher of mine:

Troubled Truth

I have a lot of trouble with the truth
My problem is that
When I think I have the truth
I believe the truth I think I have
And never think
To doubt it.


It is one thing reading Voltaire, to impress your dinner party guests with your university philosophy titles; it is quite another to practice Voltaire's courage to doubt, 24 hours of a day, 365 days a year!

Capiche? ;-)


DIFFERENT MEANINGS FOR ABSTRACT TERMS:

When you refer to one and one only meaning for any abstract word. I referred you to Abstract, Concrete, General, and Specific Terms, by John Friedlander, associate professor in the English department at Southwest Tennessee Community College. What did you not understand about:

ABSTRACT, CONCRETE, SPECIFIC TERMS

Abstract terms refer to ideas or concepts; they have no physical referents.

[Stop right here and reread that definition. Many readers will find it both vague and boring. Even if you find it interesting, it may be hard to pin down the meaning. To make the meaning of this abstract language clearer, we need some examples.]

Examples of abstract terms include love, success, freedom, good, moral, democracy, and any -ism (chauvinism, Communism, feminism, racism, sexism). These terms are fairly common and familiar, and because we recognize them we may imagine that we understand them—but we really can't, because the meanings won't stay still.

Take love as an example. You've heard and used that word since you were three or four years old. Does it mean to you now what it meant to you when you were five? when you were ten? when you were fourteen (!)? I'm sure you'll share my certainty that the word changes meaning when we marry, when we divorce, when we have children, when we look back at lost parents or spouses or children. The word stays the same, but the meaning keeps changing.

If I say, "love is good," you'll probably assume that you understand, and be inclined to agree with me. You may change your mind, though, if you realize I mean that "prostitution should be legalized" [heck, love is good!].

How about freedom? The word is familiar enough, but when I say, "I want freedom," what am I talking about? divorce? self-employment? summer vacation? paid-off debts? my own car? looser pants? The meaning of freedom won't stay still. Look back at the other examples I gave you, and you'll see the same sorts of problems.

Does this mean we shouldn't use abstract terms? No—we need abstract terms. We need to talk about ideas and concepts, and we need terms that represent them. But we must understand how imprecise their meanings are, how easily they can be differently understood, and how tiring and boring long chains of abstract terms can be. Abstract terms are useful and necessary when we want to name ideas (as we do in thesis statements and some paragraph topic sentences), but they're not likely to make points clear or interesting by themselves.

Concrete terms refer to objects or events that are available to the senses. [This is directly opposite to abstract terms, which name things that are not available to the senses.] Examples of concrete terms include spoon, table, velvet eye patch, nose ring, sinus mask, green, hot, walking. Because these terms refer to objects or events we can see or hear or feel or taste or smell, their meanings are pretty stable. If you ask me what I mean by the word spoon, I can pick up a spoon and show it to you. [I can't pick up a freedom and show it to you, or point to a small democracy crawling along a window sill. I can measure sand and oxygen by weight and volume, but I can't collect a pound of responsibility or a liter of moral outrage.]

While abstract terms like love change meaning with time and circumstances, concrete terms like spoon stay pretty much the same. Spoon and hot and puppy mean pretty much the same to you now as they did when you were four.

You may think you understand and agree with me when I say, "We all want success." But surely we don't all want the same things. Success means different things to each of us, and you can't be sure of what I mean by that abstract term. On the other hand, if I say "I want a gold Rolex on my wrist and a Mercedes in my driveway," you know exactly what I mean (and you know whether you want the same things or different things). Can you see that concrete terms are clearer and more interesting than abstract terms?

If you were a politician, you might prefer abstract terms to concrete terms. "We'll direct all our considerable resources to satisfying the needs of our constituents" sounds much better than "I'll spend $10 million of your taxes on a new highway that will help my biggest campaign contributor." But your goal as a writer is not to hide your real meanings, but to make them clear, so you'll work to use fewer abstract terms and more concrete terms.

Abstract, Concrete, General, and Specific Terms, by John Friedlander, associate professor in the English department at Southwest Tennessee Community College
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/composition/abstract.htm



DIFFERENT MEANINGS FOR RACISM/RACIST:

My understanding and definition and meaning for 'racism' is not the same as yours.

I am totally aware you consider me a 'racist', according to YOUR definition of 'racist'. That’s fine.

Even according to your definition, you are hardly interested in impartial enquiry; so your decision to apply the pejorative label, to justify your denigration and hate, had nothing resembling a fair professional enquiry.

According to Dr. Braun's definition of racist, I am not a racist.

It does not bother me whether anyone thinks I am a 'racist' or not. I don't care whether other people consider Tim, or Tom 'racist'. I prefer to speak to Tim and Tom, and find out why and how they think what they think. What their life experiences were. I don't make judgements about whether they are 'racist' or not. I find it a waste of time. The only time I end up talking about the issue of 'racist' is with people such as yourself, who seem to want to do everything possible to avoid discussing anything else.

When people such as yourself want to accuse another of 'racism', and want me to join your mob of bigots; then I require you to provide me with your definition of 'racist', and how you made an impartial enquiry into whether they were 'racist' or not. If you can't provide either, or if your enquiry is a witchhunt; then its clear what your intentions are.

You wish to avoid addressing the issues they talk about, perhaps because you lack the contrarion evidence to prove their evidence incorrect; so you resort to name calling and the race card.

Ad honimem attacks, I believe its called by some.

So, if you want to consider me a 'racist'; by all means go ahead.


OTHER QUESTIONS YOU HAVE YET TO ANSWER:

I have asked you repeatedly to provide the evidence for your allegations. I am still waiting. Here are a few questions I asked, in response to your allegations:

* I thought you said Goodbye?

* Where did I say, I hate blacks?

* To whom have I ever been hateful?

* Where have I been evil?

* When have I ever been violent?

* Ever heard of sensate understanding?

* Why do you remain a member of such a fascist culture, that declares anyone a lunatic, if they don't 'UNDERSTAND' (another abstract concept) the exact meaning of an abstract word (with multiple meanings), used by another one of your members? Do you expect your culture's members to be psychic?

* Who said that I am a white refugee because of a conspiracy of black people?

* Failure??? According to what definition of 'failure'?

* What do you think 'whiteness' means to me?

* You think black people should not be held to the same standards as white people, cause they are incapable of being held to the same standards, so their incompetence should simply be ignored and anyone who points it out should be demonized as a 'racist'?

* Well, its nice to know you consider a religion with no rapists or murderers, where members resolve their misunderstandings and disagreements face to face and honourably non-violently as a 'litter box religion'. Hmm, so what do you think of all the other religions then?

* Ever heard of active listening? I don't respond to prove superiority; but to listen and share. You ever tried to do that?

* I don't hate Nazis, whether black or white, racists, or stupid men. What would be the point?

* What about Susan Blackmore? "Why do you believe in a self that does not exist? Someone may yet explain this in evolutionary terms, but at least superficially it appears pointless. Why construct a false idea of self, with all its mechanisms protecting self-esteem and its fear of failure and loss, when from the biological point of view it is the body that needs protecting. Note that if you thought of yourself as the entire organism there would be no problem, but you don’t - rather, you seem to believe in a separate self; something that is in charge of the body; something that has to be protected for its own sake. I bet if I asked you "Which would you rather lose - your body or your mind?" you wouldn’t spend long deciding." -- Waking from the Meme Dream; Paper presented at: The Psychology of Awakening: International Conference on Buddhism, Science and Psychotherapy Dartington 7-10 November 1996


50 UNIVERSITY CHALLENGE ON 'RIGHT' VS. 'WRONG':

I have no objections to our verbatim correspondence being sent to 50 universities philosophy departments, to determine whether you are 'wrong' or 'right'.

Would you mind clarifying your definition for 'right' and 'wrong'?

Which proposition/s exactly do you wish to be 'right' about; in the context of this discussion?

This one: "You DUMB FUCK, let me explain to your stupid, uneducated, undereducated, and arrogant self. If you believe that RACE is a defining characteristic in term of human value, YOU ARE A RACIST."

Or shall we ask the 50 University Philosophy Departments whether the Radical Honesty SA 'Kaffir' definitions, submitted to the SA Constitutional Court are 'racist', as you allege; or 'not':

[e] Radical Honesty SA definitions of the word ‘Kaffir’, relevant to this matter:

[i] ‘Kaffir Behaviour’: Cultural Beliefs and Procreation Behaviour Definition:

Individuals who either independently or as a result of their cultural value systems, are incapable of, or unwilling to, practice sexual restraint and procreation responsibility; who consequently breed cockroach-prolifically without personal financial or psychological responsibility to, or emotional concern for, their offspring; and/or who abuse women and children as sexual or economic slaves procreated for such purpose; and/or whose cultural ideal of manhood endorses non-consensual sex (rape) as their sexual slavery entitlement, etc.


[ii] ‘Kaffir Etymology’: Original Etymological Definition for ‘Kaffir’:

The word kāfir is the active participle of the Semitic root K-F-R “to cover”. As a pre-Islamic term it described farmers burying seeds in the ground, covering them with soil while planting; as they till the earth and “cover up” the seeds; which is why earth tillers are referred to as “Kuffar.” Thus, the word kāfir implies the meaning “a person who hides or covers”; To conceal, deny, hide or cover the truth.


[iii] ‘Kaffir Legislation’ = Inalienable Right to Breed’ Poverty, Misery and War legislation; pretending it advocates for ‘peace’ and ‘human rights’.

Kaffir Law/Legislation provides citizens with the Inalienable ‘Right to Breed’, but demands that Citizens need a Licence to Own a Gun, a Licence to Drive a Car, a Licence to Practice Law, a television licence, a credit licence, a licence to earn a living, a university exemption licence, a licence to fish, a licence to hunt, a liquor licence, a business licence, a marriage licence, etc, etc.

Kaffir Legislation covers up that an ‘Inalienable Right to Breed/laissez-faire birth control policy + No Social Welfare policies or practices provides for an equilibrium carrying capacity; whereas Inalienable Right to Breed/laissez-faire birth control within a welfare state, results in Runaway Growth, and ultimately greater misery, poverty and war .


Or what exactly do you want to be 'right'; and not 'wrong' about?

How important is it for you to be 'right'; and not 'wrong'?

For example:

If you are 'wrong'; should you lose all your educational philosophy degrees; your right to practice law; and make a public apology to Dr. Braun?

If you are 'right'; should these philosophy departments make an official submission to the United Nations, to appoint you as the World's Philosophy 'Racism' Czar?

Lara


From: JP Vanderveen; Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 1:55 PM

It depends on what your definition if "is" is .... this is a reference
to Bill Clinton ... it was rhetorical.
I don't try and impress with degrees at dinner parties.
You misunderstand "ad hominem"

The rest as they say is history.


From: Lara Johnstone; Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 3:37 PM

So you would like to retract your dare?

You are not interested in enquiring from 50 Philosophy Departments whether my definitions of KAFFIR are racist or not as you allege they are???

Scared you may be 'wrong'??????


I REPEAT MY OFFER:

50 UNIVERSITY CHALLENGE ON 'RIGHT' VS. 'WRONG':

I have no objections to our verbatim correspondence being sent to 50 universities philosophy departments, to determine whether you are 'wrong' or 'right'.

Would you mind clarifying your definition for 'right' and 'wrong'?

Which proposition/s exactly do you wish to be 'right' about; in the context of this discussion?

This one: "You DUMB FUCK, let me explain to your stupid, uneducated, undereducated, and arrogant self. If you believe that RACE is a defining characteristic in term of human value, YOU ARE A RACIST."

Or shall we ask the 50 University Philosophy Departments whether the Radical Honesty SA 'Kaffir' definitions, submitted to the SA Constitutional Court are 'racist', as you allege; or 'not':

[e] Radical Honesty SA definitions of the word ‘Kaffir’, relevant to this matter:

[i] ‘Kaffir Behaviour’: Cultural Beliefs and Procreation Behaviour Definition:

Individuals who either independently or as a result of their cultural value systems, are incapable of, or unwilling to, practice sexual restraint and procreation responsibility; who consequently breed cockroach-prolifically without personal financial or psychological responsibility to, or emotional concern for, their offspring; and/or who abuse women and children as sexual or economic slaves procreated for such purpose; and/or whose cultural ideal of manhood endorses non-consensual sex (rape) as their sexual slavery entitlement, etc.

[ii] ‘Kaffir Etymology’: Original Etymological Definition for ‘Kaffir’:

The word kāfir is the active participle of the Semitic root K-F-R “to cover”. As a pre-Islamic term it described farmers burying seeds in the ground, covering them with soil while planting; as they till the earth and “cover up” the seeds; which is why earth tillers are referred to as “Kuffar.” Thus, the word kāfir implies the meaning “a person who hides or covers”; To conceal, deny, hide or cover the truth.


[iii] ‘Kaffir Legislation’ = Inalienable Right to Breed’ Poverty, Misery and War legislation; pretending it advocates for ‘peace’ and ‘human rights’.

Kaffir Law/Legislation provides citizens with the Inalienable ‘Right to Breed’, but demands that Citizens need a Licence to Own a Gun, a Licence to Drive a Car, a Licence to Practice Law, a television licence, a credit licence, a licence to earn a living, a university exemption licence, a licence to fish, a licence to hunt, a liquor licence, a business licence, a marriage licence, etc, etc.

Kaffir Legislation covers up that an ‘Inalienable Right to Breed/laissez-faire birth control policy + No Social Welfare policies or practices provides for an equilibrium carrying capacity; whereas Inalienable Right to Breed/laissez-faire birth control within a welfare state, results in Runaway Growth, and ultimately greater misery, poverty and war .


Or what exactly do you want to be 'right'; and not 'wrong' about?

How important is it for you to be 'right'; and not 'wrong'?

For example:

If you are 'wrong'; should you lose all your educational philosophy degrees; your right to practice law; and make a public apology to Dr. Braun?

If you are 'right'; should these philosophy departments make an official submission to the United Nations, to appoint you as the World's Philosophy 'Racism' Czar?


From: JP Vanderveen; Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 3:38 PM

No the dare still stands you stupid fool.


From: JP Vanderveen; Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 3:41 PM

But they must be from the top 100 in the world. not the bottom 100.
Like the community college you quote.

Lets try Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Brown, Oxford, Cambridge, London School of Economics, MIT first.

JP


From: Lara Johnstone; Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 3:58 PM

So, what exactly do you want the Philosophy Departments to pronounce a verdict upon:

* That my definitions of KAFFIR submitted to the Concourt are racist; in accordance to Dr. Braun's definition of racist

Or what exactly?



From: JP Vanderveen; Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 7:13 PM

I tired of this.
Of you.
And the sheer arrogance.
And idiocy.
And Dr Braun.

Right now I promise never to contact you again.

Bye


From: JP Vanderveen; Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 7:50 PM

I'm sorry, I will go away after I get clarity on one last thing.

These definitions of "Kaffir" were submitted to the Constitutional Court of South Africa ? Is this true? If so, under which action were they submitted to the abovementioned Honourable Court ? How was locus established and of course which Judges looked at them and what did they say ?

In the mean time, I shall send an email to Mr Justice Edwin Cameron, to ask him what he thought.

JP


From: JP Vanderveen; Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 7:54 PM

Finally, I shall be publishing these emails as a piece entitled "Conversations with a racist."

Look out for it.

JP


From: JP Vanderveen; Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 8:18 PM

Oh sorry, I see now in your PDF document you are amicus curiae... well lets be silent now and wait for the court.



From: JP Vanderveen; Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 9:38 PM

I have reviewed everything and made the following decisions:

1 . I will not be publishing these conversations.
2. I disagree with you on almost everything.
3. I have not been taking you seriously, and I apologise for that.
4. There will be no more communication from me (Seriously.)
5. I think I understand your problem, you don't hate black people, you don't want to be a racist, but you find yourself unable to articulate what may very well be important issues.
6. I see these problems, and too I see the invidious situation one is placed in when one tries to engage them.
7. I think you are wrong, very wrong, in your premise.
8. That does not mean I don't think I could be wrong.

jp



From: Lara Johnstone; Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 9:39 PM

Court Order Attached.



From: Lara Johnstone; Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 9:41 PM

There are two applications before the Court.

The one was dismissed: CCT 06-11 (Direct access).
The other has not yet been ruled upon: CCT 23-10 (Amicus).



From: Lara Johnstone; Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 9:47 PM

You are welcome to publish the conversations. I have:

http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2011/02/you-dumb-fuck-stupid-uneducated.html
http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2011/02/ii-you-dumb-fuck-stupid-uneducated.html

Should I conclude, that you are retracting your challenge?

No apology require to me. You can apologise to yourself for your lack of honour, integrity and character to take part in conversations with people whom you don't take seriously.

I couldn't care less if anyone says I am a racist or a NAZI, or a Kaffir Lover, or whatever. If someone wants me to believe their allegation and label as true, then I require them to give me a definition of their label and how and where I fit the definition. If not, they are welcome to their BS allegation!

I may be wrong, but wrong in which premise???? I most certainly am not wrong about you HATING CLARITY OF LANGUAGE, AND AVOIDING PROVIDING EVIDENCE FOR YOUR ALLEGATIONS!



From: JP Vanderveen; Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 10:07 PM

You should conclude nothing



From: JP Vanderveen; Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 10:12 PM

Its curious though that your publication comes after my expression of intent. You really are predictable.

How could you possibly think I ever took you seriously.



From: Lara Johnstone; Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 11:22 PM

They were published on:

I thought you saw them, you said you had read the webpage, and for a few days, they were on the front page. I posted subsequent to the email, which I copied to Dr. Braun; sent: Fri 2/25/2011 9:15 AM, wherein I informed you that I am a member of Radical Honesty culture, and practice transparency:

>> PPS: I am a member of the Radical Honesty culture and religion (PDF attached); among others we practice transparency, as a matter of honour.

27 February: http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2011/02/ii-you-dumb-fuck-stupid-uneducated.html

25 February: http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2011/02/you-dumb-fuck-stupid-uneducated.html

Your expression of intent, I received today, on 01 March.

Does 01 March; come after 25 and 17 February?

ILuvSA have posted the links to them on their front page newsfeed, since 25 February, or thereabouts.


So, there you have Part III of your answer, or not; for why Adv. JP van der Veen, considers me a “DUMB FUCK, stupid, uneducated, undereducated.. RACIST”.

And no doubt you also understand why; in Mama Winnie Mandela's Hypocrisy on Steroids Rainbow South Africa; political cases are adjudicated by Street Committee KANGAROO COURT RUBBER STAMPS matches and necklaces jurisprudence; because Descartian Rule of Law EVIDENCE IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.

Disclosure: Andrea Muhrrteyn is the Why We Are White Refugees nom-de-plume for Lara Johnstone, from Radical Honesty SA. (For a background on ANC's Occult “Struggle” Politics; see: Africanisation of RSA: : Witchcraft and the State in South Africa).


No comments:

FLEUR-DE-LIS HUMINT :: F(x) Population Growth x F(x) Declining Resources = F(x) Resource Wars

KaffirLilyRiddle: F(x)population x F(x)consumption = END:CIV
Human Farming: Story of Your Enslavement (13:10)
Unified Quest is the Army Chief of Staff's future study plan designed to examine issues critical to current and future force development... - as the world population grows, increased global competition for affordable finite resources, notably energy and rare earth materials, could fuel regional conflict. - water is the new oil. scarcity will confront regions at an accelerated pace in this decade.
US Army: Population vs. Resource Scarcity Study Plan
Human Farming Management: Fake Left v. Right (02:09)
ARMY STRATEGY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT: Office of Dep. Asst. of the Army Environment, Safety and Occupational Health: Richard Murphy, Asst for Sustainability, 24 October 2006
2006: US Army Strategy for Environment
CIA & Pentagon: Overpopulation & Resource Wars [01] [02]
Peak NNR: Scarcity: Humanity’s Last Chapter: A Comprehensive Analysis of Nonrenewable Natural Resource (NNR) Scarcity’s Consequences, by Chris Clugston
Peak Non-Renewable Resources = END:CIV Scarcity Future
Race 2 Save Planet :: END:CIV Resist of Die (01:42) [Full]
FAIR USE NOTICE: The White Refugee blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to provide information for research and educational purposes, and advance understanding for the Canadian Immigration & Refugee Board's (IRB) ‘White Refugee’ ruling. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Copyright owners who object to the fair use of their copyright news reports, may submit their objections to White Refugee Blog at: [jmc.pa.tf(at)gmail(dot)com]