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 Radical Honoursty Factual Reality Problem Solving: Poverty, slavery, unemployment, food shortages, food inflation, cost of living increases, urban sprawl, traffic jams, toxic waste, pollution, peak oil, peak water, peak food, peak population, species extinction, loss of biodiversity, peak resources, racial, religious, class, gender resource war conflict, militarized police, psycho-social and cultural conformity pressures on free speech, etc; inter-cultural conflict; legal, political and corporate corruption, etc; are some of the socio-cultural and psycho-political consequences of overpopulation & consumption collision with declining resources.

Ecology of Peace RH 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 & sign their responsible freedom oaths; to implement Ecology of Peace Scientific and Cultural Law as international law; to require all citizens of all races, religions and nations to breed and consume below ecological carrying capacity limits.

EoP v WiP NWO negotiations are updated at EoP MILED Clerk.

Thursday, March 3, 2011

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

Confirmation of Receipt of Notice of Advocate Van der Veen's Meeting with Legal Resources Center (at the request of the Zuma family or ANC officials?) and other concerned people; to request LCR to file Hate Speech Charges against Why We Are White Refugees blogger: Lara Johnstone, Member of the Radical Honesty culture and religion

For publishing (1) the Opinions of Dr. Gedaliah Braun's interviews with black South Africans who say they were better off under Apartheid (White Rule); and (2) Radical Honesty SA's 3 definitions for the term 'Kaffir'; as per the Application for Direct Access to the SA Constitutional Court in CCT 06-11 (Radical Honesty & 1 Other vs. SANEF and 87 others), namely: [i] ‘Kaffir Behaviour’: Cultural Beliefs and Procreation Behaviour Definition; [ii] ‘Kaffir Etymology’: Original Etymological Definition for ‘Kaffir’; and [iii] ‘Kaffir Legislation’ = Inalienable Right to Breed’ Poverty, Misery and War legislation; pretending it advocates for ‘peace’ and ‘human rights’.

03 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. Part III here. Part IV here. This is Part V.

From: Lara Johnstone; Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 3:34 AM

Where did I call Bishop Tutu a Fraud?

I alleged that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was a fraud; based upon the Population Policy TRC FRAUD evidence as submitted in the Radical Honesty Amicus Curiae to the Concourt, a copy of which was honourably and transparently served upon (i) Archbishop Tutu personally, (ii) Nelson Mandela Foundation; (iii) FW de Klerk Foundation; and (iv) International Observers.

The Amicus Curiae was supported by the expert witness written statements of Dr. Brad Blanton, a world expert on sincere forgiveness and Dr. T. Michael Maher, a world expert on media censorship of population issues:

* Radical Honesty Amicus Curiae Heads of Argument

* 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’

* 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

How dare I? Am I not allowed to think for myself, to analyse information and conduct social science enquiries, and draw my own conclusions therefrom?

Am I not allowed to submit such conclusions for clarification to the TRC, and if no response is received from the TRC to other authorities?

I am not aware of anything I have done that is illegal, or in violation of any laws.

If you think there is anything I have done that is illegal or 'hate speech' as you allege, then you are entitled to that opinion.

I suspect that you -- perhaps at the behest of your ANC handlers? -- are simply hoping to use 'hate speech' to silence dissent of the ANC / Anti-Apartheid movements TRC social contract fraud; because the ANC don't want to tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about Apartheid, good and bad; only to exaggerate the bad; because they prefer to use apartheid as their pet scapegoat to persecute dissenting conservative whites/Afrikaners.

As a member of Radical Honesty culture, I always provide anyone who is angry with me, or whom I am angry with the opportunity to resolve such disagreement out of court, honourably and face to face. So, if you wish to do so, to express your opinions, and anger towards me, verbally as brutal as they may be, with a commitment to remaining in such conversation until sincere forgiveness occurs; then I invite you to release your anger and rage, until you find sincere forgiveness, if you wish.

If you prefer to resolve your disagreement, or anger towards me, for whatever you are angry with me about, via the Equality Court that is your prerogative.

My choice is always the former, in accordance to my cultural values.

From: Lara Johnstone; Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 4:17 AM
Subject: Adv Van der Veen (Zuma?) & Legal Resources Center: RE: Equality Court Hate Speech Allegations

Advocate JP van der Veen
Editor: Troublemaker Times

CC: Legal Resources Center
CC: Democratic Alliance
CC: Freedom Front Plus
CC: Archbishop Desmond Tutu
CC: Nelson Mandela Foundation
CC: FW de Klerk Foundation
CC: Inst. for Accountability in SA

Confirmation of Receipt of Notice of Advocate Van der Veen's Meeting with Legal Resources Center (at the request of the Zuma family or ANC officials?) and other concerned people; to request LCR to file Hate Speech Charges against Why We Are White Refugees blogger: Lara Johnstone, Member of the Radical Honesty culture and religion, for publishing (1) the Opinions of Dr. Gedaliah Braun's interviews with black South Africans who say they were better off under Apartheid (White Rule); and (2) Radical Honesty SA's 3 definitions for the term 'Kaffir'; as per the Application for Direct Access to the SA Constitutional Court in CCT 06-11 (Radical Honesty & 1 Other vs. SANEF and 87 others), namely: [i] ‘Kaffir Behaviour’: Cultural Beliefs and Procreation Behaviour Definition; [ii] ‘Kaffir Etymology’: Original Etymological Definition for ‘Kaffir’; and [iii] ‘Kaffir Legislation’ = Inalienable Right to Breed’ Poverty, Misery and War legislation; pretending it advocates for ‘peace’ and ‘human rights’.

The opinions of Dr. Gedaliah Braun's interviews with black South Africans who say they were better off under Apartheid (White Rule), were/are published at:

Gedaliah Braun's Hard Headed Look at Dark Continent

‘Blacks Must Have Black Rule Even If They Don’t Want It!’.....

Radical Honesty SA's 3 definitions for the term 'Kaffir'; as per the Application for Direct Access to the SA Constitutional Court in CCT 06-11 (Radical Honesty & 1 Other vs. SANEF and 87 others), namely: [i] ‘Kaffir Behaviour’: Cultural Beliefs and Procreation Behaviour Definition; [ii] ‘Kaffir Etymology’: Original Etymological Definition for ‘Kaffir’; and [iii] ‘Kaffir Legislation’ = Inalienable Right to Breed’ Poverty, Misery and War legislation; pretending it advocates for ‘peace’ and ‘human rights’; as published at:

Radical Honesty SA v. SANEF Press Council, et al: Radical Honesty takes 88 SA Media Elite to Concourt for Censorship of Media Corruption

CCT # 06-11: Concourt to review SANEF censorship of TRC Fraud & Ecolaw Media Corruption

[]: Understanding Masculine Insecurity Poverty Pimping: Population Production of Poverty & Violence Breeding Wars

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

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


Are you suggesting that it is 'hate speech' to print the honest opinions of black people who considered themselves better off under white Apartheid rule?

I had no idea that it could be considered HATE SPEECH to print poor black people's honest opinions about whether they favour black or white rule; such as those in conversations with Dr. Gedaliah Braun:

Apartheid Is Not ‘One Single Thing’

Ben is a Zulu, about 60, and works at a garage where I bought a used car; he’s been working there for 26 years and is a South African citizen. Ladybrand is in South Africa, across the border from Maseru, the capital of Lesotho (pronounced ‘Lesoothoo’), a small mountainous country completely surrounded by South Africa and where I taught from 1987-88.

As we drove to the border I asked what he thought about the trouble in South Africa. Did he want to see blacks take over? His answer was straightforward: No, he did not. ‘Our nation [i.e., blacks] is bad’. Why were they bad? I asked. Because they kill anyone who disagrees with them. Blacks could not run things; if they were in charge, nothing would work.

Does he ever go to Soweto. Often, he says; his family lives there. What do people there think about the ANC and black rule? Well, while many used to be for the ANC, this has changed because of ‘necklacings’ and suchlike. ‘If they are trying to help the black man, why are they killing so many blacks?’ he asked several times.

But then he began talking about how blacks were ‘oppressed’. I asked for examples; he said if a white man were to beat up a black employee, the police would do nothing. Suppose the boss was black and this happened under a black government? Would the police do anything then? No, he said; but at least you could fight back.

In South Africa a black man would be in big trouble if he hit his white boss.

He said that apartheid was bad, though it was changing. Before, blacks had always been separated from whites – separate toilets, entrances, queues, etc.. Everything should be the same for everyone, he said, since doing things separately meant whites didn’t like blacks.

Did that mean going to the same schools? Yes, he said. But since blacks were 80% of the population, whites would have to attend schools that were 80% black. Would such schools be very good? No, he quickly agreed. But how can you expect whites, who pay for the education of whites and blacks, to send their children to bad schools? He agreed you couldn’t. If everything should be the same, shouldn’t blacks be allowed to vote? Here he agreed with what he had said earlier: he was happy with whites running things and would not want to live in a country run by blacks.

By this time we were at the border post. He expressed great pleasure at our conversation and said he wished we could talk for two hours. I asked if he’d ever had such a conversation with a white man before and he said emphatically he had not, though he’d worked with them for years.

The upshot was that while against apartheid, he was not in favour of blacks voting and controlling the government, nor did he necessarily think everyone should all go to the same schools. He agreed that apartheid was not ‘one single thing’; some parts might be good and others bad. It is clear that many blacks who’ve been ‘persuaded’ that apartheid is bad and that they are ‘oppressed’ would also say they do not want black rule.


‘Blacks Know Difference Between Right and Wrong But Will Usually Do the Wrong Thing’

During the month I spent in South Africa in January 1986, I took every opportunity to ask blacks what they thought about black vs. white rule (etc.). Almost without exception they said they did not want black rule and for the same reasons: the white man was cleverer and more honest.

The most memorable conversation was with a young woman taking a computer course in central Johannesburg.

At first she expressed a noted hostility towards whites, saying she hated white people. All whites? I asked. No, just the Boers (Afrikaners). All Boers? No, just those who hated blacks. So what appeared an extreme view turned out to be quite reasonable: hating those you think hate you.

Nevertheless, there was this antagonism towards whites and so I said to her, ‘You must be anxious to see an end to white rule’. Her answer? ‘No way!’ She didn’t want black rule? Not at all. Why not? Her answer, almost word for word: ‘The white man knows the difference between right and wrong and will usually do the right thing. The black man also knows the difference but will usually do the wrong thing!’. And as I heard these words I knew I would not soon forget them.

Teaching Assistant: Yes, Blacks Are Less Honest and Not Because of Poverty

One day while driving a young black teaching assistant to her village, I asked her whether blacks in South Africa were ‘oppressed’. She said many of them seemed quite happy, but she wouldn’t be because many were urbanized and had no land, which to her was unthinkable.

She admitted that Lesotho was not run very well – because it was run by blacks. I asked if there were differences in terms of honesty; yes, but only because of poverty.

We got to her place. They had a ‘modern’ concrete house, with windows and a metal roof; most houses were mud with thatched roofs. Inside, however, the living room floor was torn up. Oh, I said, the house isn’t finished. No, she said; that’s not it. It wasn’t built properly and started to fall apart. The builder said he would fix it but absconded. And so we are fixing it ourselves.

Was the man so poor? Is that why he cheated you? No, she admitted; he was not. Do you think that a white would be as likely to do this? No, she agreed. Isn’t this just the sort of thing which blacks typically do, which is why their businesses so rarely succeed? Yes, she agreed: blacks were different than whites; they were less honest, and not because of poverty. Why had she said otherwise? She looked sheepish. Was it because that was what she was expected to say, as an educated black who is supposed to ‘defend’ blacks? Something like that, she said.

We talked about whether blacks in South Africa wanted black rule. She said there were some who thought they should run their own country no matter how badly they might do it – that somehow it ‘wouldn’t be as bad’, but I can’t believe the majority would choose poverty and oppression just because it came from blacks.


For ‘Disobeying’, Women Paraded Naked

I had a conversation (September 1989) with a black woman who was supposed to work for me on a Wednesday and only showed up two days later. Wednesday, she says – a (white) election day – was a ‘stayaway’: if the ‘comrades’ saw you coming from town you would be beaten. Was it true that women were made to walk naked down the street? Yes, she said; they could also cut off your ear, and say ‘Give this to your master; you don’t listen to me!’.

These people, she said, wanted freedom in town (‘white’ Johannesburg), but in the townships they beat anyone who ‘disobeyed’. In other words, they want to be treated (by whites) as whites treat each other – under the rule of law – but quickly forget about these ‘freedoms’ where they hold sway.

So why is everyone saying blacks want black rule? Well, she said, they would like to ‘share’ it. But once these thugs get a taste of power they will want it all. She laughed; ‘of course’. Then why does everyone keep saying that blacks want a black government? It was the same fear, she said, that makes them afraid to violate the stayaway.

I asked if she’d ever had such a conversation with any white man before. She laughed again. ‘No, no.’ Nor would she have it with blacks. The media reports millions of blacks protesting (white) elections because they couldn’t vote, when the reality – as the media must know – is that they are simply terrorized.

Is the Editor of IAfrica also guilty of publishing Hate Speech for publishing the opinions of Black and Coloured people, who think they were much better off under Apartheid White Rule, in:

THE ANC IS NOT FOR US, SAY COLOURED VOTERS (Fadela Slamdien, All Africa 17 January 2011)
Among the tens of coloured people canvassed during a day in Grassy Park, most elderly people said a lack of jobs and high levels of crime reflected badly on the ANC. Leaning toward the right, a number of people said their lifestyles were better under apartheid, despite the fact of forced removals.

"They should have left things as they were. Before, there was very little crime, the death penalty was in, and one could send your children to the shop at night. Everybody had jobs. People were given houses and not put out on the streets like now. In 1994," said a resident who did not want to be identified.

She said despite the Group Areas Act, the apartheid government provided for them. "People who were kicked out of Constantia were put in council flats. Look at the way people are living now. People are not put into flats. Now there is crime and drugs. Why vote for the ANC if all of this is happening?" she said.

Another major grievance was the issue of affirmative action, which most viewed as form of reverse racism, with black candidates trumping coloured applicants.

"It is a black apartheid now. The ANC has nothing to do with us. Blacks get the jobs first. They don't give it to coloureds and whites," said 81 year old Acarr Achmat.

Many also feel that they have been left out in the cold by the ANC even though they joined them in the struggle against apartheid. "The ANC is 100 percent prejudiced. I fought just as hard as them. We had the same problem. I was part of them. Now I am an outcast. They do absolutely nothing for us... (but) we are black too," said 62 year old Nasser Burkh.

"The DA is more supportive of the coloured people," said a woman who did not want to be named. "The ANC is more for black people."

Would the Sunday Times Editor, also be guilty of publishing Hate Speech for publishing the views of women who think they were much better off under Apartheid White Rule:


AHEM, I get a lump in my throat the size of an egg when older black people remember pre-democratic South Africa with a whiff of nostalgia.

Surely, South Africa today can't be worse than during apartheid, I tell myself as I eavesdrop on the conversation of three generations of women, chit-chatting, bemoaning how some things have changed for the worse in our country.

Even the youngest of the women, in her late 20s, is sounding pessimistic about her future and that of her children.

Politeness takes a back seat as I strain to hear their conversation. After all, their story resonates with many South Africans: those who are unemployed, live in the poor areas of our townships - and, in rural areas, rely on public healthcare and transport, and survive on government grants - and, when they die, burden those left behind, usually children.

Sitting on the stoep, watching children play in a muddy puddle, the older woman tells the youngest of a time when they would wake up early in the morning to look for a job.

A grandmother reminisces about those days when she wouldn't return from a day of job-hunting without having found a job (even if was just for that day), or the promise of a job for a relative, or a neighbour, if she was not suitable for the job.

These matchboxes are now benchmarks for what a government should at least provide for its people.

They are bigger and stronger than the "sim-card" houses being built by the present government.

When it comes to housing, the bar for our government clearly hasn't been set that high.

In November, this newspaper reported that "a total of 40000 defective RDP houses nationwide will be flattened and rebuilt in coming months at a cost of more than R1-billion, about 10% of the national housing department's annual budget".


So, when the older women ask: "How hard can it be for our democratic government to build at least 'apartheid-quality' houses for it's people?" no one answers.

The argument by the youngest of the women, that the RDP houses, despite their poor quality, are safer than shacks - and therefore people should be grateful that they have a solid structure to live in, is immediately rejected by the older women because one of them knows a few RDP houses that collapsed with last year's summer downpour - whereas the shacks in the yard stood strong.

What about the IOL editor who published: 'THINGS WERE BETTER IN THE BAD OLD DAYS' (Andrew Quinn, IOL December 11 2002 at 04:35PM), about a media survey done in 2002 to find out how many people though they were much better off under Apartheid White Rule:

Most South Africans, both black and white, believe the country was better run under apartheid and say unemployment and crime are the government's top challenges, according to two new polls released this week (2002).

The polls, part of the "Afrobarometer" series of public opinion surveys, found South Africans had generally positive assessments of how their country was governed, and were growing increasingly optimistic about the future.

But they also revealed a growing sense of "apartheid nostalgia" as South Africa grapples with high crime rates, increasing corruption and rising joblessness following the end of white rule in 1994.

But black respondents were also beginning to wax nostalgic, with 20 percent now giving a positive rating to certain aspects of life under the apartheid regime, compared with 17 percent in 2000 and eight percent in 1995.

Mattes said the rise in pro-apartheid sentiments among blacks could reflect both the growing income inequalities within South Africa's black community - where many have actually grown poorer since the end of apartheid - as well as difficulties in dealing with government bureaucracy.

What about the editor of Politicsweb, who published: WHY IS THE TRANSKEI COLLAPSING? AN OPEN LETTER FROM MBULELO NCEDANA TO NELSON MANDELA (Mbulelo Ncedana, Cope, 05 February 2010); about citizens of the Transkei who think they were much better off under Apartheid White Rule Bantustans:

I subsequently attended a community meeting on 28/12/09 where we received a report of the situation in the area from the headman. He told us there were no real plans to develop the area, and that as the community they've lost trust in their ward councilor who came only once last year to the area during the General Elections. After promising them heaven and earth he disappeared with his name.

I felt morose and embarrassed seating in that meeting listening to old people benching their hopes on food parcels that never materialise as promised during electioneering. I heard things I thought I'll never hear again; old people, with rheumy eyes, saying things were much better under the Bantustan government.

The government has spent billions to build new stadiums and other infrastructure for tourists and a small domestic minority, but cannot ensure that school kids in the most needy of communities have decent soccer facilities and equipment.

Here in South Africa (and this applies equally to the public and private sectors) dishonesty and incompetence are either rewarded or simply ignored. With a few exceptions, those who expose and confront the truth - and who try to uphold collective and personal accountability - are punished, marginalised and labelled.

When lying, cheating and conscious ineptitude become standard "governance" practice (whatever the "sector"), we are in deep crisis.

Do you blame them when they come with these preposterous ideas of finding independent states like the one ybaThembu. Your people, tata, abaThembu, no longer feel like being part of South Africa you created since 1994, and want self determination or independence.

In conclusion, tata, I hope my letter does not upset you too much, but sometimes we need to take toll and assume responsibilities for our failures. We've failed our people. There's no other way of looking at it. I don't see the bunch that came after you doing things better, instead things seem to be going from bad to worse.

What about the editor of Madibeng Pulse, who published: WE NEVER HAD SO MANY PROBLEMS UNDER MANGOPE'S BOPHUTHATSWANA - DON'T VOTE FOR ANC IN 2011 (Monday 24 January 2011); about a man who thinks that he was much better off under Apartheid White Rule Bantustans:
I would like to know if the water problem will ever stopped. All the areas that belong to Madibeng have not been given water. I think with a coincidence all belong to the former Bophuthatswana. I do not think with all this problem the way they are, they could not be solved with the old era. I am not going to vote for the ANC this year as I believe they are the problem themselves. We have never experienced such problems when Mangope was in power.

Was publishing the contents of the Radical Honesty Amicus Curiae to the Constitutional Court (censored by all SA Media): DID 'EVIL APARTHEID' RAISE BLACK LIVING STANDARDS TO HIGHEST IN AFRICA? to the Concourt also 'hate speech'?

D. Did ‘Evil Apartheid’ raise Black living standards to Highest in Africa?
“Most people overseas were still under the impression that the policy of separate development was aimed at keeping the Bantu down. They did not realise that the policy was aimed at uplifting them.” – R.J. Stratford, Former Opposition MP[159]

“Until I have found an alternative policy which would do greater justice to all concerned – and I cannot – I do not propose to criticise South Africa’s policy.” – Sir Carl Berendson, former New Zealand Ambassador, after a two months tour of South Africa [160]

“Apartheid is conceived of by the government of South Africa as a ‘separate and parallel’ development, and to implement it the government is creating Bantu states, where complete self-government will be not only permitted but encouraged, after a period of transition. The ultimate objective will be a dual commonwealth in which the Bantustans will be constituent units… Self government is to be developed on the basis of tribal traditions, the objective being full democracy, but in the form most readily assimilated by the African…” – Clarence B. Randall, advisor to President Kennedy [161]

58. Yosef Lapide, a journalist for the Tel Aviv newspaper Ma’Ariv’s wrote:
"Well, the so called liberated African states are, with a few exceptions, a bad joke and an insult to human dignity. They are run by a bunch of corrupt rulers, some of whom, Like Idi Amin of Uganda, are mad according to all the rules of psychiatry. I feel unburdened when I say this; I wanted to say this all these years, and all these years I had the feeling that we fool the public when, for reasons of diplomacy, we do not tell them that the majority of black African states are one nauseating mess.

"The lowliest of Negroes in South Africa has more civil rights than the greatest Soviet author. The most oppressed negro in South Africa has more to eat than millions of Africans in “Liberated” countries. The people advocating “progress”, who were so worried about the rights of the majority in South Africa, have never raised their voices for the majority in Hungary or in Cuba, in Red China or in Egypt. In half a dozen states-including Ethiopia-thousands of persons die every day of hunger, while the rulers travel by Cadillac and steal food that is being sent to aid their subjects.

"Only in the sick minds of “progressives” do the babies die of starvation with a smile on their lips, because the ruler who starves them to death has a black skin." [162]

59. Although Verwoerd’s Apartheid “launched the greatest programme of socio-economic upliftment for non-whites that South Africa had ever seen,”[163] which raised poor blacks living standards to the highest in Africa[164], granting them greater self-determination under Afrikaners[165], than other minority black tribes in Africa enjoyed under majority black rule. This did not sit well with the OAU, who founded the OAU Liberation Committee, to assist in “forging an international consensus against apartheid.”[166] It claims it was devoted to eradicating all traces of colonialism to benefit Africans ‘self determination’; but it “rejected post-independence claims to self-determination in Biafra, Katanga, southern Sudan, Shaba and Eritrea”[167], and the Sahrawi people’s right to self determination[168]. The OAU’s collective effort to rid Africa of apartheid meant it “played an influential role in the UN to ensure an arms embargo, economic sanctions, condemnation of South Africa’s main trade partners and the non-recognition of the “homelands”.”[169](own emphasis)

60. In 1961, then foreign minister of SA, Eric Louw presented to the UN a factual comparison of the living conditions of blacks in South Africa compared to other African states. He proved that Blacks in SA had a higher per capita income, better educational opportunities[170], far superior medical and social services and altogether a higher standard of living than anywhere in Africa. In response, the OAU engineered a motion of censure against him (first of its kind) and his speech was struck from the record. Even “The Washington Post”, who regularly criticized South Africa, noted:
“Nothing that South Africa has done and nothing that its representatives said, justified the mob-like censure which the United Nations visited upon that country and its Foreign Minister, Mr Eric Louw.”

61. By 1978, “Soweto alone had more cars, taxis, schools, churches and sport facilities than most independent countries in Africa. The Blacks of South Africa had more private vehicles than the entire white population of the USSR at the time.”[171]

62. According to British political commentator Simon Jenkins, writing in the London Spectator, on 07 May 1994 (reprinted Aida Parker Newsletter # 208):
"For the Blacks.. apartheid will be …. the Great Excuse. White rule may have been nasty and brutish, but it disciplined the SA economy and made it rich. SA has for 20 years out-performed every ‘liberated’ state in Africa. Politically correct academics claim White rule held SA back by stifling Black education and advancement. I don’t believe it. Apartheid may have been crude and cruel, but it was no more than an elite entrenching its economic power. The ‘trickle-down’ worked.

"The incomes of Blacks were well above those elsewhere on the continent, which explained the heavy migration of Blacks into SA throughout the apartheid period. As Third World economies go, SA was a thundering success. The massive redistribution of wealth promised by the ANC threatens that success. So a reason for incipient failure must be found in advance.

"Mr Mandela is human. He cannot admit that in African terms White rule was an economic success…... If a school is ill-equipped, a housing estate without sewerage, a mob unemployed, it will be ‘the legacy of apartheid.’ Every inequality of income, every injustice detected by trade unionist or … journalist will be put down to apartheid.

"Apartheid was horrible. It acknowledged, albeit crudely, the racial distinctions ordinary people acknowledge. It made the implicit explicit. There was no pretence at a melting pot. Now the explicit must be suppressed, but the legacy of racial frankness will not disappear just because legal apartheid is dead. The new SA is not a raceless community, any more than Britain is a classless one. It will still be run mostly by Whites, and Blacks will still be at the bottom of the ladder. Democracy will give a new tilt to the conflict. But all South Africans will be glad to have in their knapsack the Great Excuse. Apartheid will be a marvellous friend in need."


Was it also 'HATE SPEECH' to publish the word 'kaffir' at the following posts:

Why We Are White Refugees: Clarification of the term ‘Kaffir’”

Unlike a rose, ‘kaffir’ does NOT smell the same to black and white, by Sandile Memela
Originally published at:

Invitation to Mr. Sandile Memela to participate in Conversation on Racism; what is a racist; how many meanings of 'kaffir' are there, etc, at:


Radical Honesty White Refugee previous correspondence to Legal Resources Center; in the matter of SA governments legal persecution of myself as a Radical Honesty White Refugee, for practicing my Radical Honesty definition and meaning for the term 'kaffir':


Request Ms. Janet Love, National Resource Director, Legal Resources Center Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue: American politician and author Dr. Brad Blanton accuses SA Gov. of conducting a legal prosecution and persecution campaign against non-violent civil disobedience Radical Honesty White Refugee Free Speech dissenter.

PDF copy of all correspondence in matter at:


(Note: The application was filed late afternoon, on Friday, 28 January 2011. Less than 16 business hours after the Registrar received the application; and less than 8 hours after a written request for assistance of counsel was emailed to hundreds of SA attorneys, including the Legal Resources Center; the Concourt Justices issued a ruling dismissing the application, as being 'not in the interests of justice'.)

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 2:10 AM
To: ''
Cc: ''; ''; ''; ''
Subject: [Legal Resources Center] David vs. Goliath in Concourt (CCT 06-11) Goliath's blacklist endorsed by Tutu

National Director: Ms. Janet Love
25 Rissik Street
7th Floor, Braam Fischer House
Johannesburg, 2001
T/F: (011) 836 9831 / 838 8680


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
Tel: (044) 870 7239
Cel: (071) 170 1954




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.


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.



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 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 respondents 70 respondents have yet to provide notice of their decisions.



* Radical Honesty Amicus Curiae Heads of Argument

* 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’

* 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


Direct Access: Notice of Motion
Direct Access: Founding Affidavit
Direct Access: Proof of Service Affidavit
Direct Access: Proof of Service Evidentiary Annex

Condonation: Notice of Motion & Affidavit
Condonation: Proof of Service Affidavit
Condonation: Proof of Service Evidentiary Annex

Notice to Abide: Media 24 Respondents

Articles with brief Overviews:

Peak Oil & Ecological Overshoot raised in SA Constitutional Court Media Corruption case





So, there you have Part V 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).

1 comment:

Wesley 'Whitey Lawful' Mcgranor said...

Racism - traditionally meant - the difference of the races. Being aware of that then concluded how do you preserve such against amalgamation? What are the reasons for ones racism--are they rational? The old social science had the terms negrophile and negrophobe: an obsession of either fear or fondness. Also there is indifferent, accepting or rationally opposed. In the American south there was definate negrophobia and subjegation, not just mere segregation... As in a negro having to give their seat to a white if the bus was crowded. Also a factor was banning negroes on television. There was underfunding of public money for the black portion. Still that does not exclude the fact that negroes are bad at managing themselves. The adage uncle Tom and aunt Jemimah are based on negroes that accomodated the white system. This suggests that all whites are accomodating of a particular system.

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: []