EU-NL-FR-DE-UK-CH 'Boer/Settler' doc's filed in 'Kill Boers Hate Speech' Trial: Boer Volkstaat; & Jus Sanguinis Repatriation of Settlers?

[Afriforum v. Malema] :: [Jus Sanguinis: Boer Volkstaat] :: [African White Refugees]

Consequently the Applicants In Forma Pauperis Amicus Curiae submission shall argue among others that:

1. ANC’s ‘liberation struggle’ violated Just War (Military Honour) Theory Principles of International Law
   
2. The TRC negligently or intentionally avoided enquiring into evidence showing the ANC’s liberation struggle to have violated Just War Principles
   
3. The ANC’s TRC was a falsification of history, and is the source of SA’s political and ecological systemic collapse braintumour; of which ‘Kill the Boer Hate Speech’ is simply one of many symptoms.
   
4. The ANC’s actions of poverty pimping population production breeding-war acts of war; speak far louder than their verbal diarrhoea platitudes of ‘commitment to non-violence and peace’.
   
5. Their psychological admiration for ‘liberation struggle violence’ is found in their masculine insecurity breeding war poverty pimping, and the psychological theories of Frantz Fanon (the native’s colonized mind can only be liberated through violence, he can only regain his self respect, on the rotting corpse of the settler) and Black Liberation Theology (Black Power advocacy of violent Marxist Elimination of Whiteness as the road to Salvation/Reconciliation)
   
6. Because Fundamentalist Black Liberation Theology ‘Anti-Whiteness’ Marxist Revolutionaries shall not rest until they achieve their Violent Marxist Cleansing Liberation / Reconciliation / Salvation on the Rotting Corpses of Boer/Settlers; the only way to enable Boer/Settlers to protect themselves is to:
   

   1. Implement 23 April 1994 Accord on Afrikaner Self-Determination, by endorsing and supporting the work of the Volksraad Verkiesing Kommissie to establish a Boer Volkstaat; and/or
      

   2. Initiate a Program of Jus Sanguinis Voluntary Repatriation of ‘Settlers’ to European Progenitor Nations, for Persecuted Settlers/African White Refugees who prefer to return to their Settler motherlands.

IN THE HIGH COURT – SOUTH GAUTENG

Case: 07-2010 EQ JHB

In the matter between:

AFRIFORUM TRANSVAAL AGRICULTURAL UNION (TAU) And	1st Complainant 2nd Complainant
JULIUS MALEMA AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS And	1st Respondent 2nd Respondent
VERENIGING VAN REGSLUI VIR AFRIKAANS	Amicus Curiae

_________________________________________________________
FOUNDING AFFIDAVIT
_________________________________________________________

I the undersigned,

LARA JOHNSTONE

do hereby make oath and say:

1. I am the only member – to my knowledge – of the Radical Honesty culture and religion currently living in South Africa. The Radical Honesty culture and religion is open to anyone from any culture or religion, nationality or ideology; the only pre-requisite being a commitment to Radical Honesty: Being Specific About Anger and Forgiveness processes, i.e. the Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract, as excerpted from Dr. Brad Blanton’s book, Practicing Radical Honesty: How to Complete the Past, Stay in the Present and Build a Future with a Little Help from Your Friends.
   
   
2. The facts set out herein fall within the Applicants personal knowledge, unless otherwise indicated by the context, and are to the best of my belief true and correct.
   
   
3. When dealing with legal questions, I rely on:
   
   1. A Paralegal Certificate, and Paralegal Diploma, both with Distinction, from the South African Institute of Legal Training and Damelin Correspondence Career Development College.
      
      
   2. My Radical Honesty culture and religion’s Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract practices of resolving disagreements as adults, namely face-to-face in person, with a commitment to remaining in such conversation until sincere sensate forgiveness occurs.
   
   
4. The Applicant:
   
   
5. I am the daughter of a former Kwa-Zulu Natal farmer (Farm: Gerizim near Utrecht). On 11 October 1997, I married African-American Demian Emile Johnson in Folsom Prison, California, where he has been serving a sentence of 15 to life since 1982 (separated, filed for amicable divorce). My original commitment to South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation process may be found in my Submission to ‘Register of Reconciliation’ and donation to Presidents Fund for Reparations to assist victims of gross violations of human rights dated 18 January 1999; which detailed my willingness to donate my entire Inheritance to facilitate sincere Truth and Forgiveness.
   
   
6. I joined the Radical Honesty culture and religion in 1999, after reading Dr. Blanton’s book Radical Honesty: How To Transform Your Life By Telling the Truth, going to one of his workshops; and learning how to be specific about my anger, and to share it honourably face-to-face to the individual I was angry with; with the commitment of remaining in the conversation until sincere sensate forgiveness had occurred.
   
   
7. I am 44 years old. With the help of an IUD, inserted at age 19, Common Sense and a love for children, I have never been pregnant, nor had an abortion; nor brought any unwanted children onto the planet; nor contributed to local, national or international overpopulation or resource wars; nor advocated on behalf of population or economic growth; or materialist consumerism.
   
   
8. While living in California I mentored under Professor Richard Korn who was also the mentor for John Maher, the original founder of Delancey Street Foundation (www.delanceystreetfoundation.org) the most successful rehabilitation program in the world. Delancey Street’s rehabilitation success is believed to be a result of its tough love personal responsibility approach to rehabilitation.
   
   
9. I am also a former employee of Dr. Brad Blanton: (1) President and CEO of Radical Honesty Enterprises Sparrowhawk Book Publishing and The Center for Radical Honesty, both dedicated to promoting honesty in the world; (2) former candidate for Congress in 2004 and 2006, on the platform of ‘Honesty in Politics’ ; (3) Pope of the Radical Honesty Futilitarian Church; i.e. “Dr. Truth” ; (4) author of (i) Radical Honesty: How To Transform your Life by Telling the Truth; (ii) Practicing Radical Honesty: How to Complete the Past, Stay in the Present and Build a Future with a Little Help from Your Friends, (iii) Honest to God: A Change of Heart that Can Change the World, with Neale Donald Walsh, author of the Conversations with God books; (iv) Radical Parenting: Seven Steps to a Functional Family in a Dysfunctional World; (v) The Truthtellers: Stories of Success by Radically Honest People and (vi) Beyond Good and Evil: The Eternal Split-Second-Sound-Light-Being; (vii) Some New Kind of Trailer Trash.
   
   
10. SA Court Convictions for Radical Honesty Calling three people ‘Kaffirs’:
    
    
11. My Radical Honesty culture definitions for the word Kaffir are:
    
    
    1. ‘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.
       
       
    2. ‘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.
       
       
    3. ‘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’ and Vote, 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 laissez-faire birth control within a welfare state, results in Runaway Population Growth, and ultimately greater misery, poverty and war.)
    
    
    
12. ‘Kaffir’ Contempt in Facie Curiae: Prison Sentence: One Year:
    
    
13. On 31 January 2003 I was convicted of ‘contempt in facie curiae’ for calling a black prosecutor (Sipoyo), and a white magistrate (ADS Meyer) respectively black and white ‘kaffirs’. The Prosecutor wanted to have me certified as insane, but she knew absolutely nothing about psychology. She did not know who Sigmund Freud is, let alone Karl Jung or Thomas Szaszz. She also had not the foggiest clue what a Forensic Psychologist is, or does; but she wanted to use her official authority as a prosecutor to have me certified as insane. I filed complaints with the NPA asking for her to be removed from my case; but instead I was arrested without the required arrest warrant paperwork and transferred to Lentegeur in the middle of the night. I escaped and hitch-hiked to Pretoria, to go and see the American Embassy. A US Embassy USAID Official called the Forensic Psychologist to enquire her reasons for my admission to Lentegeur. When I returned to George court, the same Prosecutor was still on my case. I told the Magistrate during court proceedings, that I did not want the corrupt black kaffir (deceiver) prosecutor on my case. He ordered me to apologize to her. I refused. He demanded I apologize, or he would convict me of Contempt of Court. I responded with ‘Fuck You, white Kaffir (deceiver)’ and your Two-Faced Gatkruiping Rainbow Hypocrisy and showed him the middle finger. He convicted me of three counts of contempt (2 x 3 months, and 6 months, served consecutively). I was denied parole, and served every single day of that prison term.
    
    
14. The NPA and Chief Justice Hlope refused to place the Appeal (HC-WC: A 696-04, leave granted on 16 February 2004, by Regional Magistrate VA Botha ), on the roll for hearing in the High Court, Western Cape.
    
    
15. While serving time at George Correctional Services Prison, I was daily referred to as a ‘Boer’, such as ‘Jou AWB Boer Hoermeid’. I am not easily insulted by honesty and never insulted whenever I consider there to be more than one interpretation for any statement. If so, I always ask to make sure whether my interpretation is correct or not. I was unclear why they would call me an ‘AWB Boer HoerMeid’. How can a woman with four kids from four different men, three of the kids fathers she is not even sure about, honourably call me a ‘whore’? There is a serious problem with such a persons logical or moral reasoning. In response to my questions as to what they meant by ‘Boer’ they would respond by saying to them it meant ‘White’ or ‘White Settler’. When I said that the only indigenous people to Western Cape were the Koi-San, so Blacks were also Settlers, and asked if Blacks were also ‘Boere/Settlers’; they said no, only whites can be Boere (Settlers). The only people who are non-white whom they refer to as ‘Boere’ are prison guards or police. It struck me that ‘Boere’ represented – to them - someone who demanded they act within certain cultural or legal boundaries.
    
    
16. I was fascinated with some of the underlying subconscious issues related to their antagonism towards ‘Boere’; whether ‘White Settlers’ or ‘Prison Guards/Police’. In Radical Honesty, our definition of ‘freedom’ to us means the ‘freedom’ to choose to be personally responsible for our thoughts, actions and statements. Consequently the more personal responsibility we took, the greater our freedom from supervision by a policeman. In our Radical Honesty community in Virginia, we did not have keys to our homes. Cars were left outside with the keys in the ignition at all times; doors and windows wide open, even when people went on holiday. There was simply no crime, because everyone took personal responsibility for their own conduct. This to us – was the definition and concept of freedom, which was rooted in commitment by every member of our community choosing to take personal responsibility for our behaviour.
    
    
17. In contrast a conversation with most South Africans who admire the ANC or the ‘liberation struggle’, and particularly the ‘freedom charter’ asking them what ‘freedom’ meant to them, returned a response which essentially means ‘freedom from responsibility’. They have no responsibility to abstain from prolific breeding of unwanted children, no responsibility to save their money so they can buy their own house, or to keep a job, so they can pay for their own water bills. They want the right to ‘free water’ ‘free houses’, etc. They want the ‘right’ to breed six children, but to complain about their poverty! Personal Responsibility is absolutely non-existent in their ‘freedom charter’. Whereas Radical Honesty represents the freedom, as the conscious choice to be personally responsible; the ANC’s ‘freedom charter’ represents the total opposite: freedom represents the absence of personal responsibility. I concluded one of the subconscious reasons for their hatred of ‘Boere’ were that Boere (white settlers or Prison guards) restricted their freedom to avoid responsibility and accountability. Freedom to them represents anarchy.
    
    
18. After many months of complaints and hungerstrikes; I finally managed to get another Magistrate (Buhr) to order the Dept. of Correctional Services to place me in a single cell. In the prison cell next to me, was a young woman who was the leader of the 27 gang. She was a juvenile who stabbed a correctional officer to death with a broken bottle for refusing to give her a cigarette. She was sentenced to 10 months in prison, for murder.
    
    
19. On 29 September 2003 – while in a dormitory cell, prior to being moved to solitary -- she was the gang leader of seven other juvenile female prisoners high on marijuana and mandrax who spent hours torturing and assaulting a fellow juvenile woman prisoner by among other things: stuffing her mouth with floor polish, forcing her to undress and dance naked for them, burning her with a hot iron, repeatedly beating, assaulting and sodomizing her with metal objects and a broken sharp aluminium broom handle, sodomizing her and sexually assaulting (fist-fucking) her, until the dormitory cell was covered with blood. They justified this because she had informed the ‘Boere’ that they had smuggled in drugs.
    
    
20. Any association with ‘Boere’ whether it was ‘Boere’ Prison guards’ or ‘Boere White people’ was considered as ‘collaboration with the enemy’.
    
    
21. Subsequent to the event of 29 September 2003, the gang leader was moved into the single cell next door to me. In the evenings she would proceed to inform the prisoners in the other single cells what fun it was to torture the other prisoner. She was ecstatic that she would now be charged with additional serious crimes, because it would mean she would finally get more respect as a ‘maximum’ prisoner. Her 10 month sentence for murder unfortunately did not get her ‘maximum’ status, she so desperately desired. To be a ‘maximum’ was to be admired, to attain ‘prison credibility’; to be perceived as a ‘mean motherfucker’.
    
    
22. I wrote down her confessions to the other prisoners, where she described her ecstasy about blood and torture, desire for maximum respect; love of prison. I then honourably informed her privately to her face, that I thought she was really fucked in the head, that she was fucking up her life; and while many others may admire her for her gang status and addiction to violence; I did not. If she ever wanted to change her lifestyle, I’d be happy to help her, but until then I would do all I could to hold her accountable for her psychopathic addiction to violence; and that I had informed the Senior Prosecutor of her confessions (I gave her a copy). She said that was the most honest any person had ever been with her; nobody had ever cared enough for her to be so honest with her. The transcript of her conversations detailing her participation in rape and torture were submitted to the Senior Prosecutor via the Office of George Major Mr. Marius Swart.
    
    
23. According to Johnny Steinberg, in his book The Number, those who act on the ANC’s cultural heritage of ‘Kill Farmers’ are accorded with automatic membership of the 27’s gang. Put differently, if you adhere to gang-culture and in accordance with such gang culture, Kill a Farmer (Boer) in South Africa, then you are rewarded with automatic membership of the 27's gang. This is true. When a new prisoner comes into a cell; they want to know what your crime is. The next question is ‘Was your victim a boer?’ If yes, your prison status immediately goes up to the top notches, depending on the amount of violence you inflicted on the ‘boer’. Compare it to the status for a hunter who shot a rabbit vs. a lion. You are also accorded status depending on the level of violence used against your victims; the greater the violence, the higher your status.
    
    
24. After my release from prison, I wrote a long report -- An Essay on Proudly South African Parasite Hypocrisy: Fraudulent 'Rehabilitation' Boomerang: Correctional Services Prison Policies As A Major Intentional Source of New South Africa's 'Kaffirs' AKA 'Criminals' -- which I submitted to the South African Government, via the Judge Inspectorate of Prisons: Judge JJ Fagan, wherein I detailed how South Africa’s prison system was actually acting as a massive University of Criminality; it was feeding and breeding criminality and criminals as if it was being paid by taxpayers to do so. I included information therein about my work with Delancey Street Foundation, and their tough love form of rehabilitation to enable those who suffer from insecurities and relyon victimizatio stories for their identities to express their anger non-violently so as to get over it, and stop being victims, and take responsibility for their lives. DA MP of Parliament Mr. Selfe wrote to thank me for the ‘provocative’ report, stating his agreement; but that he did not believe that the ANC was remotely sincerely interested in seriously confronting South Africa’s crime problem, nor in listening to anyone’s suggestions or advice on rehabilitation programs that actually have been not only proven to work, but to work spectacularly. He was right. None of the other people to whom the report was submitted were remotely interested: (i) Minister of Corrections: Mr. Balfour; (ii) Insp. Judge of Prisons: Judge JJ Fagan; (iii) Dir. Public Prosecutions: Mr. B. Ngcuka; (iv) Public Protector: Mr. Mushwana; (v) Lawyers for Human Rights: Dr. V Gaivhand; (vi) Nat. Assoc of Dem. Lawyers: Adv S Nkanunu; (vii) Const. Court: Chief Justice A. Chaskalson.
    
    
25. A few years ago, I also contacted the Center for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (CSVR) to share the report with them, including thoughts on the gang-hierarchy of violence socio-psychological prison-credibility issues. They were not interested in the least, about any information about gang-hierarchy victim-race preferences towards white Boers particularly, or how such socio-status peer pressure contributed to a culture of glorification of violence and criminality; it appeared the only information they wanted about the causes of crime, were if they could blame it on apartheid.
    
    
26. ‘Kaffir’ Crimen Injuria: Prison Sentence: Six Months, Suspended 3 years:
    
    
27. I am currently serving a six month prison term, suspended for three years, on a conviction and sentence of ‘crimen injuria’ for calling a politician (Mrs. Patricia de Lille) a ‘kaffir’ in a private SMS. The Magistrate ruled that my Radical Honesty culture definitions of ‘kaffir’ were irrelevant; my sincere motivations for sharing my anger honestly face-to-face in order to focus on attaining sincere forgiveness were irrelevant. It was irrelevant if the Radical Honesty culture’s definitions and meanings for the word are different to the politicians, even if the politician knew the definitions of ‘kaffir’ were not the same. The only thing that was important and relevant was that the politician decided to interpret my use of the word ‘kaffir’ according to her definition of ‘kaffir’, not mine; and consequently to feel hurt and insulted. The Magistrate had no interest whatsoever in hearing the expert witness testimony of the leader – Brad Blanton -- of my culture: Radical Honesty, about how it was impossible for me to create the intention to insult, when my intention of sharing my anger honestly is the official Radical Honesty practice to share transparently and reach sincere forgiveness.
    
    
28. Although the Registrar approved my In Forma Pauperis application to appeal the conviction and sentence, the appointed In Forma Pauperis attorneys Braam Swart & Partners declined to represent me for alleged reasons of ‘complexity of legal argument’ .
    
    
    
29. Truth and Reconciliation Fraud:
    
    
30. When you have lived in a community which does not practice any form of political correctness, only 100% honesty, you quickly realize why such a community is capable of solving their problems, because there are no taboos against addressing the actual root causes of the problems. Once the root causes of the problems are addressed, they can be fixed, if people are serious enough taking personal responsibility.
    
    
31. My activist and problem solving experiences in South Africa since my return from America in 2002 required me to confront the unfortunate conclusion that South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation was a political, ecological and cultural fraud committed on South African citizens. Since problems – whether cultural, racial, political or a combination thereof – can only be solved when people are willing to confront reality and tell the truth, enquire into the root causes of our problems, and take personal responsibility for making the required changes; I have attempted to confront South Africa’s political, legal and religious elite with my TRC Fraud constructive criticism feedback, in the hope of engaging an enquiry into the issues.
    
    
32. The response from ANC and TRC Officials: Definitely Not Interested. (Politely speaking)
    
    
33. There was a nagging problem I have always had, which nobody has ever been able to give me an answer to; regarding the ANC’s alleged ‘tragedy of being forced to turn to a violent liberation struggle’.
    
    
34. “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,” was the ‘Just War defence’ response by Former Judge Jason G. Brent, to an individual who disputed my statement that the National Party could rationally conclude that white South Africans would face extinction as a result of the ‘swart gevaar’; in the absence of implementing apartheid (the competitive exclusion principle).
    
    
35. I have so far submitted official requests to the European, Netherlands, Swiss, UK Anti-Apartheid Movements: Could the ANC have won their struggle against Apartheid non-violently, by demonstrating their honourable Just War Just Cause Population Policy Intentions to end their Breeding War?
    
    
    1. Prior to the ANC’s M-Plan declaration of War against Apartheid: Did any EU Anti-Apartheid Organisation advise the ANC or any SA Anti-Apartheid Organisation to avoid/suspend the violent ‘liberation struggle ’campaign against the Apartheid Goverment, and to launch a non-violent cultural and political campaign to stop the African ‘swart gevaar’ breeding-war population explosion, to demonstrate the ANC’s honourable Just War Just Cause Intentions?
       
       
    2. If (a) it was abundantly clear that the major fundamental motive for establishing Apartheid was fear of the ‘swart gevaar’; (2) Apartheid Officials and citizens ‘swart gevaar’ population policy fears are not only legally and ecologically justifiable, but common sense; (3) the ANC and Anti-Apartheid movement were culturally honourably concerned with Just War practices; (4) why did the ANC not consider launching a non-violent cultural and political campaign to stop their African ‘swart gevaar’ breeding-war population explosion, to demonstrate their honourable Just War Just Cause Intentions to ‘swart gevaar’ Apartheid Officials and citizens?
    
    
36. I have asked the following South African Anti-Apartheid Movement Organisations the same question: Nelson Mandela Foundation; Archbishop Desmond Tutu; President Jacob Zuma and African National Congress; Ms. Helen Zille and Democratic Alliance; Mr. Bantu Holomisa & UDM; Mr. Amichand Rajbansi and Minority Front; Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi and Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP); Ms. Patricia de Lille and Independent Democrats (ID); Letlapa Mpha-hlele, Pan Africanist Congress (PAC); Mr. Lekota, Congress of the People (COPE); Mr. Hlabirwa Mathume, African People's Convention (APC); Mr. Lucas Mangope, United Democratic Christian Party (UCDM); Mr. Jacob Dikobo, Azanian People’s Organisation; Mr. Kenneth Meshoe, African Christian Democratic Party; the religious signatories to the Kairos Black Liberation Theology document justifying the violent liberation struggle as a just war: General Secretariat, SA Council of Churches; Methodist Church; Catholic Bishops Conference; Anglican Church of SA, etc; Mr. Raj Daja, Law Society of SA; Ms. Janet Love, Legal Resources Center; Adv. Jacob van Garderen, Lawyers for Human Rights; Hugo van der Merwe, Center for Study of Violence and Reconciliation; Frans Cronje, SA Institute of Race Relations; Zwelinzima Vavi, COSATU; all editor members of SANEF who for the past 16 years have told SA’s directly and indirectly that the ANC’s resort to a violent liberation struggle was a last resort.
    
    
37. Not one of these organisations has yet provided me with an answer for whether any member of the Anti-Apartheid Movement suggested that the ANC adopt a non-violent cultural and religions campaign to demonstrate their honourable Just War Just Cause Population Policy Intentions to end their Breeding War! And if not; why not? And if Not; how on earth they can justify the ANC’s adoption of violence as a last resort, when it is clear the ANC could have adopted a non-violent strategy which would have addressed the concerns of Apartheid politicians and citizens, and demonstrated their Just War Just Cause sincerity intentions.
    
    
38. Perhaps I am simply stupid, or Don Quixote naïve; but its as obvious to me as 2 + 2 = 4. The issue that concerned whites and Afrikaners were Africans breeding war (swart gevaar) and cultural refusal to take familial and personal responsibility. Hence if I had been Nelson Mandela; I ask myself: If I am serious about non-violence and honour, and wish to help my people to attain economic ‘liberation’ and liberation from ‘prejudice’ for my cultures breeding war behaviour; I must seriously consider whether any of the reasons we are discriminated against by Afrikaners/Boers are justified, and if so, address those factors and eliminate them; and if Afrikaners are honourable, then I shall have eliminated the need for their discrimination; and shall have honourably and non-violently liberated my people.
    
    
39. Nobody has been able to point out to me where my logic is in error; but still they consider Mandela, Tutu and the ANC’s violent liberation struggle as a ‘just war’, and an absolutely last resort to violence!
    
    
40. In March 2010, I decided to approach the Constitutional Court, (CCT 23-10), supported by expert witness affidavit and statements from Dr. Brad Blanton, world expert in sincere forgiveness conflict resolution; and Dr. Michael Maher author of the study: How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population Environment Connection; in the matter of The Citizen v. Robert McBride regarding the Concourt’s Interpretation of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act (TRC Act):
    
    1. Application to Chief Justice to proceed as In Forma Pauperis Amicus Curiae, by Lara Johnstone, Member of the Radical Honesty culture and religion (PDF)
       
    2. 03 May 2010: Concourt Directions dated 03 May 2010: “Ms. Lara Johnstone, Member of Radical Honesty Culture and Religion, is admitted as an Amicus Curiae.” (PDF)
       
    3. 18 July 2010: Heads of Argument: Radical Honesty SA Amicus Curiae in Support of a Population Policy Common Sense Interpretation of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act (PDF)
       
    4. Written Statement by Consent of Brad Blanton, Ph.D, to testify as expert witness to: Practicing Radical Honesty and Futilitarianism; i.e. Radical Honesty about Anger and Forgiveness; and Paradigms and Contexts: The Revolution of Consciousness (PDF); and 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’; in terms of Criminal Procedure Act 51, of 1977: § 213: Proof of Written Statement by Consent; & § 171 & 172: Evidence on Commission (PDF)].
       
    5. Written Statement of Consent by T. Michael Maher, Ph.D, 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) and Study: How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection (PDF )
       
    6. I also honourably served the documentation on Former Presidents Mandela, de Klerk and Archbishop Desmond Tutu and TRC Officials. Less than 24 hours later, Archbishop Tutu abruptly announced his retirement: Archbishop Tutu Announces Retirement After TRC Fraud Allegations.
       
    7. Neither the Applicants (The Citizen), the Respondent (McBride), the other Amicus Curiae’s (Freedom of Expression Institute, SANEF, etc); nor the Constitutional Court Justices had the Descartian Integrity to Honourably address any of the facts or arguments raised in the Radical Honesty Population Policy Common Sense Interpretation of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act Amicus.
    
    
41. The South African media totally censored the contents of the TRC Fraud argument before the Constitutional Court from South Africa’s public discourse.
    
    
42. Nobody in the African National Congress National Executive Committee (NEC) who allegedly passionately desire to create the conditions for peace in South Africa are or were remotely interested in addressing the population policy and psychological causal factors for South Africa’s violence, raised in the application had any objections. To the contrary, the ANC legislative, executive and judiciary have been most enthusiastic to approve the censorship of any problem solving that deals with the root causes of South Africa’s youth bulge and TRC Fraud racial friction theory hatred violence.
    
    
43. The Press Ombudsman approved of the SA media’s censorship of the TRC fraud arguments and allegations before the SA Constitutional Court, from the SA people. I subsequently filed an application for Direct Access to the SA Constitutional Court for Review of the Press Ombudsman’s rulings: Radical Honesty SA v. SANEF and Others. The application also requested the Constitutional Court to confirm the Radical Honesty culture’s definitions and meanings of ‘Kaffir’, and to address the root causes of South Africa’s TRC Fraud.
    
    
    1. Notice of Motion: Application for Direct Access for a Writ of Habeus Mentem and Certiorari/Review (PDF)
       
       
    2. Founding Affidavit of Lara Johnstone(PDF)
    
    
44. In less than 8 hours after filing the application, the entire bench of the Constitutional Court dismissed the application as ‘not in the interests of justice’.
    
    
45. Consequently I have been told by SA Courts right up to the highest court in the land that in regards to the word ‘Kaffir’:
    
    
    1. The Radical Honesty culture’s definitions and meanings are irrelevant;
       
       
    2. A Radical Honesty individuals intentions in calling another person a ‘kaffir’ to their face, no matter how justified and accurate in accordance to the Radical Honesty definition; the intentions are irrelevant;
       
       
    3. Any expert witnesses to testify to Radical Honesty cultural definitions and meanings are irrelevant;
       
       
    4. The only issue of relevance before the court, is how the receiver interpreted the word; and how they felt about it; irrespective of whether the receive made no attempt whatsoever to verify whether her/his interpretation was correct or not.
       
    5. An application to the Constitutional Court to confirm the Radical Honesty culture’s definitions and meanings for the term ‘Kaffir’ was dismissed as ‘not in the interests of justice’.
    
    
46. Now I am told by ANC NEC official: Mr. Hanekom testifying under oath that the ANC are ‘committed to creating the conditions for peace’, how they are interested in ‘engaging’ minorities for their opinions.
    
    
47. Pardon my honesty Your Honour; but my response to that testimony from Mr. Derek Hanekom, I am unfortunately banned from honestly sharing with him.
    
    
48. Nor is Mr. Derek Hanekom remotely interested in testifying before any court of law, how he supports minority culture’s such as Radical Honesty rights to freedom of expression, which don’t even include any words that advocate killing anyone, or any group of people. Nor is Mr. Hanekom rushing to endorse the Radical Honesty culture’s right to express their definitions and meanings of ‘Kaffir’; so that those groups of people who feel insulted or upset by hearing the word ‘Kaffir’ can better understand the Radical Honesty’s intentions and definitions.
    
    
49. Mr. Hanekom waxes lyrically on about how the ANC gave us a wonderful Constitution; but he fails to mention the Bill of Rights means no more than verbal diarrhea on toilet paper, if Constitutional Court judges don’t have intellectual, psychological, moral and spiritual constitutions to resist the ANC and/or the media’s political manipulations of judicial process and procedure, to silence those who expose the political and media elite naked Emperors fraud and corruption.
    
    
50. The Present Application
    
    
51. This application arises out of the action launched by the Plaintiffs: Afriforum and Transvaal Agricultural Union (TAU) against Mr. Julius Malema, leader of the African National Congress Youth League (ANCYL), for publicly singing ‘Kill the Boer’. The African National Congress subsequently applied to intervene on behalf of Malema.
    
    
52. The Plaintiffs argue among others, that the words communicated are constitutionally prohibited for inciting harm and hatred against whites and farmers; that a reasonable person would consider the words to be intended to hurt, harm or incite hatred; and that Mr. Malema is an influential public figure whose utterances are widely reported.
    
    
53. The Defendants argue among others that there are many meanings for the words ‘Kill the Boer’, that the Plaintiffs are inaccurately interpreting the words including misinterpreting Mr. Malema’s intentions when he sings the words ‘Kill the Boer’. The words do not encourage farm murders, or hatred towards farmers; that their freedom of speech to sing ‘Kill the Boer’ should not be infringed and that there should be a national dialogue about the song "awudubhule ibhunu" or "shoot the boer", given that some people had been offended by it.
    
    
54. The Applicant seeks to be admitted as an amicus curiae in respect of the main application in terms of Rule 16 A of Uniform Rules of the High Court; the Constitutional Entitlement to invoking cultural law in S. 15 , 30 , 31 , and 185 ; and Psychological Integrity in Section 12 ; the former which may require the application of choice of law rules. The purpose of this affidavit is to set out the basis of the application in terms of Rule 16A of the Uniform Rules of this Court.
    
    
55. I will herewith deal with the five main issues:
    
    
    1. The interest of the Applicant in the main application;
       
       
    2. Submissions which will be advanced by the Applicant if admitted as an Amicus Curiae;
       
       
    3. Attitude of the parties in the main application to the Applicants admission; and
       
       
    4. The relief that ought to be granted to the Applicant in this application.
    
    
56. The Interest of the Applicant in the Main Application:
    
    
57. The Applicant is of the view that the main application raises novel questions which are crucial for the rule of law and the principle of legality.
    
    
58. Consequently the Applicants In Forma Pauperis Amicus Curiae submission shall argue among others that:
    
    
    1. ANC’s ‘liberation struggle’ violated Just War (Military Honour) Theory Principles of International Law
       
       
    2. The TRC negligently or intentionally avoided enquiring into evidence showing the ANC’s liberation struggle to have violated Just War Principles
       
       
    3. The ANC’s TRC was a falsification of history, and is the source of SA’s political and ecological systemic collapse braintumour; of which ‘Kill the Boer Hate Speech’ is simply one of many symptoms.
       
       
    4. The ANC’s actions of poverty pimping population production breeding-war acts of war; speak far louder than their verbal diarrhoea platitudes of ‘commitment to non-violence and peace’.
       
       
    5. Their psychological admiration for ‘liberation struggle violence’ is found in their masculine insecurity breeding war poverty pimping, and the psychological theories of Frantz Fanon (the native’s colonized mind can only be liberated through violence, he can only regain his self respect, on the rotting corpse of the settler) and Black Liberation Theology (Black Power advocacy of violent Marxist Elimination of Whiteness as the road to Salvation/Reconciliation)
       
       
    6. Because Fundamentalist Black Liberation Theology ‘Anti-Whiteness’ Marxist Revolutionaries shall not rest until they achieve their Violent Marxist Cleansing Liberation / Reconciliation / Salvation on the Rotting Corpses of Boer/Settlers; the only way to enable Boer/Settlers to protect themselves is to:
       
       
       1. Implement 23 April 1994 Accord on Afrikaner Self-Determination, by endorsing and supporting the work of the Volksraad Verkiesing Kommissie to establish a Boer Volkstaat; and/or
          
          
       2. Initiate a Program of Jus Sanguinis Voluntary Repatriation of ‘Settlers’ to European Progenitor Nations, for Persecuted Settlers/African White Refugees who prefer to return to their Settler motherlands.
    
    
59. The Submissions which will be Advanced by the Applicant if she is admitted as an Amicus Curiae
    
    
60. The Applicant seeks admission as amicus curiae for the purpose of advancing certain legal and factual submissions and interpretations, as a common citizen, from the Radical Honesty culture and religion.
    
    
61. As one of the few citizens whose primary allegiance is not to either the ‘Boer’ or ‘African’ culture/tribe; but to Honesty, Sincere Forgiveness and root cause problem solving, the applicant is capable of greater objectivity, and less tainted by tribal allegiances, than members whose primary allegiance is to being African or a Boer.
    
    
62. Additionally in accordance with the psychological theory that human minds are distorted and only see a partly conscious map of the world, due to our repressed anger and resentment; the greater the anger and resentment, the greater the distortion; applicant has a less distorted map of the world and South African apartheid history, than those South Africans who have and continue to repress their anger and resentments. Consequently applicant is capable of greater individuality, integrity, and objective reasonableness, which could provide the court with some helpful insights and perspectives.
    
    
63. The Plaintiffs and Respondents arguments – understandably – focus on the narrow legal arguments of who is ‘right’ and who is ‘wrong’. But this issue of ‘Kill Boere Hate Speech’ would not be before this court today, and Mr. Malema would not be singing about Killing Boere infront of large impressionable young cannon fodder crowds of poverty pimped angry Africans; and Afriforum would not be hoping to restrict Mr. Malema’s right to freedom of speech, if ANC’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission had done its job.
    
    
64. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission was a negligent or intentional political fraud.
    
    
65. If the Plaintiffs or Respondents disagree; I allege their Arguments are founded upon inaccurate presumptions and interpretations of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act 34, 1995 that presume (a) the TRC was sincerely and seriously impartially committed to accomplishing its mandate to expose the historical truth about Apartheid reality; and (b) sincere in its representation that the TRC’s Truth and Amnesty process would provide the opportunity for closure, and sincere reconciliation and reconstruction of society.
    
    
66. In the absence of addressing the root TRC Fraud causes of the ‘Kill Boers Hate Speech’ problem before the court; any attempted solution of the problem before the court is simply synonymous to applying a bandaid to South Africa’s TRC fraud braintumour. It only places the patients under a temporary illusion that the source of their headache has been removed, when they have simply been anaesthetized from the pain, which will continue to get worse, until it is either removed at its root, or it consumes the entire body politic.
    
    
67. Just War and SA’s Tragedy of the ANC’s Breeding War Commons TRC Fraud
    
    
68. It is doubtful whether there are any ANC members who value personal responsibility and confronting how their suppressed anger and resentments distort their worldview and particularly their narrative about their own grandiose roles as ‘freedom fighters’ against ‘evil apartheid’. They appear to have totally consumed themselves with Black Liberation Theology thinking doctrines that demands they perceive one side as ‘victims’ and the other side as ‘oppressors’. Their resentments and suppressed anger appear to blind them from the ability to step out of their own victim story and desperate desire to perceive themselves as noble ‘freedom fighters’, to take a walk in the shoes of those who fought on the side of Apartheid.
    
    
69. They are unable to “accept that, irrespective of the methods used, both sides performed their duties bona fide, in what they perceived to be service to their respective political masters,” that “no single side in the conflict of the past has a monopoly of virtue or should bear responsibility for all the abuses that occurred”.
    
    

    ANC: VIP's of Violence [01/03] [02/03] [03/03]

70. They appear unable to confront the reality that “if the ANC had been sincere about liberating Black Africans out of their poverty and misery, Mandela et al could have avoided the armed liberation struggle and could simply have started a non-violent cultural campaign to educate Africans to change their procreation values: to value the importance of education for their children, 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. If more Africans adopted these value systems, they would be able to lift themselves out of poverty. Such a campaign 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, sending a clear message to Apartheid Politicians and voters that such Black Africans were worthy of national political suffrage reward for their acceptance of personal, familial and social responsibility.”
    
    
71. The applicant shall submit arguments in regard to Just War principles of honourable war: (i) having just cause, (ii) being a last resort, (iii) being declared by a proper authority, (iv) possessing right intention, (v) having a reasonable chance of success, and (vi) the end being proportional to the means used.
    
    

    Onslaught Against People's of South Africa: ANC's Terror Bombs [01/03] [02/03] [03/03]

72. Radical Honesty do not believe that the ANC had a ‘Just Cause’ to initiate acts of aggression, i.e. to launch their violent liberation struggle, against the system of Apartheid, when among others: (i) The ANC had an honourable non-violent option for liberating its own people by ending its poverty pimping breeding war; (ii) The ANC had no right intention: Apartheid had raised black living standards to the highest in Africa; ANC true motives were, and continue to be, reasons of self-interest, greed, corruption, abuse of power and personal aggrandizement; as well as Black Liberation Theology racial black power hegemony: and the elimination of ‘whiteness’; (iii) The ANC had no proper authority: Black Africans did not want Black rule, nor did they voluntarily support the liberation struggle (Mandela’s decision to launch the violent liberation struggle, was not because it was a tragic ‘last resort’ of a peaceful non-violent campaign. The militarization of the struggle, was a result of the spectacular failure of the 1952 Defiance Campaign ability to mobilize the black masses to participate in the non-violent struggle: only 10 000 joined the protest, of which 8,500 were in prison.); (iv) The ANC had no reasonable chance of success in eliminating whiteness and white rule, for the majority of blacks favoured white rule, who were aware they were better off under white rule, than any of their black brethren in the rest of black Africa ruled by despotic black liberation movements. They consequently decided the African people would need to be terrorized to support the ANC; (v) The ANC did not use proportional force: It decided to adopt the People’s War of necklacing, street committees, to terrorize its own people to support its fraudulent ‘liberation struggle’; where any poor black Africans who even slightly objected to the ANC’s agenda, and who insisted on being a law abiding citizen by paying their rent or electricity, was labelled as ‘an enemy conspirator’; and worthy of the necklace; (vi) The ANC did not use proportional force on its own soldiers at its Mbokodo Quatro Torture Camps; (vii) The ANC did not use proportional force in its decision to target illegitimate targets: Its own people; by choosing to maximize not only the physical destruction of property, schools, libraries, community infrastructure, but additionally the psychological, intellectual and emotional destruction of children’s education, and relationships to their families, parents and future, as individuals with no regard whatsoever for the concept of personal responsibility, integrity and honour; (vii) The ANC did not adopt violence as a last resort; but as a first resort to liberate the African’s colonized mind of ‘whiteness’, because ‘violence was a cleansing liberating force to restore the Africans self-respect on the rotting corpse of the settler’.
    
    
73. Just Post Bellum: Subsequent to the cessation of the Apartheid conflict as a result of the ‘TRC Ceasefire negotiations’, the ANC did not choose to avoid imposing punishment on innocents and non-combatants. Instead 16 years later, individuals totally innocent of apartheid are still being punished for ‘apartheid’, by means of Affirmative Action policies; and every single other problem under the sun is blamed on ‘apartheid’. Neither have the ANC respected the rights or traditions of Boer-Afrikaner minority cultures. To the contrary, the ANC appear to be doing all in their power to facilitate the destruction of Boer-Afrikaner and other minority cultures, some of whom have absolutely no standing whatsoever in SA’s alleged ‘multi-culti’ courtrooms. Finally, the ANC reneged upon its promises of Political Amnesty in cases such as Eugene de Kock, Clive Derby-Lewis, Januzs Walus, and others, whose crimes were clearly politically motivated; while endorsing amnesty for their necklacing cadres; destroying any possible trust that could have been cultivated with minorities, by honouring their agreements.
    
    
74. Radical Honesty believe if the ANC had been led by Impartial International individuals committed to seriously enquiring into all the ecological, psychological, political, demographic, spiritual and emotional causes of Apartheid violence, much of the information shared in the Applicants Heads of Argument would have been revealed; and a far more balanced report would have resulted, that perceived not only the perspectives of the ANC and Apartheid, but also those of the IFP, and others. Instead the TRC told us the ANC’s truth, and nothing but the ANC’s truth. It is dangerous for those who believe the ANC’s truth, but have made no personal effort to educate themselves about all the other rainbow tribes truths and perspectives towards apartheid, to believe their ANC truth, as the one and only absolute truth.
    
    
75. For many of those who have spent the past 16 years drinking the ANC truth coolaid discarding all other perspectives, in order to believe their desperate fantasies and illusions about how they are and were ‘noble freedom fighters’; taking a look in the mirror and admitting that they were young, impressionable, suffered from many psychological and masculine insecurity complexes and desperately wanted to impress others with their ‘young lion’ macho bravado, and still do; would essentially require them to kill the identity of whom they believe themselves to have been. It would take an extraordinary amount of courage. It would require them to confront the origin of their addiction to these fantasies; their masculine insecurity complexes.
    
    
76. Whether they have the courage to do so, remains to be seen.
    
    
77. If they do, they can find the path towards living a life committed to honouring yourself enough to tell yourself the truth, to confront your own BS, to refuse to lie to yourself and deceive yourself. To refuse to live a fake public relations image, hiding your secrets and skeletons. The reward? No more masculine/feminine and psychological inferiority insecurity complexes! No more self-imposed neurotic stress from attempting to conform to a sick system, and the beginning of a joyful shared social discomfort with a mission--to enroll others in learning how to fall in love with reality too! More and more people who develop a strong preference for reality and a short tolerance for bullshit. From that psychological evolution springs a consciousness revolution: the joy and freedom of personal responsibility!
    
    
78. The Attitude of the Parties to the Main Application:
    
    
79. On 18 April 2011, the Applicant filed a Notice of Intention: Request for Parties Consent. The applicant has not received any responses of consent or objections.
    
    
80. Relief Requested in the Present Application:
    
    
81. To admit the attached Heads of Argument as the Radical Honesty Culture and Religion’s Official For the Court Record Objective Reasonable Perspective in this matter:
    
    
82. Heads of Argument of Lara Johnstone, Radical Honesty Culture; ‘Boer/Settler’ descendant of Dutch, French Huguenot and British ‘Settlers’: Hermanus Bosman, Andreus Lutgerus Kolver; Jacques de Villiers and James Augustus Johnstone; In Support of ‘Political Necessity French Riddle of the Kaffir Lily Pond’ Application of the Radical Honesty Population Policy Common Sense Interpretation of ANC’s ‘TRC Social Contract Fraud’; Recommendation to Constitutional Court to Resolve ‘Kill Boer/Settler Hate Speech’ Descartian v. Ubuntu Conformist Cultural Friction by Implementing: (A) 23 April 1994 Accord on Afrikaner Self-Determination to provide Boers with a ‘Kaffir’ Free Speech Volkstaat; and/or (B) Jus Sanguinis Repatriation of ‘Settlers’ to European Progenitor Nations.

» » » » [Rad. Honesty Applic. to Proceed as Amicus Curiae (PDF)]

NL-FR-DE-UK-CH 'Boer/Settler' doc's filed in 'Kill Boers Hate Speech' Trial: Boer Volkstaat; & Jus Sanguinis Repatriation of Settlers?