Afriforum v. Malema: 'Kaffir' Struggle Activism: RH Correspondence to, and from, Steve Hofmeyr

From: Steve Hofmeyr
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 11:50 AM
To: Lara Johnstone
Subject: RE: Jhb. Bar Soc.: Complaint: Req. for Info: RE: Adv. Henno Viljoen, Advocates Group 21, Mweb K****r Complaint

Lara

Thank you. I have reread your initial bulky post. We don’t really do this (my consuming inbox will astound you) unless what enters are contracts we await or unless we are served by law. I must admit, I’m not quite sure what you are wanting to say. Definition discrepancies or an attack on the modus operandi of my campaign?

But I can not be radicalised by straw men set up from things I did not say.

I can not be told that I am racist when I'm NOT and have 46 years of South African living to proof it. I am an old drama school commie, extremely liberal (the first TUT black student was in my class I’m proud to say!) and I have yet to insult any South African for their skin colour per se. What I do get is non-Afrikaners prescribing to me what kind of mortality rate we should learn to accept and what kind of bullying young Afrikaner farmer-families should accept as karma for some bygone era.

I have not and will not use the K word (not even in historical or statistical correct context as I would have) & have as a reconciliatory gesture, dropped it from the song. Should courts give Malema and the ANC the green light for hate speech such as KILL THE BOER (which simply hasnt enter your thoughts, has it?), it will be open season on national insults. With or without my help. This was the point and condition of my threat. Off course, that same Monday judge Leon Halgryn deemed KILL THE BOER môre than hate speech, it “enticed murder”.

It has to be said that my “racial” definition of the K word has ample historical backing, libraries of proof of voluminous historical usage and I don’t believe you are radically honest if you think your definition is absolutely and solely, the one. As the hate speech court accepts, there are indeed different contextual uses of terminology.

I reply only because I can see you do treat the subject with serious concern. But please remember that the multicultural nation is an ideal, NOT a lot of South Africans assimilating to YOUR culture, lifestyle, values and mother tongue. That is wishful thinking.

Lastly, you must know that this is the worse time in history to prescribe to other tribes and nations on how to react to their loses, how much to mourn their dead and how high the hairs in their necks should stand up at what were are witnessing around us. I can not acclimatize to our continuous and hopeless index failure worldwide.

Am I still reading you wrong? Hope not. Have you misread me? Maybe. But a short summary of your intensions, as well as those of Adv. Henno Viljoen, Advocates Group 21, will be welcomed.

Thanks
Steve Hofmeyr

Radical Honesty SA to Steve Hofmeyr:

Kill Boer v. Kaffir Chronology: Radical Honesty Amicus in Afriforum v. Malema: VVK Boer Volkstaat Political Necessity French Riddle of the Kaffir Lily Pond

31 May 2011

Mr. Hofmeyr/Steve,

Many thanks for your letter. It appears that you have totally misunderstood where I was coming from. I am still unclear whether I have misread you.

I do not know what Advocate Viljoen’s intentions are; only he does. I have written to him to ask him for more information; via the Johannesburg Society of Advocates.

My intentions are simply to practice what I preach, and to live in accordance to my Radical Honesty Social Contract towards any and every single person who crosses my path. I tell the truth in any given moment. 100% Honesty and Truth is my priority, even if truth collides with a paycheck, my reputation with ignorant moron imbecile masses. I do not pretend that my truth on any given matter is the truth, but I do recognize that since my commitment to living a life committed to truth, as opposed to other individuals commitment to racial, political or other ideologies, means that my truth-telling practice means my truth on any given matter is plausibly closer to the truth than any individual whose truth is not founded on scientific evidence, but political, religious or racial ideology. My intentions are to highly value persons who provide me with new evidence that shows my former evidence to have been flawed, because then I can amend my working hypothesis on that issue to be even closer to a new truth, that is more and more founded on scientific evidence; i.e. raw brutal reality.

My intentions in my correspondence to you was motivated by my attempt to figure out where your ‘Kaffir’ activism fits, if it does fit, into the Radical Honesty ‘VVK Boer Volkstaat Political Necessity French Riddle of the Kaffir Lily Pond’ Afriforum v. Malema Amicus big picture.

Herewith a chronology of events, as a summary:

[1] On 19 April 2011, I filed an Application to Proceed as an Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court) in Afriforum v. Malema (PDF).

The ANC and Malema argue it is important for the court to consider their intentions for singing Kill the Boer; including Malema & ANC definitions of Kill Boer; which is not the same definition as Afriforum and TAU.

The evidence I submitted is that when it comes to the word Kaffir, for which I have twice been convicted and spent time in jail; the Magistrates ruled that my intentions for using Kaffir, my non-racial definitions and intentions and my cultural meaning for Kaffir were irrelevant.

When I contacted 140 of SA’s political, media and academic leaders to ask them whether they supported my right to my intentions and my cultural definitions of Kaffir. They all refused (including Afriforum); essentially stating that I live in a One Racial Definition Only for Kaffir Dictatorship: my intentions, and my cultural definitions are irrelevant.

My argument is that if we live in a One-Legal-Meaning-Only-for-Kaffir Dictatorship; why do we not also live in a One-Legal-Meaning-Only-for-Kill-the-Boer Dictatorship?

Simplistically: If there is only one meaning for Kaffir allowed; and anyone who accuses another of being a Kaffir is sent to prison; like I was; why can there be more than one meaning for Kill Boer; and those who sing it, are not sent to prison?

I argued that the Eco-Cultural State of South Africa’s Body Political System shall collapse from the pressure cooker masculine insecurity rage of perceived insults if ‘Kill the Boer’ and ‘Kaffir’ are both designated as Freedom of Speech. However, if Kill the Boer is banned, it will not stop Fundamentalist Black Liberation Theology ‘Anti-Whiteness’ Marxist Revolutionaries who shall not rest until they achieve their Violent Marxist Cleansing Liberation / Reconciliation / Salvation on the Rotting Corpses of Boer/Settlers. ‘Kill the Boer’ is their Mascot, towards that ultimate ‘Settler Free Utopia’.

Consequently, the only fair and just option available to the Court to enable Boer/Settlers to protect themselves, is that the Court must:

1. Implement 23 April 1994 Accord on Afrikaner Self-Determination for a Boer ‘Kaffir’ Free Speech Volkstaat, by endorsing and supporting the work of the Volksraad Verkiesing Kommissie, for 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.

I further provided extensive evidence for how and why South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation was a FRAUD; if considered in accordance to International Just War (Military Honour) Theory Principles. I requested the court to accept the Radical Honesty Heads of Argument as the Radical Honesty Culture and Religion’s Official For the Court Record Objective Reasonable Perspective in this matter:

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.

Relevant chapters:

IV: JUST WAR & TRAGEDY OF ANC’S BREEDING WAR COMMONS

1. Apartheid: Crime Against Humanity; or Just War for Demographic Survival?
   
2. ANC’s Liberation Struggle violated Just War (Honour) Theory Principles:
   
3. No Just Cause: ANC Could Have Non-violently Ended their Breeding War
   
4. No Right Intention: Apartheid raised Black Living Standards to Highest in Africa
   
5. No Proper Authority: Did Black South Africans want Black Rule?
   
6. No Proportional Force: People’s War Terror for ‘Liberation Struggle’
   
7. No Proportional Force: ANC’s Mbokodo Quatro Torture Camps
   
8. War No Last Resort: Violence a Liberating Force’ on Rotting Corpse of Settler

V: TRC FRAUD: ‘CRIME OF APARTHEID’ WAS FALSIFICATION OF SA HISTORY

1. TRC Social Contract Maintains Legal Oppression by Avoiding Key Definitions
   
2. Black Liberation Theology vs Calvinist Christian Concepts of Reconciliation
   
3. Was Truth & Reconciliation Seen to be Done by Black Liberation Theology TRC?
   
4. Nature & Causes of Apartheid: A Just War for Demographic Survival?
   
5. Farm Murders: A Rainbow TRC Peace, or Racial Hatred War Reality?
   
6. ANC’s Masculine Insecurity Poverty Pimping Population Production Breeding War

VI. A DESCARTIAN DIALOGUE: INTENTIONS AND DEFINITIONS OF ‘KAFFIR’?

1. Existential Friction Theory Identities: Boer Descartian v. Ubuntu Conformist
   
2. Radical Honesty Habeus Mentem Eco-Psycho-Cultural Definitions of Kaffir
   
3. SA Courts: Radical Honesty Intention & Definitions of ‘Kaffir’ Irrelevant
   
4. CCT: Radical Honesty Intention & Definitions of ‘Kaffir’: Not In Interests of Justice

[2] On 20 April 2011, Judge Lamont acknowledged receipt of my application in court proceedings . The media censored the information about the application from the publics right to know.

Neither Afriforum, TAU-SA, Malema or the ANC have provided the court with any official response to the Radical Honesty SA application to proceed as an Amicus.

[3] There is a problem for Afriforum and TAU-SA regarding their endorsement for the cover-up and censorship of the Radical Honesty SA Amicus application.

[4] One of the Radical Honesty SA TRC fraud arguments is:

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?

[5] The argument is on the presumption that honourable Boer/Afrikaners would no longer discriminate against Africans once such Africans demonstrated their commitment to responsible procreation practices, personal responsibility and non-violence.

[6] However that presumption turns out to be erroneous, when Boer/Afrikaners, such as Afriforum and TAU-SA (and others) endorse the legal and political persecution and prosecution and withholding of legal rights to a white woman, who is committed to responsible procreation practices, personal responsibility and non-violence.

[7] A Legal, Political, Academic or Media organisation – such as Afriforum, TAU-SA, ANC, etc -- who endorses the legal and political persecution and prosecution, & [denial of] right to public discourse; to a white woman, who is committed to responsible procreation practices, personal responsibility and non-violence; would endorse the same legal and political persecution and prosecution of a black men and women from a small culture or tribe who practiced responsible procreation practices, personal responsibility and non-violence.

[8] Afriforum, TAU-SA, want Malema and the ANC to recognize their minority rights, but in the same breath do exactly what the ANC does: endorse the legal and political persecution and censorship of myself from the tiny Radical Honesty tribe/culture. Even worse: someone from a tribe whose entire history is that of abiding by just war practices of responsible procreation; personal responsibility and non-violence.

[9] On 09 May 2011 a complaint was filed with the International Criminal Court (ICC) against among others: Mandela, Tutu, De Klerk, Norwegian Nobel Committee, Concourt Justices, 88 SA Media (Editors & Publications), New York Times, UK Telegraph:

Complainants allege the Defendants cover up and censorship of the ANC and Anti-Apartheid Movements (i) Frantz Fanon/Black Consciousness (‘liberation by violence on the rotting corpse of the settlers’) (ii) Black Liberation Theology (‘violent elimination of ‘whiteness’); and (iii) Houari Boumediene/Black Power Breeding War (“The wombs of our women will give us victory”) inspired TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION FRAUD (“TRC FRAUD”) perpetrated against citizens of South Africa, and predominantly against white Afrikaner/Boer/Settlers; is committed in the context of endorsing the ANC’s institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by Africans over other racial groups, particularly Boer/Afrikaners and committed with the intention of maintaining the ANC regime.

The Radical Honesty SA Amicus Heads of Argument in Afriforum v. Malema recommending either (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; was submitted as one of the evidentiary documents; for the TRC FRAUD coverup.

[10] On 09 May 2011 you post: This is gonna hurt a little - Façade 42: It is time for Julius Malema and the ANC to admit.... to your website:

41. It is time for Julius Malema to admit to the sometimes mutual incompatibility between hatespeech and traditional songs, the way Afrikaners had to sacrifice traditional terms like “kaffer”. He can not have his cake and eat it. If some can chant “kill the Boer”, others will gladly reciprocate by revoking the vocable.

STEVE HOFMEYR - Ons Sal Dit Oorleef (MUSIEK VIDEO) (03:44)

[11] On 11 May 2011 the media report Steve Hofmeyr uses K Word, in your new song dedicated to Eugene Terreblanche:

“Hofmeyr confirmed that "that k-word" does appear in the lyrics of his new song Ons sal dit oorleef, but "in a certain context".”

[12] On 12 May 2011, I wrote you an email: Mr. Hofmeyr: Request Clarification Context & Definitions of “kaffer”, wherein I asked:

I am not aware of your ‘certain context’; however your reference to “the way Afrikaners had to sacrifice traditional terms like “kaffer”” would appear that your definition of ‘kaffir’ would be a racial definition; i.e describing black people?

Is your usage of ‘kaffir’ in accordance with the pejorative meaning for a black person?

Confirmation Your Usage is Not in Accordance to Radical Honesty Definitions:

Radical Honesty definitions of ‘kaffir’ are not racial, but anyone befitting any of the Radical Honesty ‘kaffir’ definitions can be called a ‘kaffir’ irrespective of race, religion, culture. As stated in court documents (CCT 23-10, CCT 06-11, 07-2010 EQ JHB, ICC 09 May 2011 Radical Honesty Genocide complaint), to among others Afriforum, whom you are closely associated with; I imagine you are aware of them.

[13] On 13 May 2011 I wrote you another letter: [Afriforum v. Malema] Radical Honesty SA to Steve Hofmeyr: To Be; Or Not to Be: A Kaffir!:

In the absence of you acting honourably to clarify your definition of ‘Kaffir’ in the Afriforum v. Malema matter; I hereby notify you (Steve Hofmeyr) and the Parties in Afriforum v. Malema: “Radical Honesty SA does not share Steve Hofmeyr’s definition of ‘Kaffirs’ as being African/black people. Radical Honesty’s definitions of ‘Kaffir’ are NOT RACIAL; they ARE BEHAVIOURAL…….”

Note: I did NOT say that Radical Honesty’s definitions of Kaffir are the ONE AND ONLY KAFFIR DEFINITIONS; which is exactly what the ‘One-Meaning-Only-for-Kaffir-Dictatorship’ says: their and their meaning for “kaffir’ is the one and only one. I recognized there are many Kaffir definitions, and simply distanced my Radical Honesty usage of Kaffir from your possible Racial usage of Kaffer.

It was unclear to me whether your ‘One Sal Oorleef/Kaffir’ campaign was to expose the media censorship and cover-up of the Radical Honesty SA Amicus Curiae arguments; to encourage honest public discussion about the History of the Kaffir word; the different meanings and intentions and interpretations for Kaffir; in the same way that there has been a public discussion for ‘Kill the Boer’.

Essentially I gave you the benefit of the doubt that your ‘Kaffir’ actions were on behalf of raising public discourse on the Radical Honesty Amicus ‘VVK Boer Volkstaat Political Necessity of the French Riddle of the Kaffir Lily Pond’ issues.

[14] Upon that assumption I continued to provide you with copies of the documentation in regards to my Radical Honesty SA Afriforum-v-Malema argument in favour of a ‘Boer Kaffir Free Speech Volkstaat’.

[15] On 15 May 2011, I wrote a letter to SAIRR: Mr. Franz Cronje, regarding his Open Letter to Yourself: [Afriforum v. Malema] Radical Honesty SA to SAIRR: Frans Cronje: Who; or What is a Kaffir? Do Kaffirs Exist?.

According to Mr. Sandile Memela:

• the meaning of any word is not in the word itself, but in people’s heads
  
• Kaffirs do exist! The biggest sin will always be: Who says it!
  
• The use of the K-word is something that most white guilt whites still need to discuss with their psychiatrists.
  
• The time may be right for a society that has been undergoing transition for the past 13 years to appreciate new methods of defining the meaning of words and understanding their use in blunt, intense and provocative public speech.
  
• Once 'kaffir' is out of the closet, pseudo-liberal forces both within the white community and their black imitators demand the person apologize, and put 'kaffir' back in the closet, to hush up any use of the word lest it raise the spectre of the apartheid past that haunts us.
  
• But the panic and hysteria that has been caused in the white social and cultural circles is a sad farce of good intentions. The conclusion that should be drawn on this matter is that it is a combination of white guilt and political correctness.
  
• This is part of our self-redefinition and expanding the meaning of words to fit into a new socio-cultural vocabulary that will help ultimately to break with white guilt, political correctness and a deep-seated inferiority complex.

Dr. Truth Challenge to South Africa: Who; or What is a Kaffir? Do Kaffirs Exist?

So, here is a ‘Dr. Truth’ free-Radical Honesty Therapy invitation to South Africa’s white guilt liberals who still need to discuss the word ‘kaffir’ with their psychiatrists…..[..] Or are SA’s TRC fraud elite to addicted to ‘Bullshit the Public’ TRC Fraud Relations slave and cannon fodder breeding war murder, rape, corruption road kill stew?

[16] Copies of aforementioned letters to yourself and SAIRR; were sent to: Radio 702, Beeld, Burger, Business Day, Cape Argus, Carte Blanche, Citizen, City Press, Cape Times, Daily News, PRAAG, Daily Maverick, 3rd Degree, ETV, Financial Mail, IOL, M&G, News 24, Rapport, RSG, SABC, SANEF, SAPA, Sowetan, Sat Star, Sunday Times, Volksblad.

[17] Copies of aforementioned letters to yourself and SAIRR were also sent to Advocate members of the various Bar and Law Societies of South Africa; including the Johannesburg Bar Association members; as part of the Jus Sanguinis Boer Volkstaat Campaign’s Audi Alteram Partem notifications to South Africa’s TRC fraud legal, political and media elite.

[18] On 18 May 2011, I was informed by MWeb that Advocate Henno Viljoen had filed a ‘racial offensive spamming’ complaint with MWeb, in response to the word ‘Kaffir’.

[19] On 19 May 2011, I filed a request for information with the Johannesburg Bar Association requesting Advocate Viljoen to provide further details regarding his alleged ‘racial offensive spamming’ complaint.

[20] On 23 May 2011, I wrote a letter to the F.W. de Klerk Foundation regarding Mandela, Tutu and De Klerk’s Nobel-TRC-Fraud-Peace Elite's One Meaning Only for Kaffir Dictatorship (PDF).

[21] On 25 May 2011, I received your response via Leeze:

Thank u, but Steve did not and will not use the k-word. (Ag se asb ons stel nie belang nie omdat daar geen geleentheid is of was waar Steve Hofmeyr die k woord gebruik het nie.)

[22] On 25 May 2011, I responded to Leeze:

Many thanks for your response.

I don't care if Steve has the balls or not to use the k-word; or not.

My documentation to Mr. Hofmeyr was to inform him that (a) the Radical Honesty culture does not endorse his racial definition of 'kaffir' and (b) to provide him with evidence of the Radical Honesty culture's support for Afrikaners free speech; and (c) to inform him of the Radical Honesty cultures legal persecution and prosecution.

Should I interpret Mr. Hofmeyr's response that he does not support the free speech rights of other minority cultures, such as the Radical Honesty culture; whose definition of Kaffir; is not racial; but behavioural?

[23] On 26 May 2011, you responded:

Thank you. I have reread your initial bulky post. We don’t really do this (my consuming inbox will astound you) unless what enters are contracts we await or unless we are served by law. I must admit, I’m not quite sure what you are wanting to say. Definition discrepancies or an attack on the modus operandi of my campaign?

But I can not be radicalised by straw men set up from things I did not say.

I can not be told that I am racist when I'm NOT and have 46 years of South African living to proof it. I am an old drama school commie, extremely liberal (the first TUT black student was in my class I’m proud to say!) and I have yet to insult any South African for their skin colour per se. What I do get is non-Afrikaners prescribing to me what kind of mortality rate we should learn to accept and what kind of bullying young Afrikaner farmer-families should accept as karma for some bygone era.

I have not and will not use the K word (not even in historical or statistical correct context as I would have) & have as a reconciliatory gesture, dropped it from the song. Should courts give Malema and the ANC the green light for hate speech such as KILL THE BOER (which simply hasnt enter your thoughts, has it?), it will be open season on national insults. With or without my help. This was the point and condition of my threat. Off course, that same Monday judge Leon Halgryn deemed KILL THE BOER môre than hate speech, it “enticed murder”.

It has to be said that my “racial” definition of the K word has ample historical backing, libraries of proof of voluminous historical usage and I don’t believe you are radically honest if you think your definition is absolutely and solely, the one. As the hate speech court accepts, there are indeed different contextual uses of terminology.

I reply only because I can see you do treat the subject with serious concern. But please remember that the multicultural nation is an ideal, NOT a lot of South Africans assimilating to YOUR culture, lifestyle, values and mother tongue. That is wishful thinking.

Lastly, you must know that this is the worse time in history to prescribe to other tribes and nations on how to react to their loses, how much to mourn their dead and how high the hairs in their necks should stand up at what were are witnessing around us. I can not acclimatize to our continuous and hopeless index failure worldwide.

Am I still reading you wrong? Hope not. Have you misread me? Maybe. But a short summary of your intensions, as well as those of Adv. Henno Viljoen, Advocates Group 21, will be welcomed.

As I said: My intentions are simply to practice what I preach, and to live in accordance to my Radical Honesty Social Contract towards any and every single person who crosses my path. I tell the truth in any given moment. 100% Honesty and Truth is my priority, even if truth collides with a paycheck, my reputation with ignorant moron imbecile masses. I do not pretend that my truth on any given matter is the truth, but I do recognize that since my commitment to living a life committed to truth, as opposed to other individuals commitment to racial, political or other ideologies, means that my truth-telling practice means my truth on any given matter is plausibly closer to the truth than any individual whose truth is not founded on scientific evidence, but political, religious or racial ideology. My intentions are to highly value persons who provide me with new evidence that shows my former evidence to have been flawed, because then I can amend my working hypothesis on that issue to be even closer to a new truth, that is more and more founded on scientific evidence; i.e. raw brutal reality.

My intentions in my correspondence to you was motivated by my attempt to figure out where your ‘Kaffir’ activism fits, if it does fit, into the Radical Honesty ‘VVK Boer Volkstaat Political Necessity French Riddle of the Kaffir Lily Pond’ Afriforum v. Malema Amicus big picture.

I hope that helps to clarify my intentions for you; hopefully you can clarify your intentions for me.

Respectfully,

Lara Johnstone
Radical Honesty SA
Jus Sanguinis Petition Organizer
www.jussanguinis.com
www.african-white-refugees.co.nr
Tel: (044) 870 7239 | Cel: (071) 170 1954

» » » » [Letter to Steve Hofmeyr (PDF)]