Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence Sustainable Security Amicus Filed in USA v Bradley Manning

Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence Sustainable Security Amicus Filed in USA v Bradley Manning

CommonSism Aequilibriaex Jurisprudence: Common Sense Guerrylla Laws for a Sustainable Commons. Guerrylla Laws simply and very specifically clarify the difference between the consumption and procreation behaviour of an Unsustainable Taker (Scarcity Combatant) vs a Sustainable Leaver (Eco-Innocent).

Andrea Muhrrteyn | TYGAE | 02 April 2013

[2.1] Amici’s Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence Sustainable Security Arguments to this AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence Dispute.

A. Credibility Failure/Fraud of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence: An analysis of the failures of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence, in terms of its preference to regulate (a) the relations between humans, nature and other animals species and (b) the relations between humans amongst themselves, in terms of their gender, cultural, religious and ideological conflicts; on behalf of the exclusive benefits of Anthropocentric males and corporations.

B. Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence argues that a ‘credible’ Æquilibriæx judicial system – like the gender balanced Mosuo in South West China who have no rape (not even a word in their language for rape, because it does not exist), no murder, no suicide and no unemployment; – is one which accurately and honestly applies the relevant natural or scientific laws, to attain a specific related preferred result of inter-human and intra-species harmony and balance

C. Equilibriæx: Ecocentric analysis of alleged crime with regard to the laws of nature / ecology. Did criminal act contribute to greater inter-species carrying capacity harmony, or dischord, between between humans, nature and other animals species?

D. Aquilibriæx: Anthropocentric analysis of alleged ‘crime’ with regard to the laws of human nature. Did criminal act contribute to greater intra-species equity harmony, or dischord, between humans amongst themselves, in terms of their gender, cultural, religious and ideological conflicts?

Supreme Court of Appeal Values: EcoFeminist Sustainable Democracy Transparency TruthSeeking, or Masculine Insecurity War/Conflict Economy Parasite Leeching Tyranny?

Supreme Court of Appeal Values: EcoFeminist Sustainable Democracy Transparency TruthSeeking, or Masculine Insecurity War/Conflict Economy Parasite Leeching Tyranny?

Primary Parties are all Patriarchal: Patriarchal cultures suffer from different degrees of Masculine Insecurity, which is a direct and indirect root cause and aggravating factor for most of the worlds problems, due to (A) obstructing Radical Transparency communication problem solving, (B) is the cognitive foundation of the anti-Meritocratic Parasite Leeching Leadership (sic) Paradigm; (C) hence propagandizes an exponential growth of Parasite Leeching -- ‘walking penis procreation’ overpopulation and ‘consume to demonstrate the size of my consumption penis’ overconsumption -- worldview.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Radical Honoursty | 18 July 2012

On 22 May 2012, the Supreme Court of Appeal responded to my Application to Proceed as Amicus Curiae in the Afriforum v. Malema: Kill Boer matter. The SCA President refused my application to proceed as Amicus Curiae on the grounds that “it does not appear… that any value will be added to the arguments to be made by the parties legal representatives and thus will not be useful to the court.”

Today I filed an application for Permission to Appeal his decision to the Constitutional Court. Here follows excerpts of the application.

Radical Honesty culture herewith applies to the above Honourable Court, for the following orders:

[1] Permission to invoke cultural law in S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18; to enable the Applicant to honour the duty and responsibility to uphold the principles upon which the Radical Honesty culture is based; and Psychological Integrity in Section 12 ; the former which may require the application of choice of law rules.

[2] Permission to file an application to the Constitutional Court to Review the Honourable Supreme Court of Appeal’s 22 May 2012 decision to Refuse the Applicants Application to Proceed as an Amicus Curiae.

Conclusion:

IF: Supreme Court of Appeals Values endorse EcoFeminist Sustainable Democracy Transparency TruthSeeking Problem Solving: Applicant Should be Approved as an Amicus Curiae

IF: Supreme Court of Appeal Values Endorse Masculine Insecurity War/Conflict Economy Tyranny Public Relations Deception Management Parasite Leeching Pretend Problem Solving; Applicant Should be Refused to Proceed as an Amicus Curiae.

Afrikaners (Afriforum & Christian Democratic Party) Oppose Malema's ‘Kaffir’ ‘Kill Boer’ Apartheid Free Speech Volkstaat Application to Concourt

Afrikaners (Afriforum & Christian Democratic Party) Oppose Malema's ‘Kaffir’ ‘Kill Boer’ Apartheid Free Speech Volkstaat Application to Concourt

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

15 December 2011 | Andrea Muhrrteyn | White Refugee

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.

AntiShyster Alfred Adask - The American Woman, You're Only Cattle to the Elite & Declaration of Independence

“AntiShyster” defined:
Black’s Law Dictionary defines “shyster” as “one who carries on any business, especially a legal business, in a dishonest way. An unscrupulous practitioner who
disgraces his profession by doing mean work, and resorts to sharp practice to do it.” Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines “shyster” as “one who is professionally unscrupulous esp. in the practice of law or politics.” For the purposes of this publication, a “shyster” is a dishonest attorney or politician, i.e., one who lies. An “AntiShyster”, therefore, is a person, an institution, or in this case, a news magazine that stands in sharp opposition to lies and to professional liars, especially in the arenas of law and politics.

Legal Advice:
The ONLY legal advice this publication offers is this: Any attempt to cope with our modern judicial system must be tempered with the sure and certain knowledge that “law” is always a crapshoot. That is, nothing (not even brown paper bags filled with hundred dollar bills and handed to the judge) will absolutely guarantee your victory in a judicial trial or administrative hearing. The most you can hope for is to improve the probability that you may win. Therefore, DO NOT DEPEND ON THE ARTICLES OR ADVERTISEMENTS IN THIS PUBLICATION to illustrate anything more than the opinions or experiences of others trying to escape, survive, attack or even make sense of “the best judicial system in the world”. But don’t be discouraged; there’s not another foolproof publication on law in the entire USA – except the Bible.

Big Government’s Goin’ Down

• I suspect the decentralizing forces of the internet are “melting, melting!” the power of central government.
  
• I am persuaded that there are two “kinds” of government and attempt to clarify that conviction by defining one government (the good one) as “Federal” while the other (“evil twin”) as “National”.
  
• I am absolutely convinced that there are several kinds of citizenship. If you don’t understand each variety of citizenship, you can’t know the rights and disabilities that attach to each. Without that understanding, your mere agreement to being a “citizen” can be hazardous to your health.

The cause of this hazardous predicament is, finally, our own. We’ve trusted government to tend to our rights and citizenship for so long, that we’ve lost the vital understanding of our own legal capacity. This lack of knowledge causes Biblical people to perish and secular people to pay exorbitant taxes and be regularly jailed in administrative hearings rather than judicial trials. In a world of public schools and mainstream media control, self-education may be the only road to freedom. This publication reports the educational progress of myself and other like-minded individuals. If the idea of citizenship interests you, you may find this edition of the AntiShyster fascinating.

The American Woman - Alfred Adask, Anti-Shyster [01/04] [02/04] [03/04] [04/04]

Anders Breivik: Knights Templar: Opening statement: Defence: Innocent; Political Necessity: I am Sitting Bull of Nat. EU Indigenous Rights Movement

Anders Breivik: Knights Templar: Opening statement: Defence: Innocent; Political Necessity: I am Sitting Bull of National European Indigenous Rights Movement

Excerpt: 2083 - EU Declaration of Independence

3.70 Court/trial statements for Justiciar Knight and other patriotic resistance fighters after an operation

2083: A European Declaration of Independence, by Andrew Berwick (aka Andres Breivik), London [From Unwanted Advocate: (PDF)]

A trial is an excellent opportunity and a well suited arena the Justiciar Knight can use to publicly renounce the authority of the EUSSR/USASSR hegemony and the specific cultural Marxist / multiculturalist regime. After all, this hegemony is nothing more than a global criminal network consisting of fundamentally undemocratic, anti-national dictatorships.

The individual countries in this cultural Marxist/multiculturalist criminal network are not democracies and have not been real democracies since perhaps the 1950s. Instead they are dictated by a small elite of political and cultural leaders who deliberately use the state institutions and media companies to indoctrinate and control their own people. The accused should use this opportunity to present all available documentation, illustrations and proof included in this compendium (2083 – A European Declaration of Independence) to claim his innocence. However, he should also at a later stage in the trial demand freedom on behalf of his people and demand that the regime in question immediately and without hesitation capitulates to the pan-European tribunal – PCCTS, represented by the accused, the Justiciar Knight and the national patriotic forces he indirectly controls.

Knights Templar 2083 by Anders Behring Breivik (12:23)

The Justiciar Knight must demand the right to form a cultural conservative tribunal consisting of the 20 most dedicated and trustworthy cultural conservative/patriotic leaders in the country. Furthermore, he must demand that that the national parliament immediately transfers all political powers to this newly established tribunal / cabinet. The Justiciar Knight must also demand at least 20 hours of unrestricted access to the national broadcasting company in order to consolidate and rally an initial and loyal patriotic military force (2000 should be a benchmark depending on the size of the country). The Justiciar Knight and the newly established tribunal will then appoint one trustworthy individual in his newly appointed cabinet to be the new national military commander with control of the national regular military forces. Martial law must be declared in this transitional period. (See relevant phase 3 strategies for more detailed descriptions).

Mr. Collins Chabane: Evidence of SANEF Media Mafia Bias and Censorship Behaviour

Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 5:45 PM
Subject: Prof. A. Harber, Min. C. Chabane & Mr. J. Manyi: Req. Response from SANEF to Media Mafia Bias Evidence

TO: Prof. Anton Harber, Media Critic (sic)
TO: Minister Collins Chabane
TO: Mr. Jimmy Manyi, c/o Black Management Forum
TO: Mr. Mondli Makhanya, SANEF

Req. SA Media Critics (sic) provide Mr. Collins Chabane an official response in Meeting with Mr. Manyi, to Radical Honesty SA Evidence of SANEF Media Mafia Bias and Censorship Behaviour.

CC: SANEF, Mr. Manyi, Min. Collins Chabane

Dear Prof. Harber,

I was most surprised to read your statement to Mr. Manyi, the CEO of GCSI to “Stop being a media critic, because that is no way to build working relationships with journalists.”


Working Relationships with Psychological Infant Journalists and Editors:

It is my understanding that any individual who considers themselves psychologically mature; is aware of the importance of constructive criticism to a professional working relationship. Any relationship founded on the parties being capable of sharing and hearing each other’s constructive criticism, and seriously enquiring into its evidentiary arguments; is a working relationship that can only grow stronger and stronger, as each party is provided the opportunity to receive information about its blindspots, and to fix those blindspots.

Active Listening and Constructive Criticism: Blogger’s Professional Response

I write a blog: Why We Are White Refugees.

In early 2010 I was contacted by another blogger, who shared with me some photos of farm murders, he said had been provided to him by a policeman friend of his. He asked that we publish the photos. I published the photos and also sent them to numerous politicians etc; including to Mr. Malema at the ANC. A few days later, I got an anonymous tip that one of the photos was fake. I investigated and found out that the tip was correct, and in fact four of the thirteen alleged farm murder photos were not South African crime scene photos, but foreign. I published a retraction and wrote an individual letter of apology to every single person and politician to whom I had sent the original photos.

Nobody had to go to an Ombudsman to file a complaint against me. All it required was for them to inform me of the error, and evidence where I could prove I had erred. Once it was clear to me I had made an error; I considered it my honour and duty and responsibility to publish a retraction and apology. I did not require someone to force me to do the right thing. I do not publish erroneous facts. If I am informed any alleged fact I have published is false, I consider it my duty as an honourable human being to correct such error.

I wrote letters of apology and retraction, and published these letters of apology and retraction to:

1. SA Students Congress, Mandela Rhodes Foundation, ANC Youth League; RE: Reitz 4 & Black Culture...;
   
2. Irish Embassy, Jefferson Family & Independent Newspapers; RE: Boycott 2010 World Cup;
   
3. Austrian Embassy, Burgstaller & Symcox Families; RE: Boycott 2010 World Cup;
   
4. PC Canada vs. IRB & Huntley: How many SA Black on White Crimes are Racially Motivated?;
   
5. Cape Bar & Intn'l Bar Assoc: Pro Bono Comm's: RE: Freedom of Speech Political and Cultural Rights, or Secession?; Constitutional, & Intn'l Law Issues.

Excerpts from PDF letter.

Respectfully,

Lara Johnstone
Radical Honesty SA

Encl. Excerpts from Founding Affidavit of Lara Johnstone, Member of Radical Honesty culture; in Application for Direct Access for a Writ of Habeus Mentem (CCT 06-11).

‘Black African workers are retarded’ - Reits 4 State Prosecutor Johan Kruger

So, read between the lines; and don't expect an ignorant black African to be able to do so; is the message from State Pros. Johan kruger? Basically the Reits 4 State Prosecutor Johan Kruger says that if a white person in South Africa wants a ‘healthy’ relationship with a black person in South Africa; then in this ‘healthy’ relationship you must treat the black African like they are retarded.

Do not expect a black African to know what consent is. Do not expect a black African to take responsibility for thier consent and agreement to freely conduct a voluntary act; for which their was no pressure they participate in. Black Africans are moronically stupid, they do not know what consent is; because they are intellectually retarded. So it is your responsibility as a white person, to know that even if a black person tells you that they agree to do something; you are speaking to a retarded person, who is non compis mentis on the issue of consent. It is consequently your responsibility to be their adult (even if they are double your age; you as a young white person, are required to be their adult; because no matter how old a black African is; they are retarded and don't know what consent is; nor what a consensual honourable agreement is).

Not only do black Africans not know what consent is; or what it means to make an honourable consensual agreement; but they are also retarded in that they don't know what a joke is; or what satire is. Your ‘healthy’ relationship with a black person does not involve making a joke; because their retarded intellectual capacity does not allow them to be able to understand what a joke is. They will not understand your intentions to be a friend, to have a laugh together; that this is part of what in the rest of the world is considered a healthy relationship: to be able to laugh together and with each other.

So, the state Prosecutor implies that Black Africans are retarded; because they will never consider the possibility of the real motive of sincerity and friendship, when you joke with them; they will always conclude that your intentions are malicious. There is sweet fuck all you can do; it doesn't matter how honourable; or noble or kind your intentions were; they will interpret your intentions as the intent to insult them.

So, what you must do, is treat black Africans as if they are retarded; they are cognitively incapable of conscious consent; of making an honourable agreement; of understanding what satire and or humour contributes to a relationship.

The Reits-4 TRC Fraud Prostitution Circus:

1. Introduction: Politicians, Editors & Lawyers: Kangaroo Court Actors
   

2. Media Timeline of Events - Ignoring Anti-Lynching Voices
   

3. Ubuntu Kangaroo Court Justice – Evidence is Irrelevant
   

4. The Reasonable Initiation Satire Legal Fraud – Who cares about Evidence?
   

5. The Dolus Eventualis Legal Fraud – The Multiculti Boiling Frog
   

6. The Reconciliation Religious Fraud – Censoring TRC Fraud
   

7. What is Oprah's Position on Black Liberation Theology TRC Fraud?

A lynching is the practice of killing people by extrajudicial mob action, where a mob is generally considered to be more than five persons. The mob generally act under the pretext of service to justice, their race or tradition. They use lynching and other terror tactics to intimidate a particular racial, religious or cultural group into political, social or economic submission. A legal lynching has other names such as Stalin's Political Show trials, or Kangaroo Court Justice, etc.

The term show trial is a pejorative description of a type of highly public trial. The term was first recorded in the 1930s. There is a strong connotation that the judicial authorities have already determined the guilt of the defendant and that the actual trial has as its only goal to present the accusation and the verdict to the public as an impressive example and as a warning. Show trials exhibit scant regard for the principles of jurisprudence and even for the letter of the law. Defendants have little real opportunity to justify themselves.

Adv. Henno Viljoen, Advocates Group 21 ‘One-Meaning-Only-for-Kaffir’ Dictatorship’ Complaint

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 4:25 PM
To: Jhb. Bar Soc.; General Council of the Bar of SA; MWeb Abuse & Security Team;
Adv. Henno Viljoen, c/o: Adv. Robbie Stockwell, SC, Advocates Group 21
CC: Afriforum v. Malema Parties; Steve Hofmeyr
Subject: Jhb. Bar Soc.: Complaint: Req. for Info: RE: Adv. Henno Viljoen, Advocates Group 21, Mweb K****r Complaint

TO: The Johannesburg Society of Advocates
Administrative Officer &/or Maria Ferreira

TO: General Council of the Bar of SA (GCB)

TO: Adv. Henno Viljoen
c/o: Adv. Robbie Stockwell, SC
Advocates Group 21

TO: Ashley Anthony & Quinton Davids (Case CAS-862066-11T1FP)]
MWEB Operations: E-mail Centre
Technical Support Team
MWEB Abuse & Security Team

BCC: Afriforum v. Malema Parties; Steve Hofmeyr
BCC: RWF MacWilliam, Cape Bar: Pro Bono Committee; & Anton Katz, Cape Bar: Human Rights Committee (Reference: Footnote 29):

Please find attached PDF’s:

• Radical Honesty SA Complaint to Jhb Bar Assoc: Request for Information: Re: Adv. Henno Viljoen, Advocates Group 21, ‘Kaffir’ Complaint to MWeb, including Annexures (A) to (C)
  
• Cape Bar Annexure, referred to in Footnote 29: 13 August 2009: Request for Impartial Record Keeping of Documentation: State v. Johnstone: Legal Argument, dated 11 August 2009; submitted to RWF MacWilliam, Cape Bar: Pro Bono Committee; c/o Anton Katz, Cape Bar: Human Rights Committee: Re: ‘Kaffir’ Crimen Inuria Trial documents.

Lara Johnstone
Radical Honesty SA
Tel: (044) 870 7239
Cel: (071) 170 1954

[Afriforum v. Malema] Radical Honesty SA to SAIRR: Frans Cronje: Who; or What is a Kaffir? Do Kaffirs Exist?

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 5:36 PM
To: SAIRR - John Kane Berman; SAIRR - Franz Cronje; SAIRR - Anthea Jeffery; Kerwin Lebone - SAIRR; Lucy Holborn - SAIRR;
CC: Steve Hofmeyr
Subject: [Afriforum v. Malema] Radical Honesty SA to SAIRR: Frans Cronje: Who; or What is a Kaffir? Do Kaffirs Exist?

Mr. Frans Cronje
SA Inst. of Race Relations (SAIRR)


BCC: SA Media Editors: 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, New York Times, UK Telegraph; All Afriforum v. Malema Parties
(Ref: SAIRR Open Letter to Steve Hofmeyr; RE: ‘Afriforum v. Malema’ ‘Kaffir’)

Please find attached PDF: Who or What is a Kaffir? Do Kaffirs Exist?

Overview:

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.

Respectfully Submitted,

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

[Afriforum v. Malema] Radical Honesty SA to Steve Hofmeyr: To Be; Or Not to Be: A Kaffir!

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 5:43 PM
To: Steve Hofmeyr
Subject: [Afriforum v. Malema] Radical Honesty SA to Steve Hofmeyr: To Be; Or Not to Be: A Kaffir!

Mr. Steve Hofmeyr,

BCC: SA Media Editors: Radio 702, Beeld, 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, New York Times, UK Telegraph; All Afriforum v. Malema Parties (Ref: Steve Hofmeyr pens Boer struggle song)

BCC: YNetNews (Ref: Yoram Ettinger: 12/05/2011)

Please find attached PDF: Radical Honesty SA to Steve Hofmeyr: To Be; Or Not to Be: A Kaffir!

Overview:

Notice to Steve Hofmeyr (CC: 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. Put differently, in Radical Honesty an individual - like you, Mr. Hofmeyr - has a CHOICE to be a KAFFIR; or NOT.

“A man like Brad Blanton or Demian Emile Johnson who has the courage and honour to express his anger face-to-face to resolve it; is an honourable Just War Warrior. Men like Steve Hofmeyr, Kallie Kriel, Julius Malema, Robert McBride, Martin Brassey, Derek Hanekom, Jacob Zuma, Gwede Mantashe, etc; are no more than masculine insecurity poverty pimping slave and cannon fodder breeding walking penis’s; with delusions of ‘warrior grandeur’. You lack the guts and courage to honourably and honesty express your anger non-violently face-to-face; condemning those who do have such honourable courage; but want to believe you are ‘warriors’ because you find courage, behind a machine gun or Policeman! Gutless fucking slave and cannon fodder breeding poverty pimping cowards!” - Francis Marion Braidfute

Is Yoram Ettinger’s Time for new diplomacy: Israel should adopt defiant, politically incorrect but principle-driven strategy; a response to Jus Sanguinis Defiant; Politically Incorrect but Principle-Driven Strategy Petition to Israel?

Respectfully Submitted,

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

Steve Hofmeyr uses ‘Kaffir’ in Pro-AWB song; in “Kaffir Lily Riddle” Radical Honesty Amicus in Afriforum v. Malema Context?

[Afriforum v. Malema][Kaffir Lily Riddle]

Mr. Hofmeyr: Request Clarification Context & Definitions of “kaffer”

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 3:23 PM
To: Steve Hofmeyr
Subject: Mr. Hofmeyr: Request Clarification Context & Definitions of “kaffer”


Mr. Hofmeyr,

I read the article on Channel 24: Steve Hofmeyr uses 'k' word, and the article on your website: This is gonna hurt a little - Façade 42: It is time for Julius Malema and the ANC to admit....

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

“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.”

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; the Radical Honesty culture’s definitions for ‘Kaffir’ are:


‘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.


‘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.


‘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 Inalienable Right to Breed/laissez-faire birth control within a welfare state, results in Runaway Growth, and ultimately greater misery, poverty and war.

Please would you confirm that your usage was not in accordance to Radical Honesty culture definitions and meanings; so as to avoid any misunderstandings.

Respectfully,

Lara Johnstone
Radical Honesty SA

[Afriforum v. Malema]: Press Ombudsman: SANEF censoring Black Liberation Theology TRC ‘violence on the rotting corpses of settlers’ RH argument

[SA Farm Attacks] :: [Farm Attack Report] :: [Afriforum v. Malema] :: [African White Refugees]

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 11:12 AM
To: 'HC-SG Registrar: Alida van Deventer'
Subject: HC-SG: Registrar: A van Deventer: [07-2010 EQ JHB] Applic. to Proceed as Amicus: Notice of Motion, FAffidavit & Heads of Argument

Registrar of the High Court: South Gauteng:
Tel: (011) 332 8278 | Fax: (011) 332 8214
Registrar: Alida van Deventer
HC-SG Registrar: Alida van Deventer (*****@justice.gov.za)

Dear Registrar: Ms. Van Deventer,

[07-2010 EQ JHB] AFRIFORUM V. MALEMA: Applic. to Proceed as Amicus: Notice of Motion, FAffidavit & Heads of Argument

Presented for Filing in (.doc) and (.pdf):

• Filing Sheet
  
  
• Notice of Motion: Application of Lara Johnstone, Radical Honesty Culture & Religion, to Proceed as an Amicus Curiae
  
  
• Founding Affidavit of Lara Johnstone
  
  
• Heads of Argument: Written Submissions of Lara Johnstone (Radical Honesty – SA)
  
  
• Affidavit of Proof of Service: NOI, NOM, FAFFIDAVIT & HOA

Respectfully Submitted,

LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se

[Afriforum v. Malema]; HC-SG: Judge C. Lamont 28 April 2011 Order via Registrar van Dewenter

[SA Farm Attacks] :: [Farm Attack Report] :: [Afriforum v. Malema] :: [African White Refugees]

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 11:12 AM
To: 'HC-SG Registrar: Alida van Deventer'
Subject: HC-SG: Registrar: A van Deventer: [07-2010 EQ JHB] Applic. to Proceed as Amicus: Notice of Motion, FAffidavit & Heads of Argument

Registrar of the High Court: South Gauteng:
Tel: (011) 332 8278 | Fax: (011) 332 8214
Registrar: Alida van Deventer
HC-SG Registrar: Alida van Deventer (*****@justice.gov.za)

Dear Registrar: Ms. Van Deventer,

[07-2010 EQ JHB] AFRIFORUM V. MALEMA: Applic. to Proceed as Amicus: Notice of Motion, FAffidavit & Heads of Argument

Presented for Filing in (.doc) and (.pdf):

• Filing Sheet
  
  
• Notice of Motion: Application of Lara Johnstone, Radical Honesty Culture & Religion, to Proceed as an Amicus Curiae
  
  
• Founding Affidavit of Lara Johnstone
  
  
• Heads of Argument: Written Submissions of Lara Johnstone (Radical Honesty – SA)
  
  
• Affidavit of Proof of Service: NOI, NOM, FAFFIDAVIT & HOA

Respectfully Submitted,

LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se

Afriforum v. Malema: Judge Colin Lamont confirms Receipt of Radical Honesty SA Amicus: Boer Volkstaat, via VVK; or Jus Sanguinis Repatriation

[SA Farm Attacks] :: [Farm Attack Report] :: [Afriforum v. Malema] :: [African White Refugees]

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 11:12 AM
To: 'HC-SG Registrar: Alida van Deventer'
Subject: HC-SG: Registrar: A van Deventer: [07-2010 EQ JHB] Applic. to Proceed as Amicus: Notice of Motion, FAffidavit & Heads of Argument

Registrar of the High Court: South Gauteng:
Tel: (011) 332 8278 | Fax: (011) 332 8214
Registrar: Alida van Deventer
HC-SG Registrar: Alida van Deventer (*****@justice.gov.za)

Dear Registrar: Ms. Van Deventer,

[07-2010 EQ JHB] AFRIFORUM V. MALEMA: Applic. to Proceed as Amicus: Notice of Motion, FAffidavit & Heads of Argument

Presented for Filing in (.doc) and (.pdf):

• Filing Sheet
  
  
• Notice of Motion: Application of Lara Johnstone, Radical Honesty Culture & Religion, to Proceed as an Amicus Curiae
  
  
• Founding Affidavit of Lara Johnstone
  
  
• Heads of Argument: Written Submissions of Lara Johnstone (Radical Honesty – SA)
  
  
• Affidavit of Proof of Service: NOI, NOM, FAFFIDAVIT & HOA

Respectfully Submitted,

LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se

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.

Letter to EU Anti-Apartheid Org's: Could the ANC have won liberation struggle Honourably and Non-violently; by ending their Swart Gevaar Breeding War?

TO: EUROPEAN ANTI-APARTHEID ORG’S: c/o EU - Spokespersons HR Catherine Ashton

• Assoc. of West European Parliamentarians for Action against Apartheid (AWEPAA)
  
• European Economic Community (EEC)
  
• Liaison Group of Anti-Apartheid Movements within the European Community
  
• European Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ETUC)
  
• European Network against Arms Trade (ENAAT)
  
• South Africa/Namibia Association (SANAM)

Request for Information: Prior, or subsequent 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?

Jus Sanguinis argue that the TRC was a fraud, because it did not enquire into evidence to show that the ANC (a) did not have a just cause, (b) did not declare war on Apartheid as a last resort, (c) the ANC’s war against apartheid was not declared by proper authority; (d) ANC did not possess right intention, (e) ANC did not have a reasonable chance of success, and (f) ANC did not use proportional force; (g) Post Bellum: ANC are doing all in their power -- including the continuation of their breeding war against whites in South Africa – to facilitate the destruction of Boer-Afrikaner and other minority cultures, some of whom (the Radical Honesty culture) have absolutely no standing whatsoever in SA’s alleged ‘multi-culti’ courtrooms; (h) the ANC repeatedly reneged upon its promises of Amnesty destroying all trust in future political agreements.

One particular issue the TRC failed to make an impartial enquiry into were the population policy motives and causes for Afrikaners implementing the political policy of Apartheid as an act of Just War Self Defense against African cultures population explosion breeding war.

Did the ANC ever launch a Just War Just Cause campaign to prove to Apartheid; that Africans can end their ‘swart gevaar’ cannon fodder breeding-war?

[Boer Volkstaat: Jus Sanguinis] :: [Pop: Resource Wars] :: [Pop: Exponential Growth]

Request for Information from ANC &/or Anti-Apartheid Officials, to be submitted to Netherlands Embassy Officials:

1. Prior to the ANC’s M-Plan declaration of War against Apartheid: Did the ANC at any time launch 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?
   
   
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?
   
   
3. What role did population growth factors play in South Africa’s Apartheid violence? If understanding demographic roots is a prerequisite for understanding their subsequent symptomatic political violence, and hence preventing their future re-occurrence, why was this not a priority for the TRC to enquire into in its enquiry to determine “as complete a picture as possible of the nature, causes” of Apartheid political violence??
   
   
4. What role did the ANC play in contributing to the Population Explosion of Cannon Fodder and Resource War Violence? Why was the ANC not required to take responsibility for their population production of poverty stricken cannon fodder?
   
   
5. Is Meshack Magobogoane the only black man in South Africa concerned about how the ANC are deliberately sponsoring SA’s Moral Holocaust, through its “abnormal government-sponsored population explosion of Malthusian poverty aggravation, moral degeneration and social disintegration"?

Ms. Adriana Stuijt: Request for Professional Clarification & Audi Alteram Partem Notice: Re: Jus Sanguinis Petition to Netherlands

[Boer Volkstaat: Jus Sanguinis] :: [Jus Sanguinis] :: [African White Refugees]

I accordingly write on the assumption that the views you expressed regarding the Jus Sanguinis petition, were your professional opinions; and to provide you with the opportunity to clarify the evidence for your opinions.

If they were your professional opinions, please would you be so kind as to clarify:

1. How, where and why exactly the Jus Sanguinis Petition to the Netherlands is “the biggest load of bulldust”;
   
2. Where I, or any of the named and signed Jus Sanguinis Petitioners have ever stated that I/we; speak on behalf of all the Boer people.
   
3. What exactly your objections are to me filing legal documents with authorities to object to my legal persecution and prosecution?
   
4. Which issues, if any, you do not understand in the legal documents I filed, which you would like explained and clarified.

African White Refugee Petition to NL:ECRE & ELENA Officials posted to ECRE & ELENA Facebook Wall deleted

[Eurabia Code] :: [Canada v. White Refugee] :: [African White Refugees] :: [ECRE Anti-White Refugee Bias]

18 March 2011
Andrea Muhrrteyn
Why We Are White Refugees

European Council on Refugee's and Exiles (ECRE) and European Legal Network on Asylum (ELENA) delete the African White Refugee Petition to ECRE & ELENA: Prof: B Vermeulen; K Groenedijk; T Spijkerboer & GR de Groot (Youtube link) from their ECRE facebook wall (twice!).

The African White Refugee Petition to ECRE & ELENA: Prof: B Vermeulen; K Groenedijk; T Spijkerboer & GR de Groot Youtube link that was posted to the ECRE & ELENA Facebook page wall:

African White Refugee Petition to ECRE & ELENA: Prof: B Vermeulen; K Groenedijk; T Spijkerboer & GR de Groot (Youtube)

Should the Concourt Order The Citizen to Apologize to McBride?

[Guerrylla Law] [Concourt: #23-10] [Concourt #06-11]

Should the Concourt Order The Citizen to Apologize to McBride, for calling him a murderer?

Radical Honesty argues: Only if SA's TRC intentions are “an ever-rising tide of corporate and political bullshite” to coverup their TRC Fraud


16 March 2011
Andrea Muhrrteyn
Why We Are White Refugees

Radical Honesty submissions to the Constitutional Court, in the matter of The Citizen v. Robert McBride (CCT 23-10). In directions dated, 7 March, the Justices asked all parties to make submissions on whether they should order The Citizen to apologize to McBride. More specifically:

“Should the Court find that any statement The Citizen published about Mr. McBride was actionably defamatory, would it be appropriate, in view of the findings of the High Court and the nature of the submissions before the Supreme Court of Appeal and this Court, for the Court to order The Citizen to publish an apology?”

Radical Honesty Submission on Forced Apologies

Radical Honesty's submission (PDF) is as follows:

[2] As detailed in the First Amicus Heads of Argument: These submissions (a) address alternative legal arguments to those of both the Applicant and Respondent, i.e. from a Radical Honesty culture/religion perspective; (b) ‘argues points deemed too far reaching for emphasis by parties intent on winning their particular case’ ; (c) ‘apprises the court of broad-based legal, social, economic, ecological and cultural enquiry implications for its consideration to avoid unintended consequences for groups not before the court,’ (d) informs the court of information to base its decision on a larger, more comprehensive, and more accurate reality based natural law legal framework, so that the court’s final judgment shall include a fully-informed refined legal analysis, which provides equal protection to all SA’s tribes; and (e) provides a perspective from a culture practicing sincere sensate forgiveness.


First Amicus Cultural Forgiveness, Reconciliation and Apology Differences to Parties:

Pema Chodron: “The job of a spiritual friend is to insult you”

[3] First Amicus is not a member of either the Applicant (Citizen) or Respondent (McBride) culture of intellectual fake insincere ‘forgiveness’ and ‘reconciliation’; nor its hyper-sensitivity to ‘insults’. Radical Honesty are far closer to Pema Chodron’s views of ‘insults’ – “The job of a spiritual friend is to insult you” -- as detailed in Pema Chodron: Troublemakers.

[4] In Radical Honesty we very brutally clearly define what we mean by forgiveness, and no Radical Honesty member would ever pretend to another that they have forgiven them, until they have gone through the process of reaching sensate forgiveness. Sincere forgiveness is also a process of acute personal responsibility; so that we can honestly forgive ourselves for our contribution to the misunderstanding.

[5] Nobody in the Radical Honesty community would ever force anyone to make an apology; or even recommend that such an apology be made; for we believe that the only apologies that contribute to meaningful sincere spontaneous and loving relationships are those that are totally 100% sincere, from the gut and the heart. We do not do public relations – i.e. bullshit the public -- with fake insincere apologies.

Radical Honesty Guru Scott Ginsberg describes Edward Bernaysian PR protocols as “the ever-rising tide of corporate and political bullshite”.