SA Concourt: Was ANC's 'liberation struggle' a Just War, or Spectacular Fraud?

Constitutional Court, Johannesburg (18 July 2010): An Amicus Curiae filed by Radical Honesty-RSA to the SA Constitutional Court alleges that Archbishop Tutu’s Truth and Reconciliation Comission committed TRC fraud. One of the evidentiary examples for this alleged TRC fraud, is that the TRC never enquired into whether the ANC’s liberation struggle was founded on Just War principles.

Just war principles are legal theory principles of justification for how and why wars are fought, founded upon the ‘just war tradition’, a historical body of rules and/or agreements about the ethics of war, originally founded on principles of chivalry, which was a military code of honour for the military elite.

Historically just war principles — a doctrine of mutually agreed upon rules for combat — evolve between enemies who share cultural values, where such cultures agree upon limits to their warfare. Just war principles are not generally applicable when enemies have great religious, belief, race or cultural differences.

This just war principle already excludes just war provisions to be applied to the ‘Apartheid’ vs. ‘ANC liberation struggle’ war, since the difference of culture and religion are significant. According to Alexander Moseley, in Just War Theory, the “principles of the justice of war are commonly held to be: having just cause, being a last resort, being declared by a proper authority, possessing right intention, having a reasonable chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means used.”

The Radical Honesty – RSA Amicus alleges that among others the ANC’s cause was anything but ’just’; it was TRC fraud on a massive scale, not only on psychological integrity principles, but additionally on ecological carrying capacity for peaceful society requirements scale. The ANC’s alleged ’justification’ for their violence and terrorism, which included the invention of necklace murders, where any non-violent black person who did not wish to participate in the ANC’s violent insurrection or terrorism, was exterminated by people’s courts tribunals and the necklace method. (Johannes Harnischfeger, Witchcraft and the State in South Africa).

Some reports tell of young people forced to pour gasoline down their mother’s throats, having to put tires around their necks and set them afire with their own hands. (Delius 1996:197) Like this the initiators of the violence clearly wanted to prevent a vicious circle of blood revenge: sons, who executed their mothers, cannot hold others responsible for homicide.

“With our boxes of matches and our necklaces we shall liberate this country.” – Winnie Mandela

The ANC forced black people to participate in the struggle, through fear, because they knew any honest black person in South Africa, knew that they had the best living standards for poor black people in Africa, under white Afrikaner rule.

“The ANC is not the authentic leader of the authentic voice of the black people in South Africa. It is one of the voice yes, and secondly the ANC does not represent the majority of blacks in South Africa. Unfortunately the Western Media and media, has made it that the ANC is the sole representative of black South Africa. It isn’t, it does not represent the majority of black South Africans. If it did, then there would have been no need for the ANC to embark on violence to win the hearts of the people, because they would have already won them.” (Reverend John Gogotya, ANC: VIP’s of Violence documentary)

The ANC stated cause to liberate South Africa’s blacks from oppression was a lie. South Africa’s blacks were the least oppressed black people in Africa. South African poor black people had it far better than any other poor black people in Africa, and way better than poor white people in Communist Russia.

“At the height of Apartheid in 1978 Soweto had 115 Football fields, 3 Rugby fields, 4 athletic tracks, 11 Cricket fields, 2 Golf courses, 47 Tennis courts, 7 swimming pools built to Olympic standards, 5 Bowling alleys, 81 Netball fields, 39 children play parks, and countless civic halls, movie houses and clubhouses. In addition to this, Soweto had 300 churches, 365 schools, 2 Technical Colleges, 8 clinics, 63 child day care centres, 11 Post Offices, & its own fruit and vegetable market. There were 2300 registered companies that belonged to black businessmen, about 1000 private taxi companies. 3% of the 50,000 vehicle owners in 1978 were Mercedes Benz owners. Soweto alone had more cars, taxis, schools, churches and sport facilities than most independent countries in Africa. The Blacks of South Africa had more private vehicles than the entire white population of the USSR at the time.” (Opening Pandora’s Apartheid Box – Part 9 – The lies about the Townships, Mike Smith Political Commentary)

As stated by Meshack Mabogane, former secretary general of the Forum of Black Journalists (Salute the bravery and vision of SA’s founders, Business Day, 2010/05/05):

“Undoubtedly, racial inequity existed and full democracy was absent. But social, health and material provisions — the best in Africa — existed for black people. Long before 1994, blacks had voted directly, at least, for urban and rural councils and executives — izibonda and bungas. Now all races don’t even vote for central and provincial legislators but for mere party representatives.”

Afrikaner Whites Stand in the Way of OAU’s Black Liberation Theology of White Guilt

A more sinister plausible reason emerges for the motivations of the ANC, which objects to white Afrikaners treating poor black people of all tribes equally, defending blacks from minority tribes from the violence of majority black tribes, from black leaders who do not tolerate any dissent, who rule by fear and coercion, and murder. Who assert tribal supremacy and are vehemently opposed to giving smaller black tribes their tribal independence in their own homelands.

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

The Radical Honesty – RSA Amicus mentions other examples of OAU hatred for Afrikaners sense of justice and for treating minority black tribes with a concern for their safety and future tribal independence, such as the ‘crime of apartheid’ allegations lodged by Liberia and Ethiopia against the South African Goverments practice of apartheid in South West Africa, under the UN Mandate. In that case, the SA Apartheid goverment delivered ”a written presentation of 3000 pages, called 15 expert witnesses who testified that fifty countries practiced a form of apartheid between groups, classes or races forty of them members of the UN at the time, including Ethiopia and Liberia.” Furthermore, “the petitioners refused to appear in person to testify and be cross examined, even though S. Africa offered to pay all their expenses.” The International Court of Justice found South Africa not guilty of practicing the ‘crime of apartheid’ in Namibia.

Another example of the OAU’s hatred for Afrikaner whites who treated poor black Africans better than Black African goverments occurred in 1961, when ”then foreign minister of SA, Eric Louw presented to the UN a factual comparison of the living conditions of blacks in South Africa compared to other African states” wherein he “proved that Blacks in SA had a higher per capita income, better educational opportunities, far superior medical and social services and altogether a higher standard of living than anywhere in Africa.” The response from the OAU was to engineer a motion of censure against Mr. Louw and South Africa (first of its kind) and his speech was struck from the record. Even “The Washington Post”, who regularly criticized South Africa, noted:

“Nothing that South Africa has done and nothing that its representatives said, justified the mob-like censure which the United Nations visited upon that country and its Foreign Minister, Mr Eric Louw.”

Asch Paradigm, Rule of Law & Forgiveness: Individuality, Independence & Integrity

An interesting plausibility is submitted: People who practice Sincere Forgiveness are far more impartial, independent and resistant to Peer Pressures to conform to ideological, political correct or racial mobjustice beliefs, what is known as the Asch paradigm, from the studies on conformity by Solomon Asch, and subsequent thereto Stanley Milgram.

Naturally black leaders of black goverments who prefer to practice corruption, feed at the trough, live in luxury and exploit their black citizens are going to get rather upset when their citizens find out about a white Afrikaner goverment who treats their black citizens far better than their own corrupt black leaders.

What such black leaders, as the OAU did, was not too dissimilar than what Solomon Asch did in his Conformity experiments. They did what is commonly referred to as ’point to a donkey and call it a horse’. They exploited the lack of forgiveness and insecurities of their black followers, who hate white people, and accused Apartheid of being ‘racist’. They were well aware that once a label had been thrown and ignorant black peole had adopted the incorrect and false belief about Apartheids alleged ‘racism’, only the very brave – those possessed of Galileo impartial enquiry into evidence, such as Mr. Mabogoane — would make an impartial enquiry into the evidence of Apartheids actions.

The foundational premise of Black Liberation Theology is to foster White Guilt. It is to point at a donkey and call it a horse, and anyone who says ‘wait a minute, let me investigate’, to immediatley hysterically label a ‘racist’. It is coercive peer pressure used to coerce someone to agree to see ‘the donkey’, when everyone can see it is a horse. But anyone who says it is a horse, is accused of racism, and nobody wants to be a ‘racist’, so everyone agrees to pretend they are seeing a donkey.

While such behaviour is common, anyone practicing or endorsing such deception can hardly be considered to be a moral authority, unless those participating in such moral hypocrisy have an ulterior agenda, which has absolutely nothing to do with psychological integrity and honesty, and most definitely not with reality. In times of yonder they’d be called Pharisees.

And very few — except for those who have experienced sincere forgiveness — are aware of how withheld and suppressed resentments, cloud our judgement.

In Practicing Radical Honesty describes the importance of sincere forgiveness to changing the statistics of the Stanley  Milgram studies of Obedience, which proved that 92% of humans are as culturally, racially, ideologically or religiously obedient, and unquestioning to their beliefs as Adolf Eichmann was to Nazism:

The key to individuality, integrity, and individual freedom has something to do with forgiveness, which involves getting over anger. That is done in the public domain, in community, and it is the pathway to freedom for individuals and the key to free societies. It is the way the statistics from Stanley Milgram’s experiments get changed. Learning forgiveness, as an individual skill, by practice in getting over anger in the context of a community of friends, is an absolutely necessary prerequisite to creating a world that works for everyone. To be an individual who operates independently of authority and according to compassion, you need to learn the fundamental skills of getting mad and getting over it. Once you gain experience of getting mad and sincere forgiveness, you learn skills of noticing.

Once you learn the skills of noticing, you are immune to politicians, archbishops, or any other academic, political, media or other patrolman pointing to a horse, and demanding you agree it is a donkey. You increase the quality of your noticing skills.

If you hate Afrikaners, or you suffer from White Guilt, it might be a good idea to find some help to release yourself from your suppressed anger at White Afrikaners, or anyone who has coerced you to pretend to see proverbial donkeys; to reach a state of sincere sensate forgiveness. Once you have release your suppressed anger you may be able to make an impartial enquiry into whether the ANC’s ‘liberation struggle’ against Apartheid was a Just War, or not?

Sources: [CCT 23-10: Radical Honesty - RSA Amicus (PDF)] [White Refugees] [Crime of Apartheid] [Mike Smith Political Commentary: Opening Pandora's Apartheid Box] [International Court of Justice: South West Africa (Liberia & Ethiopia v South Africa)] [ANC: VIP's of Violence] [Meschak Mabogoane (PDF)] [Witchcraft and the State in South Africa] [Asch Paradigm: Opinions and Social Pressure (PDF)] [Practicing Radical Honesty (PDF)] [Radical Honesty About Anger & Forgiveness (PDF)] [Just War Theory (PDF)] [Chivalry Without a Horse: Military Honour and the Modern Law of Armed Conflict]