Questions for FW de Klerk:
2. Prove his optimism by clarifying the reasons for FW de Klerk Foundation’s endorsement of SA Constitutional Courts corruption in Alien v Afriforum’s application for Review of SCA’s ‘Kill Boere’ agreement & SA’s Truth and Reconciliation Fraud?
3. Once a European Indigenous Rights Code of Honour Tribunal is established, should it order the assassination of FW de Klerk, for his refusal to advocate that South Africa’s Flat Earth ‘War is Peace’ Whore legislation and treaties enacted by him and his dishonourable European predecessors, be resolved; in terms of their failure to address the overpopulation and overconsumption roles contributing to Scarcity, as an underlying cause of conflict?
Swiss Federal Assembly: Foreign Affairs Committee: President of National Council: Andreas Aebi and President of the Council of States: Hannes Germann, response via Swiss Embassy: Charge D’Affairs: Claudia Thomas
On Tuesday, December 14, 2010 9:05 PM, as part of the Battle of Jus Sanguinis Theses Campaign, the Jus Sanguinis Boer Volkstaat 10.31.16 Theses Petition and Briefing Paper was submitted by email to, among others Political, Ecological and Refugee related officials in Switzerland; via the Pretoria Offices of Ambassador R. Bärfuss.
On 05 January 2011, a written response was received from the General Secretariat Parliamentary Services Office of Hansheiri Inderkum, President of the Council of States.
They wished to acknowledge receipt of the “African White Refugees Petition and Briefing Paper” email and PDF, and to inform Jus Sanguinis Boer Volkstaat Campaign on the correct procedure for submitting such a petition: by hardcopy.
In March 2011 all EU Progenitor Nations were provided with a hardcopy of the Petition and Briefing Paper, via thier respective Embassies in Pretoria.
On 10 May 2011 the Swiss Parliament responded acknowledging receipt of the hardcopy petition and briefing paper, submitted to the President of the Council of States of the Swiss Parliament, and that "relevant committees of the federal parliament will review it and you will be informed after the procedure. Parliamentary procedure, however, generally takes considerable time."
On 11 January 2012 the Swiss Federal Assembly: Foreign Affairs Committee: President of National Council: Andreas Aebi and President of the Council of States: Hannes Germann, via Swiss Embassy: Charge D’Affairs: Claudia Thomas (PDF) penned their response to Jus Sanguinis Boer Volkstaat 10.31.16 Theses Petition and Briefing Paper.
Constand Viljoen: Expert witness request & Petition issues
Transcript of 22 Mei 2011 letter from General Constand Viljoen written in Afrikaans; with an English translation after each paragraph . The original was hand-written so there may be errors in reading. It is also possible that a more accurate English translation is possible. If or where a possible more accurate English translation is possible; please notify me of such paragraph and the suggested translation.
11-05-31: Jus-sanguinis: Constand Viljoen letter
​Bet-El Posbus 218
George East 6539
As u my verskoon skryf ek in Afrikaans maar as n korrespondensie in Engels verkies, gee my asb 'n aanduiding.
If you will forgive me I write in Afrikaans, but if you prefer correspondence in English; please let me know.
Dankie vir die Petisie dokumente. Ek waardeer engine Afrikaner of Engelse organisasie wat iets DOEN om die beskawingsvlakke en ons toekoms vir ons jong mense beter te maak.
Thank you for your Petition documents. I appreciate any Afrikaans or English speaking organisation that is DOING something to improve civil society and our future for our young people.
Soos u seker weet was "selfbeskikking" my hoof politieke rigting in die krisis van die oorgangsjare na volk demokrasie. Daarom is ek altyd bereid om die begrip te verkoop. As onervare politieke leier het ek my bes probeer om in die 1996 konstitusie die begrip te vestig. Daar is verskeie artikels in die 96 grondwet opgeneem a.g.v. my politieke party (Vryheids Front) se aandrang. Die eerste dokument van die Petisie "23 April 1994 Accord on Afrikaner Self Determination" was die voorloper om in twee jaar later die 96 Konstitusie te gebruik om die selfbeskikings moontlikheid te vestig.
As you are probably aware "Self Determination" was my primary political goal in the crisis times of our transition to national democracy. Therefore I am always willing to sell the concept. As an inexperienced political leader I did my best to establish the concept into the 1996 constitution. There are several articles in the 96 constitution that were adopted as a result of the insistence of my political party (Vryheids Front). The first document of the Petition "23 April 1994 Accord on Afrikaner Self Determination" was the principal to use the 96 Constitution two years later to establish Self Determination.
Let wel dat die bewoording van al die artikels "bemagtigend" naam and is (Enabling). Dit was teen ons mens want ons sou dit graag "verpligtende" artikels wou sien. Die ANC en die NP wou dit nie toelaat nie en het gesteun op die internasionale vereiste dat selfbeskikking vir n minderheid slegs moontlik is as daar bewyse en genoegsaam stem uit die minderhuid bewys word. Maar De Klerk het as leier van die NP geweier dat so n volkstemming gehou word.
Please note that the wording of the articles refers to 'Enabling' and is 'enabling'. It was against our preference; as we would have preferred 'binding' articles. The ANC and the NP would not allow it; and placed pressure on the international requirement that self-determination for a minority is only possible if there is evidence of sufficient support from the particular minority. But De Klerk, as leader of the NP refused to allow for a referendum on the issue.
Ek noem dit omdat ek bereid is om oor die beginsel te getuig. Maar ek wil graag dit aan u organisasie se dat:
I mention that because I was willing to testify to the principal. But I would like to say the following to your organisation:
A: Voor enige besluit hieroor geneem kan word sal die minderheid van Afrikaners (en gesteun deer Engels-sprekended Suid Afrikaners om groter getalle en stein te verseker) bewyse stem moet lewer.
A: Before any decision about this is taken; the minority of Afrikaners (supported by English speaking South Africans to gain greater numbers of support) must first provide their evidentiary support.
B: Dus waar die VVK a waardevolle en kritieke taak het om to vervul (die bewys te lewer!) Kan u myns insiens nie nou al u petisie vir a Boer Volkstaat bevorder nie. Die groot werk wat noodwindig eers aangepak moet word is om genoegsama tem daarwoor te monster.
B: Therefore the VVK have a very worthwhile and critical goal to complete (providing the evidence for support for Self Determination). Can you not deliver your petition for a Boer Volkstaat at this time. The big work that must first be completed is to find enough evidence for the support of a Boer Volkstaat.
C: Ek glo dat as die petisie met die eerste voorlegging daarvan misluk, dit verdere pogings later gaan benadeel.
C: I believe that if the petition fails at the time of its first submission, that subsequent attempts shall be made more difficult.
D: Verder was my ondervinding, u kan maar Dr Hartzenberg van die KP ook vra, dat daar nog nie naastenby binne Afrikaner geledere hiervoor gesteun gaan word nie. Let bv op dat die huidige VF (Plus) feitlik glad nie meer in openbare Hofsprake die saak bevorder nie. Dit lyk egter asof die druk en verdrukking van ons sou behoefte in se .... jaar tydsverloop kan sleep.
D: Furthermore my experience; you can ask Dr Hartzenberg from the KP; that not nearly enough Afrikaners currently support the idea of Boer Volkstaat. Consider for example that the current VF Plus, no longer makes any reference in public speeches about the issue of a Boer Volkstaat. It looks as if the pressure and coercion of our ideal in .... [unknown].
E: Die vraag is: Wat nou gedoen? As u vir my raad vra sou ek voortgaan met u petisie om die beginsel van self-beskikking. So iets kan die blankedom inspireer want die volgende ongeveer tien-vyftien jaar kan harde jare word. Die tipe self-beskukking kan dan op besluit word. U huidige petisie het baie goeie argumente om simpatieke uitsprake uit die stambande te kry wat dan die basis kan vorm vir die deurslaggewende petisie op die regte tyd.
E: The question is: What to do now? If you ask me for my advice, I would suggest that you go ahead with your petition on the principal of Self-Determination. It can inspire Europeans who are going to struggle in the next ten to fifteen years. The appropriate type of Self Determination can then be decided upon. Your current petition has many good arguments to encourage sympathetic concern from our European Progenitors; that can form the foundation for the successful petition at the correct time.
U moet verder in ag neem dat territoriale selfbeskikking nie maklik deur die internasionale wereld goedgekeur sal word nie. Tog is daar a groter drang na die reg om oor jou eie lot to beslis. Die kuns in politiek is "wat is moontlik? Nie wat is waarskynlik nie!" Die pad om eers ons eie mense te oortuig en dan die internationasionale gemeenskap, is a langer pad as wat dit lyk. Die politiek swaai nou na die DA teo wat so pas gebuer het, gaan hierdie pad nog moeiliker maak. Vir my duidelik is die nood om as Afrikaners /Engelsprekendeds / konsertwatiewes en Anti ANC; saam a "kritieke massa" te vorm wat nie polities nie maar wel op kulturele en beskawings vlakke geweg raak punte te kry vir ons verdeeldheid te vergeet. So n group het dan die reg om selfbeskikking as minderheidsgroup op te ies. Onthou "genoegsame steun" is nie meerderheids steun nie maar die "ja" stem is selfbeskikking kan nie maklik minder as se 35% vanunit so n groep wees nie.
You should also consider that territorial self-determination is not easily granted by the international community. Yet there is currently a greater concern for the right to be responsible for your own future. The art in politics is "what is possible? Not what is probable!" The road to convince our people and subsequent thereto the international community, is a longer one than what we may think it is. For me the urgent concern is that Afrikaners / English speaking / conservatives and anti-Anc parties; form a 'critical mass', that is not political but is based upon cultural and civil society values principles; to overcome our divisions. Such a group can then have the right to demand self determination as a minority. Remember 'sufficient support' is not majority support; but the 'yes' vote for self determination is not easily less than about 35% from any group.
So ek kan a petisie help met getuinis oor die Akkord maar ek het my twyfel oor die moontlikheid van sukses. Ek dink nie die WVN of ou weermag siennings is baie ter sake nie.
So I can help your petition to provide my expert witness experience about the Akkord, but I doubt about the opportunity for current success. I don't think the United Nations has much of a concern for our South African National Defense Force opinions.
Ek sluit in a R100 in om die koste van die petisie se reproduksie te dek.
I include a R100 to cover the costs of printing of the petition and briefing paper.
Met vriendelike groete.
Response from Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Dutch Ambassador: Mr. de Vos
On 08 March 2011, Jus Sanguinis delivered by registered mail hardcopies of the Jus Sanguinis Petition and Briefing Paper to the Swiss, French, German, British and Netherlands Prime Ministers and Presidents, via their respective Embassies; and to NATO Military Committee Officials, via the Belgium Embassy and Prime Minister Yves Leterme.
On 29 March Jus Sanguinis confirmed by email with all embassies their receipt of the registered mail package for their attention. On 29 March 2011, Mr. Wouter Jurgens, Head of Political Section, Royal Netherlands Embassy Pretoria responded once again totally ignoring the TRC Fraud, Population Policy, Peak Oil, etc, etc. issues and arguments raised in the Petition and Briefing Paper, refusing to forward the Hardcopy Petition to Netherlands Prime Minister Mark Rutte and the Netherlands Government, repeating the contents of his previous response.
On March 30, Jus Sanguinis submitted a written request to Mr. Uri Rosenthal, Minister of Foreign Affairs, c/o & via: Mr. Wouter Jurgens, Head of Political Affairs: RE: Circumstances and Legal Argument's of Ministry of Foreign Affairs Incomplete Response to Jus Sanguinis Petition Arguments: Request Full Written Reasons clarifying the alleged errors of fact or of law made in the Jus Sanguinis Petition and Briefing Paper submitted to Netherlands Government.
On March 31 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, directed the Embassy to request a meeting for a frank discussion ‘to clarify the issues’. On 01 April Jus Sanguinis accepted the Ministry of Foreign Affairs invitation to meet with Embassy Officials to ‘clarify the issues’ raised in the Jus Sanguinis Petition, requesting permission to bring along in person and/or via skype relevant ‘experts’ on issues argued in the Petition. On 08 April Jus Sanguinis provided the Ministry of Foreign Affairs with the list of experts.
On 11 April 2011, Head of Political Affairs Mr. Jurgens telephoned Jus Sanguinis to allegedly suspend the meeting; to arrange for the experts witness testimony to occur in a hearing before the Dutch or - if more appropriate - European Union Parliament.
On 18 May 2011, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded (PDF) by totally ignoring its former agreement to suspend the meeting to allow for the experts to testify before the Dutch Parliament or - if more appropriate - European Union Parliament, by pretending the meeting had never been called, and the experts do not exist. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Dutch Embassy once again totally ignore the issues of Truth and Reconciliation Fraud and Peak Oil Ecological Necessity for Ethno-Cultural Secession & Economic Relocalisation to mitigate ethnic resource war conflicts, as argued in the Petition.
President of the Council of States of the Swiss Parliament:
[..] We have received your -- Pétition Jus Sangunînis Right-of-Return for African White Refugees -- to the President of the Council of States of the Swiss Parliament, on paper as requested. Relevant committees of the federal parliament will review it and you will be informed after the procedure. Parliamentary procedure, however, generally takes considerable time. [..]
Jus Sanguinis Response:
[..] We wish to commend the Swiss Goverments 'The Buck Stops Here' professionalism to honourably accept our Petition and Briefing Paper for the relevant Committee's Impartial Investigation. We hope other EU Progenitor/Stamvader Nations of African White Refugees can be inspired by your courage to do what Mandela and Tutu’s Stalinesque ANC Poverty Pimping ‘Truth’ Commission failed to do: Enquire into the ANC and Anti-Apartheid Movements Just War TRC Fraud, as detailed in the Briefing Paper. [..]
Denis Alland, Professor of Public Law at the Universite Pantheon-Assas Paris II; UNHCR Representative (1989-97), Assessor in Refugee Appeals Commission, European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) and European Legal Network on Asylum (ELENA) Refugee Law Expert, has decided to sue Jus Sanguinis to demand they delete the webpage: "Boer Volkstaat or Jus Sanguinis 'EU' Citizenship for African White Refugees Petition & Briefing Paper submitted to Prof. Denis Alland".
Prof. Alland's legal declaration of war, was formally acknowledged, with a letter to his Legal Counsel: French UNHCR Rep., EU Council on Refugees & Exiles (ECRE) and EU Legal Network on Asylum (ELENA) Refugee Law Expert, Prof. Denis Alland Demands to Delete Jus Sanguinis Webpage: African White Refugees Petition to Prof. Alland