MR TERRE'BLANCHE
Honourable Mr Chairman, I was indeed correct.  I do think that the language in which I am being addressed in this statement is indeed done in defamatory terms.
My legal advisers will in fact determine that at a later stage.  I cannot see, and I take the greatest of exception that the fact that this statement was in fact allowed by you.  I cannot understand how this in any way could bring further light, why it has to be done before you while it is not tested evidence.  The language in which I am being addressed and my so called colleagues, "travante", they are members of the AWB, are addressed is proof of the fact that the same forgiveness that he wants to see in me does not exist with these people.  He decided to not formally act against my application for amnesty, but Chairperson, it is my submission that he knows that he cannot act formally and that he cannot fight my application because apart from airy fairy and insulting language which one shouldn't, wouldn't find in a man of his stature, there is no proof of any accusations.  I was and I am not a new Nazi. 
	To say that this took place not because I am a Christian, not driven by a religion, is a gross violation of my belief in God, something that cannot be said by Mr van Jaarsveld that makes one think that he is very much like his father, his own father whom he involved here was prepared in his paper to ignore God.  The fact that the Lord did not listen to the prayers of the trekkers for seven days, the fact that he was not present at Blood River and because I say God was present there and I actually did something about that, he also decides, Mr van Jaarsveld Junior, that he should also make a decision about me in the same way that his father did about God and the struggle at Blood River.
	He then says that I simply did that in order to give publicity to my new movement.  With due respect, Chairperson, I was never part of those people who went about with the truth so irresponsibly with regard to this Covenant and Vow which is older than 100 years and this God to whom we are bound in order to gain publicity.
	However, something that is important is the fact that from this statement it is clear that Mr van Jaarsveld's statement wasn't only fatal to me in the AWB in its incorrectness.  According to the evidence by the Van Jaarsveld family, Perskor rejected, not because he was tarred and feathered but they realised that that man does not treat the truth.  In school books in which he said these things were removed from the market and were withdrawn.  The SABC, for a decade distantiated itself from Mr van Jaarsveld because you could no longer believe Mr van Jaarsveld because the greatest truth, Mr van Jaarsveld and the Boer people, was the truth of God and its presence at Blood River.
	In that way, what he said today, his statements, was against the Boer people with its Christian view of life and that even the Security Police went to visit him after his paper delivered about communism. For the first time we have gained new information before you and that is that Professor Floris van Jaarsveld knowingly, wittingly or unwittingly was busy to politically become  a danger, not only for the nation, but also at the time to the State.  In other words he was not only an historian occupying himself with historians and the historic truths and realities, he used history in a different way in order to fit in with the changed South Africa.
	Professor van Jaarsveld therefore did not matter, and it is written in that way too, in the light of the new South Africa, or the new idea of reconciliation to even reach the contract with God.  I cannot believe that I am, it was necessary to make me out as a monster because I do not express pity because I see the onslaught on my Creator and the small Boer people and my person is stronger in this statement, even stronger than in the paper that Professor van Jaarsveld delivered.
	In other words, my submission to you also has to be recorded and it will stay there, in the same way that his attacks on me will be there.  I would also like to add that the professor, indeed, should have suffered financial losses because nobody believed him, because by means of a political organisation such as the AWB, the politicians on the right hand side were to be made aware and they should be warned that Professor van Jaarsveld was changing history and using it in order to be acceptable should the National Party give over power.  	I think that there should be no doubt in the Committee, especially after this submission, that I have been motivated politically, that the professor himself or his son or his family say that for political reasons he brought about the changes because politically he did not want to force the God of the Boer nation down the throats of other nations.
	Ironically, it was not the wish of the AWB to force their God down the throats of others, it was a pledge in terms of which we have the warning in terms of the Bible that a promise to God has to be paid.  Professor van Jaarsveld after this was isolated, he no longer acted as guest speaker at cultural meetings.
	Mr Chairman all these things did not happen because the professor was tarred and feathered, these things happened because of the incorrect version of the Covenant and the fact that history was twisted, which can be the worse that can happen to a nation if you abuse your power to rewrite history so that you all of a sudden can become acceptable to other nations.  If we sit here at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, it is scaring to think that the Van Jaarsveld family admit in front of this body seeking Reconciliation and Truth, that his father treated the truth in this way to the extent that his books were no longer published as text books because what he said was not acceptable to students and pupils.
	It is a pity and I am sorry to say Chairperson that unfortunately I had to make use of your Committee to a great extent to reply to irrelevant and untested attacks on my person.  I regard this as despicable to bring up an irrelevant case such as the so-called attempted murder in which it was said clearly that I would attack a black man in this way.  I would like to put it to this Committee, in your experience as judge and also as advocates you often know that the truth only came about in appeal cases.
	I would like to go further however, because I have no other choice.  I would like to state in front of you that there is fresh evidence with regard to evidence from the State, which is to be applied to the appeal case in which forgiveness is being asked and things were promised because it was said that I attacked somebody or assaulted somebody.
	I think Mr Chairman, we are again where we were a few months ago in Mmabatho when I said even, whatever happens let justice be done.  I thank you.