Journo Ivo Vegter Endorses Persecution of SA citizen and Censorship of Media Corruption & Scientific Journalism Campaign?

Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 2:43 PM
To: Phillip de Wet - DMaverick; Branko Brkic - DMaverick; Ivo Veger - DMaverick;
Cc: Press Ombudsman; Murray Hunger - R2K Nat. Coord; Right2Know; Right2Know - FXI:Gauteng; Right2Know - KZN; LeadSA: Adriaan Groenewald
Subject: Mr. Brkic, CC: I. Vegter; RE: Vegter's Endorsement of Persecution and Media Corruption

TO: Branko Brkic
TO: Ivo Vegter
TO: Daily Maverick
CC: John Pilger, Wikileaks, SA Leads, Right2Know, Press Ombudsman

Radical Honesty SA to Daily Maverick: Editor: Branko Brkic

Daily Maverick Journalist: Ivo Vegter Endorses Persecution of SA citizen and Censorship of Media Corruption & Scientific Journalism Campaign

Dear Mr. Brkic,

Mr. Ivo Vegter writes: “Oh dear. Now I'm part of a "media mob", endorsing persecution and covering up corruption. http://bit.ly/kjbkAg @dailymaverick”; in response to my comments on Daily Maverick News Article: Open Letter to the Directors of Afriforum, by Xhanti Payi.

I am unaware whether Mr. Vegter wishes to be perceived as an ignorant moron imbecile; or an honourable scientific critical thinking problem solving investigative journalist. Perhaps he can clarify which he wishes to be perceived as.

SA Media and Mr. Vegter’s Endorsement of SA citizens Persecution:

Please could Mr. Vegter inform me where he or any other SA journalist or SA media publication disputed Dr. Brad Blanton's -- founder of Radical Honesty, former candidate for US congress in Virginia in 2004 and 2006 -- allegations filed in the High Court (WC: 19963-09) regarding South Africa’s legal and political persecution of myself (PDF).

Please could Mr. Vegter clarify which statements he or any other journalist in SA have disputed as being untrue; and if none; where he or any other journalist in SA have voiced their objections to the legal and political persecution of a member of the Radical Honesty culture. Or does Mr. Vegter believe that endorsing the ‘rule of law’ means you only endorse the rule of law for people in your own mob; not for those you dislike or whom you disagree with; they can be persecuted and denied the right to free and fair trials and their constitutional rights?

The 17 March 2010 Report: 140 SA Editors, Politicians, Academics et al confirm they are Deliberately Indifferent to the Rule-of-Law; have No Objections to SA Governments persecution of ‘Radical Honesty White Refugee’ (“RHWR”) (PDF) was provided to the Daily Maverick, on Wed 3/17/2010 4:31 PM (PDF).

Continued in PDF:

Respectfully,

Lara Johnstone
Radical Honesty SA

Radical Honesty SA to Daily Maverick: Editor: Branko Brkic

Daily Maverick Journalist: Ivo Vegter Endorses Persecution of SA citizen and Censorship of Media Corruption & Scientific Journalism Campaign

CC: John Pilger, Wikileaks, SA Leads, Right2Know, Press Ombudsman

16 June 2011

Dear Mr. Branko,

Mr. Ivo Vegter writes: “Oh dear. Now I'm part of a "media mob", endorsing persecution and covering up corruption. http://bit.ly/kjbkAg @dailymaverick” ; in response to my comments on Daily Maverick News Article: LeadSA Fails to Lead when it matters, by Ivo Vegter.


SA Media and Mr. Vegter’s Endorsement of SA citizens Persecution:

Please could Mr. Vegter inform me where he or any other SA journalist or SA media publication disputed Dr. Brad Blanton’s, founder of Radical Honesty, former candidate for US congress in Virginia in 2004 and 2006 allegations filed in the High Court (WC: 19963-09) regarding South Africa’s legal and political persecution of myself (PDF).

Please could Mr. Vegter clarify which statements he or any other journalist in SA have disputed as being untrue; and if none; where he or any other journalist in SA have voiced their objections to the legal and political persecution of a member of the Radical Honesty culture. Or does Mr. Vegter believe that endorsing the ‘rule of law’ means you only endorse the rule of law for people in your own mob; not for those you dislike or whom you disagree with; they can be persecuted and denied the right to free and fair trials and their constitutional rights?

The 17 March 2010 Report: 140 SA Editors, Politicians, Academics et al confirm they are Deliberately Indifferent to the Rule-of-Law; have No Objections to SA Governments persecution of ‘Radical Honesty White Refugee’ (“RHWR”) (PDF) was provided to the Daily Maverick, on Wed 3/17/2010 4:31 PM (PDF).

A Radical Honesty White Refugee can be: (a) illegally arrested, without a valid arrest warrant (18 July 2007); (b) denied right to appear in court within 24 hours of arrest (19 July 2007); (c) illegally detained for 33 days in Pollsmoor prison (18 July – 22 Aug 2007); (c) denied right to information (alleged Arrest Warrant) to defend her rights (18 July 2007 to present); (d) denied impartial investigating Officer, Prosecutor and Magistrate (18 July to present); (e) framed in court by Investigating Officer and Prosecutor who intentionally withhold critical evidence of innocence (cellphone conversations with plaintiff) from the court; (f) framed by Magistrate who ignores Plaintiff committing perjury on affidavit and witness stand; (g) denied valid legal internationally recognized Political Necessity defence; (h) denied expert witness evidentiary testimony; (i) denied right to not be found guilty of an act that is ‘lawful’ (i.e. as per ‘reasonableness’ test); (j) denied right to withdraw formal admissions if Prosecution breach the ‘Formal Admission/Plea’ Agreement; (k) denied right not to be sentenced to a suspended prison sentence for an act that the law says is ‘lawful’; (l) denied right to file a complaint with the police documenting your persecution, for their investigation.

If Mr. Vegter and all SA Journalists and Editors (A) do not dispute that these persecution acts actually occurred; and (B) have never stated his or their objection to these acts of persecution against Radical Honesty; it is accurate and true to state: Mr. Vegter (and many other TRC fraud elite) consciously and intentionally endorse the legal and political persecution of myself; a member of the Radical Honesty culture.


SA Media and Mr. Vegter’s Censorship of Media Corruption:

Please could Mr. Vegter inform me where he or any other SA Journalist or Editor has disputed any of the allegations made in the Radical Honesty SA complaint to the International Criminal Court (ICC) (PDF) against among others: Mandela, Tutu and F.W de Klerk; and eighty-eight SANEF publications and their editors for:

Initiate an investigation into the allegations that the respondents are to be held criminally culpable for their endorsement and concealment of TRC FRAUD, the consequences of which are genocide and crimes against humanity against white South Africans, and ethno-cultural legal and political persecution of Afrikaner/Boer and Radical Honesty cultures.

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.

A copy of the ICC complaint was submitted to dozens of SA Political, Media, Religious and Academic Organisations: Audi Alteram Partem TRC Fraud Transparency Update: (I) Charges filed to Int’l Criminal Court (ICC) against: Mandela, Tutu, de Klerk, Norwegian Nobel Committee & 88 SANEF editors/publications for TRC Fraud Genocide; (II) Swiss Parliament Committee of Legal Affairs ‘African White Refugee’ Correspondence (PDF)

Not one of them provided any evidence to Radical Honesty that they disputed any of the factual allegations made in the complaint to the ICC. None of them have provided any statement to Radical Honesty that they object to the SA media’s censorship of this information from the SA public.

If Mr. Vegter and all SA Journalists and Editors (A) do not dispute any of the allegations of Media Corruption made in the Complaint to the ICC; and (B) endorse the censorship of the complaint’s allegations of media corruption from the SA public; it is accurate and true to state: Mr. Vegter (and many other TRC fraud elite) consciously and intentionally endorse SA Media’s corruption and censorship of Media corruption.


SA Media’s Censorship of Scientific Journalism Campaign:

Details of SA Media’s censorship and cover up of Radical Honesty SA’s scientific journalism campaign were recently provided to: TO: Mr. Pilger, Wikileaks, Lannan Fnd, Noam Chomsky, David Barsamian, Mark Crispin Miller, etc in: Censored: The War You Don’t See: Root Cause Problem Solving: Scientific Journalism Campaign; for their investigation and records.


For the Record: Radical Honesty Leadership Currency:

Radical Honesty’s leadership paradigm refuses to bullshit the psychological infant public -- particularly [those] afflicted with Dunning and Kruger Cognitive Biases, such as Status-Quo Bias, Anchoring, Bandwagon Effect; and Primacy Effect -- with public relations lies and illusions.

Bluntly, Radical Honesty only appeals to people who:

1. Are Sick to death of relationships founded on political correct sycophancy and lies.
   
2. Refuse to wade through the ever-rising tide of corporate and political bullshite.
   
3. Had enough of being burned, duped, fooled, conned, scammed and screwed over.

People who have confronted the reality that: Truth And Transparent Leadership are currency.

Radical Honesty leaders would rather have no fans, no followers (we only have colleagues), than some schmuck who is such an ignorant moron imbecile to believe that you can solve relationship problems, by political correct arse-kissing; or that you can solve socio-economic or political problems, by refusing to address their root causes.

We solve relationship and socio-political problems, like engineers solve engineering problems. We find the true source of the problem. We eliminate the source of the problem. Bingo!

As you can no doubt gather, we do not practice any form of public relations image management whatso-fucking-ever. Unlike image management chameleons who put forth a false image to the public, and hide any possible perspective that could be negatively interpreted by the Dunning and Kruger Cognitive Biases Moron Imbecile public; with Radical Honesty: WHAT YOU SEE IS WHAT YOU GET! We don’t do the Chameleon PR corporate and political bullshite.

“Love your neighbor as yourself” doesn't mean that you are supposed to lie about anger; it means to tell the petty, unreasonable, unjustifiable truth—good and loud and direct so you can authentically get over it so you can love that neighbor for real again, not phony it up and talk about how nice they are while lying through your teeth. Try treating other people as poorly as you treat yourself. At times, being honest about your anger is the only way you have of sharing who you are. Love is sharing what you have, even if you're having a fit. Telling the truth is loving your neighbor.” – Brad Blanton, Practicing Radical Honesty

Of course this requires a measure of courage, honour and integrity, not to measure a herculian commitment to transparency; that the average Dunning and Kruger Cognitive Biases Moron Imbecile secrecy addict who prefers to make all their judgements on their ‘first impressions’ and has no commitment to ‘innocent until proven guilty’ or ‘honourable fair impartial enquiries’; is incapable of. Nevertheless that of course does not stop the Dunning and Kruger Cognitive Biases Moron Imbecile individual from hating that which s/he wishes s/he had the courage to be; but cannot, due to their blind obedience to their psychological infant bicameral mind:

That type of psychological infancy also demands that ‘I Think, therefore I am’ be considered Sui Generis, i.e. Unique as the only concept of Self, and an absolute, which cannot be questioned. But it is not Sui Generis (unique) because there are many other concepts of Self.

Mr. McBride seems to think that his mind is who he is; does he? But he forgets that it is his mind whom he has put in charge of making that decision? That means there is a conflict of interest, his mind has to make a decision as to whether his mind is who he – Mr. McBride – is? So surely his mind should clarify the decision-making process of how his mind came to that conclusion, based upon what psychological and philosophical and neuro-science evidence? Cause minds just like politicians don’t always tell the truth!

So, is Mr. McBride’s mind, who he is?

Or does Mr. McBride consider his being, the little baby of head, arms and legs, who grew up to be a being of a man, while growing a mind, a being whose eyes see, whose ears hear, and whose skin touches, a being that effortlessly provides this seeing, hearing, touching feedback information to the mind that he grew in his brain, to analyse and then provide his being with a final report about the feedback provided to it?

If we are a conscious being, then our being uses our mind – an analytical tool -- to evaluate information, from numerous sources, analyse it and come to a conclusion. What is Mr. McBride’s mind’s concept of self, the foundations for his belief in his dignity, etc? It is a fragile-ego autocratic dictatorial mind that chooses ‘I think, I am Unique’, and the right to psychological infancy (sycophancy), as its definition for dignity; but if that is what Mr McBride’s mind wishes to be, it has such a right, but it should practice transparency and disclose that information, and take responsibility: I am a psychological infant, and I demand the right to psychological infancy and sycophancy, based on whatever evidence he wishes to put forth.

[..] The meme is a unit of information (or instruction for behaviour) stored in a brain and passed on by imitation from one brain to another. Dawkins gave as examples; ideas, tunes, scientific theories, religious beliefs, clothes fashions… The most obvious (and scary) conclusion from modern neuroscience is that there is simply no one inside the brain. The more we learn about the way the brain functions the less it seems to need a central controller, a little person inside, a decider of decisions or an experiencer of experiences. These are just fictions - part of the story the brain tells itself about a self within (Churchland and Sejnowski, 1992; Dennett, 1991). We seem to live in a muddle that we think matters to a self that doesn’t exist. I want to find out why. (Radical Honesty Concourt Amicus: Citizen v. McBride (PDF)

We Respect Citizens Right to Choose Non-Radical Honesty Co-Dependence Abuse Leadership:

Radical Honesty however totally respect all citizens rights to choose to:

1. Remain in relationships founded on political correct sycophancy and lies.
   
2. Drown in their leaders ever-rising tide of corporate and political bullshite.
   
3. Be burned, duped, fooled, conned, scammed and screwed over by their political, religious, corporate and media leaders.

An unswerving commitment to the Politics of Co-dependency Abuse is not for the faint-hearted; only the psychopathic addicted to abusing and being abused. Please commend Mr. Vegter for upholding South Africa’s TRC fraud elite’s commitment to their ever-ever-rising tide of corporate and political bullshite. We hope his Ignorant Moron Imbecile Dunning and Kruger Primacy Effect schmuck followers suffering from Battered TRC Fraud Syndrome, and Battered Voters Syndrome experience the most superb burned, duped, fooled, conned, scammed and screwed over experience their toxic political correct TRC fraud fragile ego’s desire.


[B] If Mr. Vegter’s Criticism was meant Honourably, Seriously and Constructively:

Radical Honestly highly values sincere and serious honourable constructive criticism. If Mr. Vegter considers himself an honourable person, who does not suffer from Dunning and Kruger Primacy Effect cognitive biases and his remarks were not those of an ignorant moron imbecile; but conscious honourable individual; founded on scientific evidence; we welcome him to share his evidence for his conclusions with us.

Radical Honesty’s psychological, political, ecological, emotional, socio-economic etc policies and principles are founded on the best science we can find. We are always on the lookout for sincere and serious constructive criticism founded on scientific evidence, so that our policies can be updated with the latest scientific knowledge.

We have no allegiance whatsoever to political correct left or right, extreme left or right, communist, socialist, capitalist, nazi, multi-cultural, black or white ideologies. Our primary concern in applying any ideological problem-solving blueprint to any particular circumstance is: DOES IT WORK for the individuals involved? Does it solve their problem? If it doesn’t work; we discard it like toilet paper.

Undoubtedly our ‘does it work’ problem solving attitude has resulted in a degree of problem solving that has not been replicated by any other culture in the world (to my knowledge). Our culture has no murderers; no rapists, nor have any of our members conceived any unwanted children. We have no lawyers. Our members are taught our – being specific about anger and forgiveness social contract – communication and noticing skills of honourably resolving their disagreements with each other face-to-face. Our political, cultural and religious leadership is 100% transparent including any corporate or individual funding of any project or campaign.

I look forward to hearing Mr. Vegter’s honourable constructive criticism suggestions.

Respectfully,

Lara Johnstone
Radical Honesty SA




» » » » [Letter PDF]

Sun 19 Jun 18:16: Mr. Ivo Vegters (Sort of) Response