Sent: Thu 6/23/2011 1:06 AM
TO: Mr. du Preez
CC: Mr. Athol Trollip
CC: Andries Treurnicht, HNP
CC: Dr. Pieter Mulder, FF+
Mr. du Preez,
I refer to your tweet:
@MaxduPreez: “Athol Trollip did not insult Afrikaners, only the racists and political retards among them. Go Athol!”
Request Your Definition for ‘Racists’ and ‘Political Retards’
According to my definition of ‘racists’ and ‘political retards’; my current working hypothesis, based upon my experience over the past few years attempting to engage the South African TRC Fraud elite is that you, Max du Preez and many of your colleague editors and journalists are South Africa’s prime racists! You are also South Africa’s primary political retards. I am more than happy to amend my working hypothesis; would you be willing to reconsider your racist political retarded beliefs?
Radical Honesty: Max du Preez the Übermensch Racist?
Radical Honesty’s definition of ‘Racist/Racism’ is in accordance to the work of Dr. Gedaliah Braun: What is Racism; and How Philosophy can be Practical?: which summarized can be stated as: Neither an idea, nor a fact can be racist, only a belief. A belief cannot be racist; if it is sincerely believed to be true; and if the holder of the belief is willing to consider evidence to the contrary. A belief can only be racist; if the holder thereof refuses to hear any evidence to the contrary.
I shall not disagree that there are individuals in the ‘far right’ who hold beliefs which they refuse to discuss or to enquire into evidence to the contrary. In the past 10 years since my return to South Africa, I would say I’ve probably encountered about 20 of them. The vast majority of individuals in the far-right I have met, have proven themselves to me to be individuals who sincerely hold their racial beliefs, but who are totally willing to sit down and discuss and debate at length, to listen to evidence that contradicts their evidence, and to share their evidence. They are committed to remaining in the conversation and continuing the debate, and are happy to change their beliefs, when they are provided sufficient evidence therefore. They are consequently NOT RACISTS.
You on the other hand hold beliefs that it appears you refuse to discuss with anyone who holds beliefs or ideas to the contrary. You simply consider those who hold different beliefs to yours; to be racists, without being willing to engage them, and to consider their evidence. That would make YOU THE IDEOLOGICAL RACIST. You seem to think that you are some kind of Übermensch, to those you perceive of as ‘racist’ Üntermensch.
Continued in PDF.
Respectfully,
Lara Johnstone
Radical Honesty SA
 |
Radical Honesty SA to Max du Preez:
RE: Max du Preez the Ubermensch Racist & Political Retard?
CC: Mr. Athol Trollip; c/o Ms. Helen Zille
Mr. du Preez
Twitter: @MaxduPreez
21 June 2011
Mr. du Preez,
I refer to your tweet:@MaxduPreez: “Athol Trollip did not insult Afrikaners, only the racists and political retards among them. Go Athol!”
Request Your Definition for ‘Racists’ and ‘Political Retards’
According to my definition of ‘racists’ and ‘political retards’; my current working hypothesis, based upon my experience over the past few years attempting to engage the South African TRC Fraud elite is that you, Max du Preez and many of your colleague editors and journalists are South Africa’s prime racists! You are also South Africa’s primary political retards. I am more than happy to amend my working hypothesis; would you be willing to reconsider your racist political retarded beliefs?
Radical Honesty: Max du Preez the Übermensch Racist?
Radical Honesty’s definition of ‘Racist/Racism’ is in accordance to the work of Dr. Gedaliah Braun: What is Racism; and How Philosophy can be Practical?: which summarized can be stated as: Neither an idea, nor a fact can be racist, only a belief. A belief cannot be racist; if it is sincerely believed to be true; and if the holder of the belief is willing to consider evidence to the contrary. A belief can only be racist; if the holder thereof refuses to hear any evidence to the contrary.
I shall not disagree that there are individuals in the ‘far right’ who hold beliefs which they refuse to discuss or to enquire into evidence to the contrary. In the past 10 years since my return to South Africa, I would say I’ve probably encountered about 20 of them. The vast majority of individuals in the far-right I have met, have proven themselves to me to be individuals who sincerely hold their racial beliefs, but who are totally willing to sit down and discuss and debate at length, to listen to evidence that contradicts their evidence, and to share their evidence. They are committed to remaining in the conversation and continuing the debate, and are happy to change their beliefs, when they are provided sufficient evidence therefore. They are consequently NOT RACISTS.
You on the other hand hold beliefs that it appears you refuse to discuss with anyone who holds beliefs or ideas to the contrary. You simply consider those who hold different beliefs to yours; to be racists, without being willing to engage them, and to consider their evidence. That would make YOU THE IDEOLOGICAL RACIST. You seem to think that you are some kind of Übermensch, to those you perceive of as ‘racist’ Üntermensch.
From an Ideological Just War perspective:When you engage someone openly with “white” information operations, i.e. IO where your identity is clear and explicit, you imply that they are roughly your equal. By speaking to them directly, you point up that they are important enough to demand your attention and your reply. – Blackfive and Information Superiority, Field Manual No. FM 3-0, Headquarters Department of the Army, June 2001
So, Mr. du Preez, shall you lower yourself to ‘racist’ Üntermensch status to reply; and demonstrate your sincere willingness to engage and consider evidence and information that may contradict your beliefs?
Radical Honesty: Max du Preez the Political Retard?
An analogy to the Radical Honesty worldview about Political Retards and Political Visionary Prophets. Historically Galileo Galilei was a Geo-Political Visionary, and the Catholic Church and everyone who accused him of heresy, insanity and whatever else; were the Geo-Political Retards.
Sebastian Ronin is a Geo-Political Visionary:Post-Ecological Tipping Point matches Post-Peak Oil. And most of these fucktards are still debating on whether to lead with the left foot or right foot when goose-stepping.
Brad Blanton is a Geo-Political Visionary:Tao of Democracy: Tom Atlee, the author of The Tao of Democracy, postulates the possibility of something he calls co-intelligence. He asserts that if people of divergent viewpoints get together and disagree to whatever degree possible but remain committed to solving a problem, they will eventually come up with a solution more brilliant and creative than any of them could have come up with alone. This form of deep democracy differs from the usual process known as co-stupidity. When people can honestly disagree and still stick with each other, instead of having an ideal that all must believe in, in common, before they can act together—we then have a process through which all can discover in common, and create together unique solutions. We substitute the process of mutual problem solving for idealism of any kind. That's it. That's very radical and that's our only hope. Radical hope depends on radical honesty.
Both these visionaries don’t have as their priority the beliefs of the other person; whether their chosen beliefs are Black Power, Nazism, Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, Anarchism, libertarianism, etc.
To be a Post Ecological Tipping Point Tao of Democracy visionary, or on the road to such visionary socio-ecological status is not to give a flying fuck what anyone’s beliefs are; but to highly value how such persons hold their beliefs. Do they hold their belief sincerely; and are they willing to dialogue and sincerely discuss it, and to share evidence; so that both are learner and teacher.
Put differently: If you took your car to the mechanic, and he investigated to find the root cause of your cars mechanical problem, and found out it was the radiator; but then told you it was your battery; would your car’s problem be solved? Of course it wouldn’t. Until you fix the radiator cause of your mechanical problem, your car’s problem is not going to go away, it is only going to get worse. Imagine you found out that you had taken your car to a politically correct mechanic, a mechanic who refuses to diagnose any radiator problems accurately for fear of hurting the radiator’s feelings. A mechanic who secretly believes that radiators are incapable of doing their radiator job properly and that this reality must be hidden and kept secret for fear that the radiator will no longer be his friend. Instead any mechanic one who proceeds to attempt to find the root of the problem, by a process of elimination; he frantically and hysterically demands that they do not investigate whether the radiator is the cause of the problem. When such other mechanic proceeds with investigating the radiator, the politically correct mechanic starts screeching at the top of his lungs: “radiator racists, radiator racists”, and calls the ‘radiator racist’ thought police. In such a town, if all the mechanics were politically correct radiator sycophants, who secretly believe the radiator’s are incapable of functioning properly, but who are too petrified to confront the radiator’s with this possibility; do you think anyone whose car had a radiator problem, would be able to get their radiator problem fixed?
Now if politicians and journalists are supposed to be socio-political problem solvers, what kind of socio-political problem solvers are they; if they are too petrified to consider all of the possible root causes to the relevant socio-political problems? What kind of problem solving do you think a country is going to accomplish with politicians and journalists who think the earth is flat; and that resources are infinite; and who scream ‘racist’ whenever anyone addresses the issues of finite resources, overpopulation and over-consumption?
So, Mr. du Preez, shall you lower yourself to ‘racist’ Üntermensch status to reply; and demonstrate your sincere willingness to engage and consider evidence and information that contradicts your beliefs?
Radical Honesty: Anti-Apartheid Movement Übermensch Racist Political Retards
Post Peak Oil Political Ecological Relocalisation Visionaries:
Who supports Ethno-Cultural Economic and Political Relocalisation? Who supports other ethno-cultural tribes to rule themselves? Most of the people I have met in the AWB, the HNP, the AVP, the VVK, those living in Orania, etc. Orania is the most ecologically focussed town in South Africa. It is also the only town without violent crime. All of these alleged ‘racist political retards (according to Max du Preez) do not want to rule over other ethno-cultural tribes, and endorse other ethno-cultural tribes desires to rule themselves.
Post Peak Oil Political Ecological Centralisation of Power Political Retards:
Who does not support the alleged ‘racist’ Üntermensch ethno-cultural tribes to rule themselves? Who wants to deny all the alleged ‘racist’ Üntermensch ethno-cultural tribes the rights to rule themselves, because these Übermensch elite demand to rule over everybody and to deny all cultures they disapprove of their right to their cultural heritage, language and customs?
Who are the real ‘racist’ Übermensch Power Mongers?
The Anti-Apartheid Movement Struggle Icons from the ANC and DA, who demand that everyone in South Africa become a ‘non-white’ and a ‘non-black’ and give up their culture, because the Anti-Apartheid Movement ‘racist’ Übermensch demand to rule over every ethno-culture so as to destroy these ethno-cultures heritage, language and customs, and make them into non-white, and non-black zombie consumers; who consume the political and corporate bullshit of South Africa’s history.
The Anti-Apartheid Movement Struggle Icons from the ANC and DA, who are willing to bribe citizens with welfare rewards if they breed as if the Earth is flat, and to consume resources as if resources are infinite!
I look forward to hearing from you.
Respectfully,
Lara Johnstone
Radical Honesty SA
Enclosure: Additional Information; re: Racism & Radical Honesty Worldview:
What is Racism; and How Philosophy can be Practical?, by Dr. Gedaliah Braun
Outline of Principal Theses
Determining the nature of racism is a philosophical issue. Nevertheless, it is of great practical importance and I would argue that many of the West’s racial problems arise from a mistake thereof.
To be accused of racism is to be condemned. But (I claim) no fact or idea can itself be racist. Therefore the idea of racial differences is neither racist nor bad and hence is insulting to no one.
At present all political discussion in the West is based on the assumption that the idea of such differences is racist – a philosophical error with fateful consequences. If there are such differences and they are not racist, then they should be taken into account in policy-making; but if they are wrongly assumed to be racist and hence swept under the carpet, any policies based on such willful ignorance are doomed to failure.
What Racism Is Not
The question What is racism? is philosophical, not sociological, anthropological or linguistic. It is nevertheless a question of enormous practical importance, and I will argue that most of the racial problems facing South Africa and the West arise because of certain false assumptions in this regard.
While agreeing that racism is bad, we must ask just what this means. An earthquake which kills thousands of people that is bad, but it’s not morally bad. We don’t, e.g., condemn it, for the simple reason that it is inanimate and hence doesn’t do things. Earthquakes simply happen; there is no question of moral blame because there is nothing and no one to blame.
Moral vs. Nonmoral Badness
But while being animate may be a requirement for moral blame, it is not sufficient. We don’t condemn a marauding lion or an infant for dropping your cell phone into the bath, for though both are animate, they are not responsible for their actions; and it is only responsible human behaviour that can be condemned or blamed and which is wicked or sinful.
Hence we can distinguish moral from nonmoral badness. The former concerns human beings and their behaviour; this is the sphere of right and wrong. Nonmoral badness concerns things which are unfortunate but which involve no (responsible) human behaviour and for which there is therefore nothing and no one to blame. The chemical accident at Bhopal (in India) in which thousands died was horrible and if someone was responsible for it they should be punished. But if it simply happened, then, though no less lamentable, there would be no moral evil and nothing deserving of condemnation.
What Kinds of Things Can Be Racist?
It is clear that when we say racism is bad we mean morally bad, for to call someone a racist is to condemn him. But what sorts of things, besides a person and his behaviour, can be racist?
Suppose someone says blacks are not good at mathematics – not that no blacks are, but that on average, fewer are. Is saying and believing such a thing racist? It is crucial to realize that, practically speaking, what we are asking here is whether this is morally bad; because to say it is racist is to say that it is bad. And in essence that is what the argument over racism is all about: whether saying, doing, thinking or feeling certain things are bad and hence should be condemned, prohibited or even penalized.
A Philosophical Touchstone
At present it is widely assumed that such ideas – that blacks are poor at math or that they have a higher crime rate, etc. – are racist, and while I do not wish to deny that genuine racism deserves condemnation, I most emphatically question whether certain things assumed to be racist really are.
Can an Idea Be Racist?
We can begin by asking whether an idea can be racist? For our purposes, an idea is like a thought, which is closely related to a proposition. When we make an assertion we are always asserting something to be so – to be the case. That which we are asserting to be the case is a proposition. (For present purposes ‘statement’, ‘assertion’ and ‘proposition’ are more or less the same.)
Propositions and Facts
Thus, if I say (1) ‘Pretoria is the administrative capital of South Africa’, I have asserted a proposition. That proposition happens to be true, but propositions can just as easily be false as true. Thus, (2) ‘Cape Town is the administrative capital’ is false. The assertion that (3) ‘Cape Town is the legislative capital’ is true, but saying that it is the administrative capital is false, just as (1) is true but (4) – that Pretoria is the legislative capital – would be false.
Hence, while a proposition can be either true or false, it remains the same proposition whichever it is. Thus, (3) ‘Cape Town is the legislative capital’, is true; but if it were to become false (if they relocate parliament), it would be the same proposition it is now but would simply be false instead of true.
What makes one proposition true and another false? Why is (3) [that Cape Town is the legislative capital] true but (2) [that it is the administrative capital] false? Obviously, because it is a fact that Cape Town is the legislative capital while it is not a fact that it is the administrative capital. Facts, therefore, are what make propositions true (or false). All propositions assert some fact or other to be the case; when that fact is the case, the proposition is true; when it is not, the proposition is false.
Thus, it is a fact that Cape Town is the legislative capital and hence the proposition which asserts this – (3) – is true; while it is not a fact that it is the administrative capital and hence the proposition which asserts it is – (2) – is false.
Propositions Are ‘Pictures’ of Facts
Propositions are therefore intimately connected with facts: a proposition is like a ‘picture’ of a fact. Just as you can have a picture of something that does not exist (e.g., of the fictional character Superman), and just as the picture is a perfectly bona-fide picture and will remain the same picture whether Superman exists or not, so a proposition ‘pictures’ a fact. It as¬serts a certain fact to be the case but is quite independent of whether or not that fact is the case (and hence of whether or not the proposition is true); and just as the picture of Superman remains the same picture whether Superman exists or not, so a proposition remains the same proposition whether or not there is a fact to make it true.
Can a Fact Be Racist?
And now let us ask whether a fact can be racist. The answer is clearly ‘No’; indeed, the very idea is absurd. When we say that racism is bad we mean it is morally bad and deserving of condemnation. But a fact cannot be deserving of condemnation since it is inanimate and hence is not the sort of thing which can be blamed. A fact is not responsible for being a fact, nor is it deliberately or knowingly a fact; it just is a fact, and it would be ridiculous, e.g., to say, ‘Shame on you – you are a bad fact!’.
But since to call something racist is to criticize it, it makes no sense to call a fact racist, since it makes no sense to criticize a fact. A fact may be nonmorally bad – i.e., something which it would have been better had it not been the case – but it cannot be wicked.
If a fact cannot be wicked, what about a proposition? Again the answer is clear: if a fact cannot be morally bad, neither can a possible fact (which is essentially what a proposition is), if for no other reason than that it is in-animate and hence not subject to (moral) blame or criticism. And if it can’t be sinful or wicked neither can it be racist.
Hence we may conclude that neither the idea, thought or proposition that there are racial differences can be racist, since no thought or proposition can itself be morally bad – and if it can’t be morally bad it can’t be racist. Thus, neither the possible fact nor the actual fact of such differences can be racist, since facts, actual or possible, are not and cannot by themselves be morally bad, sinful or wicked. (See also here.)
Conventional Wisdom Embodies Philosophical Error
But if there are important group differences which are not ‘allowed’ to exist, then any decisions based on such willful ignorance are doomed to failure. Yet this Accepted Wisdom and the de facto policy resulting from it rests on a philosophical mistake, viz., the unchallenged and unexamined assumption that certain ideas are racist and hence morally abhorrent and hence ‘beyond the pale’. This dogma has far-reaching ramifications. As Stephen Carter says, ‘Silencing debate solves no problems; it only limits possible solutions’. Hence my claim that a philosophical question, concerning the nature of racism, has practical import.
What Racism Is
If the very idea of racial differences is not racist, what is? We have said there are racist beliefs, statements, behaviour, attitudes and individuals. But is it, e.g., bad to believe that whites are smarter – or more honest and reliable – than blacks? For if the idea of such differences is not morally bad, how can it be bad simply to believe they exist?
Two Senses of Belief
We can distinguish two senses of belief. If I say ‘Your belief that witchcraft was the cause of Kokomo’s losing the race is false’, I am talking about the proposition which you believe (that witchcraft was the cause of his losing) and I am saying that it’s false. In a sense this has nothing to do with you, but only with the content of your belief, i.e., with the proposition which you believe. Call this the propositional sense of belief.
But suppose I say ‘Your belief that witchcraft was the cause of Kokomo’s losing the race is foolish’. Can a proposition be foolish? A person can be foolish, for believing something, but a proposition itself cannot be. (We may say a proposition is foolish, but that simply means it is a proposition it would be foolish to believe.) So when I call your belief foolish, what I am calling foolish is not the proposition you believe, but you, for believing it; for while we cannot criticize a proposition, we can criticize someone for believing it. Let us call the act (or state) of believing – as opposed to what is believed – the psychological sense of belief.
Which Kind of Belief Can Be Racist?
Which sense are we talking about when we say that a belief is racist? In the propositional sense, a belief is simply the proposition which is believed, and we have already said that a proposition cannot be racist; so belief in this sense cannot be racist. How about in the psychological sense? Can a person be criticized for believing something, i.e., for how or why he believes it? Certainly, for we are responsible for our beliefs.
Would it be racist, then, to say ‘Blacks are more often thieves than whites’? If we say yes, we must be saying that it is the proposition itself which is racist; for that’s all we know about: we don’t know who said it or how or why. Therefore, if we say this statement (or belief) is racist it can only be because of its content. But we al-ready know that a proposition, by itself, cannot be racist, because to say it is racist means it is morally bad and it makes no sense to say this of a proposition.
A Belief Can Be Racist Only Because Of the Manner In Which It Is Held
So can we say that ‘Blacks are more often thieves’ is racist? In fact, we cannot – at least not just like that. It will depend on how it is believed. But if it is racist, what will be racist will not be the proposition itself but rather the manner in which it is believed. For that is something for which we are responsible, for which we can be criticized, which can be bad, and hence which can be racist.
And when will such a belief be racist? First, it must attribute some ‘negative’ trait – such as dishonesty or lesser intelligence – to some racial group. We might think, however, that such a belief will be racist only if it is not true.
Suppose someone grows up in a place where many blacks are thieves and where whites are constantly bad-mouthing blacks. He is likely to end up thinking blacks are just thieves; and yet suppose (for the sake of argument) that in fact the only reason blacks steal is poverty. He would be believing that blacks are, by nature, thieves and his belief would be false. Would it not therefore be racist?
If a Belief Is Honest It Cannot Be Bad and If It Is Not Bad It Cannot Be Racist
The answer is ‘No’; for although this is a ‘bad’ belief about another race that is false, it is – from his point of view – based on evidence (what he sees and what people say). Given this background, it is perfectly reasonable – and honest – for him to believe what he does. But if his belief is honest, it cannot be morally bad and hence cannot be racist. So being false doesn’t make such a negative belief racist; what matters, again, is the manner in which it is held.
But neither does being true preclude racism. Let us assume (again for the sake of argument) that blacks are by nature more likely to be thieves than whites and that Jones believes this to be so. But suppose he believes this because he was once mugged by a black man and ever since then simply thinks blacks are thieves.
In fact this is not such a simple case. What determines whether a belief is racist is not its truth or falsity but how it is held. One relevant factor is evidence – though note that a person may have good evidence for his belief even though it is false, and conversely, have poor evidence though, by accident, it is true.
Thus: you ask for the time, I look at my watch which says 5 o’clock and I say ‘It’s 5 o’clock’. Unknown to me, however, my watch stopped an hour ago and it really is 6 o’clock. I had good evidence for saying what I did and yet my statement was false.
Conversely, you ask for the time, and (again) my watch, unknown to me, has stopped, so though it says 5 o’clock it really is 6 o’clock; but this time, taking a quick glance, I misread it as saying 6 o’clock and say to you ‘It’s 6 o’clock’. In this case, my evidence is poor and yet my statement happens, by accident, to be true.
Being mugged by a black man is obviously not a good reason for thinking that blacks are thieves, and if some-one believes such a thing based on this evidence it would be a negative belief about blacks and based on insufficient evidence. Surely that makes it racist.
Hold your horses. If, through dim-wittedness, one honestly believes that this one incident is sufficient grounds for his belief, then though we might think him stupid, we could not label his belief racist. Racism is morally bad and deserving of condemnation; if his belief is honest, though foolish, he cannot be morally condemned for it. Such mental sloppiness, though lamentable, is not morally wicked.
So this in fact is not the case we were looking for: a negative belief about another race which was racist in spite of being true – for though true, it is not clearly racist. What then would an example?
Suppose someone believes that blacks are thieves – and let us again assume for the sake of argument that this is true – though in his case he has never had a bad experience with blacks; rather, he simply has an ingrained animus against them. When confronted with evidence to the contrary he refuses to consider it (‘I’m not interested in that communist propaganda!’). Such a belief would clearly be racist even if it were true, showing that truth no more precludes racism than being false is a requirement. What matters, again, is not what is believed, nor its truth or falsity, but how it is believed.
The difference between the once-mugged person and the genuine racist can be illustrated by considering their reaction to contrary evidence. Suppose we explain to the former why his evidence is insufficient and he says, ‘Yes, I see what you’re getting at; my reasons were not very good and I was wrong to say that’. This would show that his belief had not in fact been racist but merely foolish. Whereas in the second example, his dismissing your argument as communist propaganda is a good indication that his belief was racist.
Why Neither Truth Nor Falsity Determines Whether a Belief Is Racist
In fact, given our previous discussion, we can show both that and why truth or falsity is irrelevant in deciding whether a belief is racist. Truth and falsity are properties of propositions, not of people; whereas racism, as a moral concept, is ultimately only attributable to people, and not at all to propositions. So when we speak of a belief as being true or false, we can only be referring to the proposition believed; whereas when we say that a belief is racist, we can only be talking about the person who is believing it. Hence, truth and falsity have to do with things – viz., propositions – entirely other than what racism has to do with – viz., people and their actions and beliefs. And so truth and falsity can have nothing directly to do with whether a belief is racist. Of course if the belief is not only false but is known to be false, that’s a different matter, to which we may now turn.
Radical Honesty Culture & Religion Brief Overview:
Radical Honestly highly values sincere and serious honourable constructive criticism; no matter how blunt. If you consider yourself an honourable liberal, conservative, socialist, communist, capitalist, libertarian, anarchist, national socialist, etc. and your constructive criticism feedback is founded on scientific principles and relevant evidence; please share your evidence for your 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 political or psychological mobjustice allegiance whatsoever to political correct left or right, extreme left or right, communist, socialist, capitalist, nazi, liberal, libertarian, anarchist, 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 in that circumstance; we flush it down the toilet.
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. Our members have total freedom of speech; we do not subscribe to any socialist, capitalist, nazi, liberal, black or white political correct Victimology stories. We have no lawyers. Our members are taught our – being specific about anger and forgiveness social contract – communication and noticing skills of honourably resolving our 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.
Anyone who has any honourable sincere serious constructive criticism of Radical Honesty policies or practices is invited to share such constructive criticism to Radical Honesty members themselves, and to initiate dialogue on the matter.
For the Record: Radical Honesty Leadership Paradigm:
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, etc -- with public relations lies and illusions.
Bluntly, Radical Honesty only appeals to people who:
- Are Sick to death of relationships founded on political correct sycophancy and lies.
- Refuse to wade through the ever-rising tide of corporate and political bullshite.
- Had enough of being burned, duped, fooled, conned, scammed and screwed over.
People who have confronted the reality that: Truth-Telling And Transparent Leadership are currency.
Radical Honesty leaders would rather have no fans, no followers (we only have colleagues), than any ignorant moron imbecile schmuck who believes 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.
Radical Honesty 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. End of Problem.
As you can no doubt gather, Radical Honesty do not practice any form of public relations image management whatsoever. Unlike image Edward Bernaysian PR management chameleons who put forth a false image to the public, and hide any possible perspective that could be negatively interpreted by citizens who suffer from Dunning and Kruger Cognitive Biases; with Radical Honesty: WHAT YOU SEE IS WHAT YOU GET! We don’t do the Bernaysian 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; and psychological security; no longer obedient to the Ego’s 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))
Radical Honesty Endorse Citizens Right to Choose Non-Radical Honesty Leadership:
Radical Honesty however totally respects all citizens’ rights to choose to:
- Remain in relationships founded on political correct sycophancy and lies.
- Drown in their leader’s ever-rising tide of corporate and political bullshite.
- Be burned, duped, fooled, conned, scammed and screwed over by their political, religious, corporate and media leaders.
» » » » [Letter PDF]
No comments:
Post a Comment