RH & YGL statement RE: SAHRC 'Hate Speech' Ruling against Lewende Hoop: Die Raadsplan
The Lewende Hoop | Living Hope Ministries book: Die Raadplan | The Divine Plan, ‘statements’ do not meet any of the Radical Honoursty culture’s definitions for ‘Hate’ or ‘Racism’.
Andrea Muhrrteyn | SQSwans | 02 March 2013
Radical Honoursty Culture & Yshmael Guerrylla Law Party Dispute SAHRC ruling against Lewende Hoop | Living Hope Ministries publication ‘Die Raadsplan’ | as offensive and amounting to hate speech; and all SA HRC ‘Hate Speech’, ‘Racism’ Rulings, based upon AnthroCorpocentric dominant common law cultural jurisprudence’s definitions of ‘Hate Speech’ and ‘Racism’.
Official Notice to South African Human Rights Commission:
[1] The Radical Honoursty culture and Yshmael Guerrylla Law Party dispute the SAHRC ruling against Lewende Hoop | Living Hope Ministries publication ‘Die Raadsplan’ | ‘The Divine Plan’, as ‘offensive’ and amounting to ‘hate speech’; on the grounds that:
[1.1] The Lewende Hoop: Die Raadsplan statements do not meet the minority Ecocentric Radical Honoursty culture’s legal definitions for ‘hate speech’ and ‘racism’.
[1.2] The SAHRC Commission’s ruling against Lewende Hoop: Die Raadsplan is based upon the dominant culture’s AnthroCorpocentric Common Law cultural definitions for ‘hate speech’ and ‘racism’ and ‘offensive’; without any recognition of alternative cultural definitions from minority South African cultures who are not Patriarchal or AnthroCorpocentric.
[2] The Radical Honoursty culture and Yshmael Guerrylla Law Party dispute all past and future SA Human Rights Commission ‘Hate Speech’ Rulings, which were, or shall be based upon AnthroCorpocentric dominant common law cultural jurisprudence definitions of ‘hate speech’, ‘racism’, ‘offensive’, ‘insulting’ etc.
[3] Any SAHRC ruling of ‘hate speech’, ‘racism’ etc, which does not recognize or incorporate Radical Honoursty cultural definitions of ‘hate speech’, ‘racism’ and ‘reconciliation’ in its rulings, consequently do not represent the views of the Radical Honoursty culture and the Yshmael Guerrylla Law Party.
[4] The Radical Honoursty culture and Yshmael Guerrylla Law Party recognize all other South African culture’s rights to their own cultural definitions for ‘hate speech’, ‘racism’ and ‘reconciliation’, etc; and believe that true authentic multiculturalism can only occur when all cultures are honest about what their culture’s specific legal definition of these and other contentious legal terms are, so that the members of all cultures, can be made aware, what other cultures definitions are of these terms and how to choose to relate to each other, or not, in recognition of such terms; instead of one or more dominant cultures, attempting to enforce their dominant cultural definitions down all other culture’s throats.
[5] In Radical Honoursty culture:
[5.1] Love: Love is to (a) tell another person your subjective truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, no matter how ‘offensive’ to the listener, and (b) to do so publicly, to their face; as opposed to secretly or behind their back, and (c) to remain in the conversation with them.
[5.2] Hate: Hate is to (a) withhold your honest subjective truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, no matter how offensive, to the listener; and (b) to do so to their face, particularly while expressing your subjective truth, behind their back, and (c) to bullshit yourself, that what you are doing is not ‘hate’; but ‘manners’ or ‘being nice’ or ‘being polite’ or ‘being professional’, etc.
[5.3] Racism: Any fact or verbal or written statement about racial differences – no matter how offensive or factually incorrect -- cannot be ‘racist’. Only a subjective belief about racial differences can be racist, if (a) it unequivocally subjectively known, by the holder of the belief, to be both factually and experientially false, yet (b) stated as factual or experiential truth, and (c) when confronted with possible alternative evidence and theories, the nature of the subjectivity of the belief is fundamentalist, as opposed to simply that of a working hypothesis conclusion. (Definition of Dr. Gedaliah Braun, as expressed in What is Racism? Or, how Philosophy can be ‘Practical’: in his book: Racism, Guilt, Self-Hatred and Self-Deceit).
[5.4] Reconciliation: Radical Honoursty is a non-violent Fanon process, where reconciliation is a psychological and sensate physical experience of releasing of anger and resentments. It is the liberation of both the settler and the colonized minds, by release of both of their suppressed violence, not physically, but verbally: face to face, through expressions of resentments and appreciations, until all suppressed sensate anger is released. Radical Honoursty forgiveness occurs when two former enemies sit across from each other, and have verbally liberated their pent up sensate anger and rage, the body is in a state of released sensate tension, similar to the emotions released in a sexual orgasm, irrespective of however long it takes. Reconciliation occurs when the fragile ego mind is no longer colonized by the suppressed anger in the body (Definition as provided to Constitutional Court in Alien on Pale Blue Dot v. Afriforum, Malema, et al).
[6] The Lewende Hoop | Living Hope Ministries book: Die Raadplan | The Divine Plan, ‘statements’ do not meet any of the Radical Honoursty culture’s definitions for ‘Hate’ or ‘Racism’.
Free State Mng: Ms. Lindiwe Khumalo
Gauteng Mng: Ms Chantal Kisoon
SA Human Rights Commission
Ds Willie Smith
Lewende Hoop | Living Hope
CC: Rev Dr. Wesley Mabuza
CRL Rights Commission
CC: KroonNuus
Editor: Tharine Geldenhuys
Radical Honoursty Culture & Yshmael Guerrylla Law Party Dispute SAHRC ruling against Lewende Hoop | Living Hope Ministries publication ‘Die Raadsplan’ | as offensive and amounting to hate speech; and all SA HRC ‘Hate Speech’, ‘Racism’ Rulings, based upon AnthroCorpocentric dominant common law cultural jurisprudence’s definitions of ‘Hate Speech’ and ‘Racism’.
Official Notice to South African Human Rights Commission:
[1] The Radical Honoursty culture and Yshmael Guerrylla Law Party dispute the SAHRC ruling against Lewende Hoop | Living Hope Ministries publication ‘Die Raadsplan’ | ‘The Divine Plan’, as ‘offensive’ and amounting to ‘hate speech’; on the grounds that:
[1.1] The Lewende Hoop: Die Raadsplan statements do not meet the minority Ecocentric Radical Honoursty culture’s legal definitions for ‘hate speech’ and ‘racism’.
[1.2] The SAHRC Commission’s ruling against Lewende Hoop: Die Raadsplan is based upon the dominant culture’s AnthroCorpocentric Common Law cultural definitions for ‘hate speech’ and ‘racism’ and ‘offensive’; without any recognition of alternative cultural definitions from minority South African cultures who are not Patriarchal or AnthroCorpocentric.
[2] The Radical Honoursty culture and Yshmael Guerrylla Law Party dispute all past and future SA Human Rights Commission ‘Hate Speech’ Rulings, which were, or shall be based upon AnthroCorpocentric dominant common law cultural jurisprudence definitions of ‘hate speech’, ‘racism’, ‘offensive’, ‘insulting’ etc.
[3] Any SAHRC ruling of ‘hate speech’, ‘racism’ etc, which does not recognize or incorporate Radical Honoursty cultural definitions of ‘hate speech’, ‘racism’ and ‘reconciliation’ in its rulings, consequently do not represent the views of the Radical Honoursty culture and the Yshmael Guerrylla Law Party.
[4] The Radical Honoursty culture and Yshmael Guerrylla Law Party recognize all other South African culture’s rights to their own cultural definitions for ‘hate speech’, ‘racism’ and ‘reconciliation’, etc; and believe that true authentic multiculturalism can only occur when all cultures are honest about what their culture’s specific legal definition of these and other contentious legal terms are, so that the members of all cultures, can be made aware, what other cultures definitions are of these terms and how to choose to relate to each other, or not, in recognition of such terms; instead of one or more dominant cultures, attempting to enforce their dominant cultural definitions down all other culture’s throats.
[5] In Radical Honoursty culture:
[5.1] Love: Love is to (a) tell another person your subjective truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, no matter how ‘offensive’ to the listener, and (b) to do so publicly, to their face; as opposed to secretly or behind their back, and (c) to remain in the conversation with them.
[5.2] Hate: Hate is to (a) withhold your honest subjective truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, no matter how offensive, to the listener; and (b) to do so to their face, particularly while expressing your subjective truth, behind their back, and (c) to bullshit yourself, that what you are doing is not ‘hate’; but ‘manners’ or ‘being nice’ or ‘being polite’ or ‘being professional’, etc.
[5.3] Racism: Any fact or verbal or written statement about racial differences – no matter how offensive or factually incorrect -- cannot be ‘racist’. Only a subjective belief about racial differences can be racist, if (a) it unequivocally subjectively known, by the holder of the belief, to be both factually and experientially false, yet (b) stated as factual or experiential truth, and (c) when confronted with possible alternative evidence and theories, the nature of the subjectivity of the belief is fundamentalist, as opposed to simply that of a working hypothesis conclusion. (Definition of Dr. Gedaliah Braun, as expressed in What is Racism? Or, how Philosophy can be ‘Practical’: in his book: Racism, Guilt, Self-Hatred and Self-Deceit).
[5.4] Reconciliation: Radical Honoursty is a non-violent Fanon process, where reconciliation is a psychological and sensate physical experience of releasing of anger and resentments. It is the liberation of both the settler and the colonized minds, by release of both of their suppressed violence, not physically, but verbally: face to face, through expressions of resentments and appreciations, until all suppressed sensate anger is released. Radical Honoursty forgiveness occurs when two former enemies sit across from each other, and have verbally liberated their pent up sensate anger and rage, the body is in a state of released sensate tension, similar to the emotions released in a sexual orgasm, irrespective of however long it takes. Reconciliation occurs when the fragile ego mind is no longer colonized by the suppressed anger in the body (Definition as provided to Constitutional Court in Alien on Pale Blue Dot v. Afriforum, Malema, et al).
[6] The Lewende Hoop | Living Hope Ministries book: Die Raadplan | The Divine Plan, ‘statements’ do not meet any of the Radical Honoursty culture’s definitions for ‘Hate’ or ‘Racism’.
Radical Honoursty Culture Disputes SAHRC Ruling against Lewende Hoop: Die Raadsplan:
[7] SAHRC find a church publication offensive and amounting to hate speech, reports that SAHRC found the following statements from Lewende Hoop/Living Hope: Die Raadsplan/The Divine Plan, to be ‘racially discriminatory and amounting to hate speech’:
[7.1] “To walk around naked and constantly being on the lookout for “hulk and roof” is characteristic of the African Black”;
[7.2] “Any reference to these Blacks in the Bible must be searched for under the word “animal” or animals of the land or animals of the earth. The Blacks and the Mongolese are never included under the term “man/human being”. The Blacks or Negroid are a totally separate creation of the Adamic man. There is not a single indication in the Bible that interracial marriage is permissible”.
[7.3] “The Blacks are a race that destroy and have destroyed many civilizations”;
[7.4] “He (Black man) will never be able to maintain what he has received from the white man. The deterioration of our entire infrastructure is a testimony to this. Good fertile and prosperous farms given to them, are nothing more than shantytowns/squatter camps full of erosion. When will our nation’s eyes be opened to the truth and they will stop giving pearls to swines and dogs”.
[7.5] “Apartheid is scriptural. God does not want His people to be mixed with other people. He wants His people to remain within the boundaries He has set for them (Acts 17:26). To breach or offend this is punishable by God. The current equity and mixing policy of the Government of South Africa and the rest of the world is the spirit of the devil”.
Multicultural South Africa’s Right to Invocation of Cultural Law:
[8] The South African Constitution is founded on the Apartheid premise that South Africa is a multicultural country, hence neither common law, nor cultural customary law are prima facie applicable in any dispute before any court. The Constitution provides for all citizens rights to invoke cultural law in S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18. When any party invokes cultural law, a court, or administrative body is required to proceed in terms of application of choice of law rules, to determine the applicability of one or other legal system, or combination thereof, on the basis of its inquiry into the relevant parties particular cultures, as determined from their lifestyles .
[9] Pivotal to the invocation of cultural law in South African courts is the constitution as the supreme law of the land. Section 15 of the constitution entrenches the right of everyone to freedom of religion, belief and opinion. Section 9 (the equality clause) outlaws any discrimination inter alia on account of religion, conscience, belief and culture. Section 36 (the limitation clause) states that no right is absolute and may be limited if it is inter alia reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom. Constitutional interpretation by the country’s Constitutional court also dictates that there is a duty on the courts in general to develop the South African common law with reference to the constitutional values .
[10] It would therefore appear as though the constitution could be seen as a motivating force for the formal recognition of the invocation of cultural law albeit in context/and balance of the limitation clause.
[11] It is submitted that the South African legal system (through the constitution) in recognition of cultural pluralism, advances a strong argument for the formalisation of the invocation of cultural law for individuals from all South Africa’s cultures. In accepting/recognising/formalising the invocation of cultural law in South African law, universalism is ousted in favour of cultural specificity, cultural pluralism, equality and individualised justice. It is notably with regard to the element of intention, elements of unlawfulness, capacity, element of fault, etc, that cultural laws will in all probability find application.
[12] The invocation of cultural law no doubt offers new challenges to South African courts, to balance justice and cultural pluralism. Ultimately the effective application of the defence will be in the hands of the judiciary objectively and free from their own cultural preconceptions and prejudices.
RADICAL HONOURSTY & YSHMAEL GUERRYLLA LAW CULTURAL VALUES:
[13] An assessment of the invocation of cultural law in South African court or administrative proceedings necessitates an understanding of the relevant cultural worldview – in this case Radical Honoursty culture -- and practices in South Africa.
[14] The Radical Honoursty culture is a combination of Radical Honesty cultural practices, combined with EcoCentric (a) CommonSism ideological perspectives, and (b) EcoFeminist matriarchal – among others, such as the Mosuo – problem solving practices and ecological principles.
[15] There is only one member of the Radical Honoursty culture in South Africa: Lara Johnstone. Johnstone is an adult Radical Honoursty Guerrylla Law Sustainable Security practicing paralegal EcoFeminist, member of Friend of Wikileaks (FoWL); resident in George, Southern Cape, South Africa; where she runs a small EcoFeminist pedal-powered wormery business.
[16] Johnstone is married to African American prisoner Demian Emile Johnson, who has been incarcerated in the California Dept. of Corrections, on a sentence of 15-to-life for felony murder, since 1982. They met while she was working on providing educational information on rehabilitation issues to prisoners. (Sacramento County: Licence & Certificate of Marriage: Demian Emile Johnson and Lara Johnstone (PDF); 31 May 1998: Sunday Times: US convict wins love and support in SA town (PDF); 24 Sep 1998: YOU: Volksrust Farmgirl Doomed for Love of Black Convict)(PDF).
[17] The Radical Honoursty Culture is (a) a minority culture, (b) an Ecocentric culture, (c) practices Brutal Honesty Authentic Multiculturalism endorsing authentic diversity of cultures, and (d) does not endorse the homogenizing AnthroCorpocentric Egotist Consumptionism effects of Multinational GlobalCorp induced Globalization of cultures; and (e) is based upon Radical Honesty dispute resolution principles.
[18] Mosuo EcoFeminist: The Mosuo are a small Gender Balanced culture who live in South West China, and have no murder, rape, war, suicide, jails or unemployment. I endorse the Mosuo cultural worldview on (a) gender balance, (b) family/tribal living and entrepreneurial arrangements and co-responsibility for all family members, (c) root cause transparency problem solving, (d) familial responsibility for population procreation and resource utilization issues, etc.
[19] Here follow a brief overview of Radical Honoursty culture values and perspectives on the issues of ‘Multiculturalism’: Diplomacy/Corporate Multiculturalism vs Honest Authentic Multiculturalism, ‘Racism’, etc.
Diplomacy/Corporate ‘Egotist Consumptionism’ ‘Multiculturalism’, or put differently ‘Idiot Compassion’ or ‘Lifestyle Politics’ Multiculturalism
[20] Essentially Diplomacy Multiculturalism appears to be based upon the belief that blacks are to be treated like children, who are incapable of hearing honest constructive criticism. It is unknown whether Diplomacy Multiculturalism consciously believes that blacks are intellectual, emotional and psychological children, and incapable of hearing honest constructive criticism; or whether treating them like psychological children is a tactic to psychologically manipulate blacks to being easy psychological slaves to Corporations Egotist Consumptionism beliefs and values.
[21] Communist Philosopher and Economist Slavoy Zizek argues in Multiculturalism: The Cultural Logic of Multinational Capitalism (PDF), that fake Multiculturalism, is the ideal Egotist Consumptionism cultural logic of Multinational Capitalism, intent on colonizing all cultures into slaves to Egotist Consumptionism. Multinational Corporations wish to colonize all nations and their cultures, turning all culture’s primary cultural value into that of an egotist consumer, for the profits of multinational corporations.
Multiculturalism: How, then, does the universe of Capital relate to the form of Nation State in our era of global capitalism? Perhaps, this relationship is best designated as ‘auto-colonization’: with the direct multinational functioning of Capital, we are no longer dealing with the standard opposition between metropolis and colonized countries; a global company as it were cuts its umbilical cord with its mother-nation and treats its country of origins as simply another territory to be colonized. This is what disturbs so much the patriotically oriented right-wing populists, from Le Pen to Buchanan: the fact that the new multinationals have towards the French or American local population exactly the same attitude as towards the population of Mexico, Brazil or Taiwan. Is there not a kind of poetic justice in this self-referential turn? Today’s global capitalism is thus again a kind of ‘negation of negation’, after national capitalism and its internationalist/colonialist phase. At the beginning (ideally, of course), there is capitalism within the confines of a Nation-State, with the accompanying international trade (exchange between sovereign Nation-States); what follows is the relationship of colonization in which the colonizing country subordinates and exploits (economically, politically, culturally) the colonized country; the final moment of this process is the paradox of colonization in which there are only colonies, no colonizing countries—the colonizing power is no longer a Nation-State but directly the global company. In the long term, we shall all not only wear Banana Republic shirts but also live in banana republics.
And, of course, the ideal form of ideology of this global capitalism is multiculturalism, the attitude which, from a kind of empty global position, treats each local culture the way the colonizer treats colonized people—as ‘natives’ whose mores are to be carefully studied and ‘respected’. That is to say, the relationship between traditional imperialist colonialism and global capitalist self-colonization is exactly the same as the relationship between Western cultural imperialism and multiculturalism: in the same way that global capitalism involves the paradox of colonization without the colonizing Nation-State metropole, multiculturalism involves patronizing Eurocentrist distance and/or respect for local cultures without roots in one’s own particular culture. In other words, multiculturalism is a disavowed, inverted, self-referential form of racism, a ‘racism with a distance’—it ‘respects’ the Other’s identity, conceiving the Other as a self-enclosed ‘authentic’ community towards which he, the multiculturalist, maintains a distance rendered possible by his privileged universal position.
Multiculturalism is a racism which empties its own position of all positive content (the multiculturalist is not a direct racist, he doesn’t oppose to the Other the particular values of his own culture), but nonetheless retains this position as the privileged empty point of universality from which one is able to appreciate (and depreciate) properly other particular cultures—the multiculturalist respect for the Other’s specificity is the very form of asserting one’s own superiority.
[22] In a First as Tragedy, then as Farce, Communist Philosopher and Economist Slavoj Zizek clarifies what he means by ‘Egotist Consumption’ as follows: “Like Soros, in the morning he grabs the money; in the afternoon, he gives half of the money back to charity. In today's capitalism, more and more the tendency is to bring this tendency together. So when you buy something, your anti-consumerist duty is to do something for others, for the environment and so on, is already included in the price. If you think I am exaggerating, walk around the corner, into any Starbucks coffee, and you will see how they explicitly tell you, I quote "Its not just what you are buying, its what you are buying into. When you buy starbucks, whether you realize it or not, you are buying into something bigger than a cup of coffee. You are buying into a coffee ethics. Through our Starbucks Shared Planet Program we purchase more fair trade coffee than anyone in the world, ensuring that the farmers who grow the coffee beans receive a fair price for their hard work.......” Its a good coffee karma. This is cultural capitalism at its purist. You don't just buy a coffee. In the very consumerist act, you buy your redemption from only being a consumerist. You do something for the environment, you do something for starving children in Guatamala. ..... For every act of consumerism, within the price you pay, you purchase your redemption. This generates almost a kind of semantic over investment or burden. Its not just buying a cup of coffee, you are fulfilling a whole series of ethical duties. This logic today is almost universalized. Why? It makes you feel warm, it makes you feel like you are doing something for … My point is that, this very interesting short circuit, where the very act of egotist consumption, already includes the price for its opposite.”
[23] He proceeds to quote: Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism: “It is much more easy to have sympathy with suffering, than it is to have sympathy with thought. People find themselves surrounded by hideous poverty, ugliness, and starvation. It is inevitable they would be strongly moved by this. Accordingly with admirable, but misdirected intentions, they very sentimentally set themselves the task of remedying the problems they see. But their remedies do not cure the disease, they merely prolong it. Indeed, they are part of the disease. They try to solve the problem of poverty, by keeping the poor alive, or in the case of an advanced school, by amusing the poor. But this is not a solution, it is an aggravation of the difficulty. The proper aim is to reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. It is the altruistic virtues which have prevented the carrying out of this aim. The worst slave owners were those who were kind to their slaves. In doing so they prevented the core of the system to be realized by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it. Charity degrades and demoralizes.”
Overview: Egotist Consumptionism & Consumption Vanity Disorder:
[24] Consumption-Vanity Disorder is a disease spread not through a mutating virus or genetic predisposition – but through cultural “Memes” – turning the world into a reflection of the advertising images broadcast daily by 90% of all media - a world of mini-malls, fashion obsessions, fake tits and belligerent gadgetry.
[25] 1924: Samuel Strauss: Consumptionism: science of compelling men to use more and more things: Samuel Strauss was a journalist and philosopher writing in the 1920s. The November 1924 issue of The Atlantic Monthly carried Strauss' signature essay, "'Things Are in the Saddle.'" Following nineteenth century American transcendentalist Ralph Waldo Emerson, whose ode he quotes, Strauss contemplates the empire of "things" and the ethics of "consumptionism" he felt had overtaken the country. He defines "consumptionism" as "the science of compelling men to use more and more things."
[26] Strauss was of the opinion that, despite their differences, both capitalism and socialism were moving society in the same damnable direction, in a competition to see "which can ensure the distribution of the most goods to the people."
[27] Samuel Strauss suggested the term consumptionism to characterize this new way of life that, he said, created a person with “a philosophy of life that committed human beings to the production of more and more things—“more this year than last year, more next year than this”—and that emphasized the “standard of living” above all other values.
[28] 1929: Keep the Consumer Dissatisfied - Charles Kettering, General Motors Research Director, in Nations Business: Charles Kettering wrote that: “We hear people complaining because of new models in automobiles. If it were not for these new models these same people would be paying more for what they have. Recognition of the fact that progress is inevitable forces us to recognize that we must have improvements in motor cars. We, as manufacturers, must offer those improvements after they have been found to be capable improvements. The public buys and disposes of what it has. The fact that it is able to dispose of what it has enables us, as producers, to put a lower price tag on the new model. The law of economy in mass production enters here. We are permitted to turn out cars in volume because there is a market for them. If automobile owners could not dispose of their cars to a lower buying strata they would have to wear out their cars with a consequent tremendous cutting in the yearly demand for automobiles, a certain increase in production costs, and the natural passing along of these costs to the buyer. If everyone were satisfied, no one would buy the new thing because no one would want it. The ore wouldn't be mined; timber wouldn't be cut. Almost immediately hard times would be upon us.”
[29] In The Century of the Self, Adam Curtis‘ BBC documentary documents how Edward Bernays , the father of "Public Relations" , developed public relations, by using his Uncle Sigmund Freud‘s discoveries concerning the unconscious "primitive sexual and aggressive forces" , to change the focus of advertising from the facts of a product , to implying the product would fulfill the individuals psychological/sexual insecurities (Insecurity about small penis: purchase a large car ; Female penis envy insecurity: start smoking ). "Public Relations‘ worked to psychologically engineer and manipulate citizens into the "All Consuming Self": the illusionary belief the power is finally in their hands, they live in a "democracy" ; they are in charge , while their sense of identity is subconsciously manipulated from citizen (individual authority/inner power of personal decision-making) to consumer (empty vessel addicted to consumption of external ideas and products for sense of identity and acceptance ), fueling the growth of the "Freedom is Debt-Slavery" mass-consumer society .
[30] Documentaries exploring the psychological and ecological consequences of the ideology of Consumptionism include: Surplus: Terrorized into Being Consumers; On Modern Servitude; The Good Consumer Slave; The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Power and Profit; Killing us Softly: Advertisings Image of Women; Consuming Kids; The High Price of Materialism; Consumed: The Human Experience; No Logo: Brands Globalization Resistance.
White/Black/Consumption Guilt -- Conscience Masturbation: Egotist Consumptionism, Idiot Compassion & Lifestyle Activism:
[31] Forms of Public Relations – White/Black/Consumption Guilt – Conscience Masturbation include Egotist Consumptionism - Cultural Capitalism at its purist – which psychologically relates to (i) what Trungpa Rinpoche and Pema Chodron, referred to as Idiot Compassion; and (ii) what many refer to as the Egotist Delusion problems created, rather than solved by Lifestyle Activism and Lifestyle Politics.
[32] Zizek refers to Egotist Consumptionism as Cultural Capitalism at its Purist: Where the very act of egotist consumption - buying 'free trade' coffee, going on an 'ecotourist' holiday -- already includes the price for its opposite. In the very consumerist act, you buy your redemption from only being a consumerist.
[33] Tibetan Buddhist Master Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche defined Idiot Compassion as “a slimy way of trying to fulfill your desire secretly;” the Karmayogini journal as, “It is when you give people what they want as opposed to what they need, all in the name of being nice and compassionate [so that you can feel better yourself].”
[34] In Idiot Compassion, Pema Chodron refers to idiot compassion as what in Psychology is referred to as enabling: “Idiot compassion … refers to something we all do a lot of and call it compassion. In some ways, it’s what’s called enabling. It’s the general tendency to give people what they want because you can’t bear to see them suffering. Basically, you’re not giving them what they need. You’re trying to get away from your feeling of I can’t bear to see them suffering. In other words, you’re doing it for yourself. You’re not really doing it for them.”
[35] Soulseeds: Mindful Compassion and Idiot Compassion explains Idiot Compassion as “When you try to help someone when they don’t want your help, or because you are really trying to help yourself, this may be idiot compassion. Its often the distinction between charity (giving TO someone) and empowerment (helping people help themselves) .. The Zen story about compassion with a rolled up umbrella makes the point. A woman was in India, riding with a friend in a rickshaw when they were attacked by a crazed man. He did no harm other than to frighten the women. However the woman was upset and asked her Zen teacher what the appropriate response to her attacker would be. The teacher said very simply, “You should have very mindfully and with great compassion whacked the attacker over the head with your umbrella.””
[36] Right Lifestyle, which refers to both Lifestyle Activism and Lifestyle Politics, avoids any examination of the consumptionist focus of the lifestyle, which involves maximizing physical, psychological social comfort and material acquisition, by getting involved in acts of Lifestyle Activism or Lifestyle Politics, as a feel good way to be involved in shallow activities which pretend to solve the worlds problems; while actively avoiding addressing any root causes of the problems, to implement social structural changes.
[37] Open Left’s article: Self Delusion and the Lies of Lifestyle activism: Core Dilemmas of Community Organizing argues that much of lifestyle activism’s primary focus of public displays of Lifestyle Activism are to assert the relevant individuals ‘Moral Superiority’: “Most lifestyle activism seems to take the form it does because it allows (mostly middle-class professionals) to feel like they can make a difference in the world while at the same time purifying their lives . Every deposit of old food into the compost pile is a re-enactment of "who" they are, of how their life maintains its wholeness in a complicated, dirty, seemingly uncontrollable world. .. At the same time, lifestyle activism is often an opportunity for display. Others can see your solar panel or wind turbine. You can brag about your compost pile and educate others about how to create one. Every time you drive your Prius around town, others can see how virtuous you are.”
[38] In Part II, The Distortion of Lifestyle Politics OpenLeft provide an interesting case study of “the ways lifestyle activism and politics can have distorting effects on social change, drawing from a recent book by the sociologist Mary Pattillo. In Black on the Block she examines what happened when middle-class African Americans used lifestyle strategies in their effort to "reclaim" an impoverished central city neighborhood, North Kenwood-Oakland, in Chicago. This example is especially fascinating because it shows how class-based preferences for lifestyle activism functioned among a group of middle-class African Americans also grappling with racial inequality.”
Definition of ‘Racism’
[39] Radical Honoursty Culture subscribes to the philosophical ‘racism’ definition of Dr. Gedaliah Braun, as expressed in his book: Racism, Guilt, Self-Hatred and Self-Deceit, in the chapter What is Racism? Or, how Philosophy can be ‘Practical’. He argues that facts or ideas about racial differences cannot be racist’; only subjective fundamentalist beliefs about ‘racial differences’ can be ‘racist’. Even if the sum total of any individuals subjective knowledge about racial differences is allegedly inaccurate, but that individual is willing to intellectually engage and consider new information, his current subjective intellectual conclusions about racial differences – no matter how factually inaccurate and offensive -- are not ‘racist’, because his ‘racial differences conclusions’ are simply a working hypothesis conclusion, and subjectively sincerely held; as opposed to being a fundamentalist belief.
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.
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.
The Essence of Racism Is Self-Deceit: Believing What You Know Isn’t True:
The belief of the once-mugged person would be racist if he knew it was not true and yet went right on believing it. But is it possible to believe what you know isn’t true? Well, it is possible if self-deception is possible; self-deception is not only possible; it is actual; ergo, believing what you know isn’t true is possible. What we are talking about is simply dishonest belief, what the existentialist philosopher Jean Paul Sartre called bad faith (“mauvaise foi”), and it is precisely this dishonesty with oneself that makes genuine racism and prejudice so execrable. This makes perfect sense, since self-deceit – believing what you know isn’t true – is something for which we are responsible and something which is morally blameworthy.
And it is this inner dishonesty, typified by avoidance of evidence that might prove one’s beliefs false, that makes racism so contemptible.
Definition of ‘Hate Speech’
[40] Radical Honoursty culture’s definitions of ‘hate’ and ‘love’ are similar to the following ideas expressed by individuals from other cultures, who value truth and honour:
A. ‘Better to be slapped with the truth, than kissed with a lie.’ – Russian Proverb
B. “I love you, and because I love you, I would sooner have you hate me for telling you the truth than adore me for telling you lies.” -- Pietro Aretino, Catholic Church
C. ‘Better an honest enemy than a false friend.’ - German Proverb
[41] In Radical Honoursty culture:
[41.1] Love: Love is to (a) tell another person your subjective truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, no matter how ‘offensive’ to the listener, and (b) to do so publicly, to their face; as opposed to secretly or behind their back, and (c) to remain in the conversation with them.
[41.2] Hate: Hate is to (a) withhold your honest subjective truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, no matter how offensive, to the listener; and (b) to do so to their face, particularly while expressing your subjective truth, behind their back, and (c) to bullshit yourself, that what you are doing is not ‘hate’; but ‘manners’ or ‘being nice’ or ‘being polite’ or ‘being professional’, etc.
[41.3] Racism: Any fact or verbal or written statement about racial differences – no matter how offensive or factually incorrect -- cannot be ‘racist’. Only a subjective belief about racial differences can be racist, if (a) it unequivocally subjectively known, by the holder of the belief, to be both factually and experientially false, yet (b) stated as factual or experiential truth, and (c) when confronted with possible alternative evidence and theories, the nature of the subjectivity of the belief is fundamentalist, as opposed to simply that of a working hypothesis conclusion. (Definition of Dr. Gedaliah Braun, as expressed in What is Racism? Or, how Philosophy can be ‘Practical’: in his book: Racism, Guilt, Self-Hatred and Self-Deceit).
[41.4] Reconciliation: Radical Honoursty is a non-violent Fanon process, where reconciliation is a psychological and sensate physical experience of releasing of anger and resentments. It is the liberation of both the settler and the colonized minds, by release of both of their suppressed violence, not physically, but verbally: face to face, through expressions of resentments and appreciations, until all suppressed sensate anger is released. Radical Honoursty forgiveness occurs when two former enemies sit across from each other, and have verbally liberated their pent up sensate anger and rage, the body is in a state of released sensate tension, similar to the emotions released in a sexual orgasm, irrespective of however long it takes. Reconciliation occurs when the fragile ego mind is no longer colonized by the suppressed anger in the body (Definition as provided to Constitutional Court in Alien on Pale Blue Dot v. Afriforum, Malema, et al).
Radical Honesty Culture:
[42] Radical Honesty culture and religion was founded by Dr. Brad Blanton, who is: (1) President and CEO of Radical Honesty Enterprises Sparrowhawk Book Publishing and The Center for Radical Honesty, both dedicated to promoting honesty in the world; (2) former candidate for Congress in 2004 and 2006, on the platform of ‘Honesty in Politics’; (3) Pope of the Radical Honesty Futilitarian Church; i.e. “Dr. Truth”; and (4) author of (a) Radical Honesty: How To Transform your Life by Telling the Truth; (b) Practicing Radical Honesty: How to Complete the Past, Stay in the Present and Build a Future with a Little Help from Your Friends, (c) Honest to God: A Change of Heart that Can Change the World, with Neale Donald Walsh (Conversations with God series); (d) Radical Parenting: Seven Steps to a Functional Family in a Dysfunctional World; (e) The Truthtellers: Stories of Success by Radically Honest People and (f) Beyond Good and Evil: The Eternal Split-Second-Sound-Light-Being; (g) Some New Kind of Trailer Trash.
Practicing Radical Honesty FAQ: Sincerely Insult & Offend:
[43] The following questions are compiled from interviews with Brad Blanton, Ph.D., and are posted on the website’s FAQ:
Q: What is lying and why is it stressful?
A: Lying is saying or withholding information in order to manipulate someone’s opinion of you. It captures your attention by bringing your focus to the story you’re telling, the image you’re preserving, and the secret that you’re hiding. You’re no longer able to focus your attention wherever you want to focus it; you’re only able to focus your attention on the lies you’re telling and the secret you’re keeping. This captured attention creates stress. In Radical Honesty, I attempt to demonstrate that this secrecy, withholding and lying is the primary source of modern human stress, the primary cause of most anxiety and of most depression.
Q: Does everyone lie?
A: Yes. We are always telling some kind of story, building a case for ourselves and trying to put on a best face. We’re trying to prove we’re good little boys and girls and that we’re knowledgeable. Four years ago in a nationwide survey titled “The Day America Told the Truth,” 93% of Americans admitted that they lie “regularly and habitually” at work and 35% admitted they have had or were currently having an affair which they were keeping secret from their mates.
Q: Is it possible to be completely honest without hurting a person’s feelings?
A: Probably not. If you are in an ongoing relationship with any person there will probably be times when you hurt their feelings. Probably the most often used rationalization for lying is “I didn’t want to hurt anybody’s feelings.” I recommend you hurt people’s feelings and stay with them past the hurt. I also recommend that you offend people. We can all get over having our feelings hurt and we can get over being offended. These are not permanent conditions; they are feelings that come and go. On the other side of that reaction is a conversation in which your mutual honesty creates an intimacy not possible if you are hiding something for the sake of someone’s feelings.
Q: What if I get mad at someone’s reaction to my truth telling?
A: Tell them you are mad. Say “I resent you for…” and be specific about what visible, audible part of their reaction you resent. People can actually get furious at other people and get over it in 15 or 20 minutes. People can avoid being angry at someone else for 10 or 15 or 20 years, and if they actually got angry at them, they’d probably get over it in half an hour.
Q: Do you feel we have to be honest with ourselves before we can have a relationship with someone else?
A: You can’t be “secretly” honest. Being “honest with yourself” is simply not separable from being honest with another. A person who says, “I was honest with myself, but decided not to tell…” is just another miserable liar and will have to suffer the consequences. Sharing honestly, with others present, is the way we can have an authentic relationship with another person.
Q: You require your therapy patients to go and tell the truth about things in their past to parents, siblings or spouses. Why?
A: What I’ve discovered in 25 years of working with people as a psychotherapist in Washington, DC, is that the primary source of their misery is lying. When I coached them to clean up their act and tell the truth they had a hard time going through it, but right on the other side of that hard time they were no longer depressed, they were no longer anxious-they were happier. They had their relationship worked out or a new job with a promotion. They had a brand new relationship with their spouse or a better relationship with their family. What actually occurs is that when you open up and share by telling the truth it frees you up from the jail of your own mind, which is the source of all human stress anyway. It’s also just simply more efficient not to work so hard at all those poses.
Q: In the case of someone who was abused as a child, they are supposed to go back to their parents-and their parents are 70 years old- and tell them they resent the abuse?
A: You’re damn right. I often have people bring parents in such cases into my office and tell them in front of me. We have two-hour sessions with the parent and the child. The child begins first by asking the parent to keep quiet and listen. Then the child tells them everything that they specifically remember that they resent and everything that they appreciate. If there’s something that they did, like they stole the car at two a.m. when they were 16 and took it out and got a dent in the front fender and brought it back and covered it over and got by with it, I have them tell the truth about it and other things they got by with too. And then I coach the parents to tell the truth to their child about what they resent and what they appreciate. And it works out quite well. It works out for a renewed relationship between the parent and child. As long as there are hidden issues and agendas and feelings, you can never be yourselves with each other.
Q: Why do people have such a hard time being honest about sex?
A: For people to be honest about their sexuality is one of the big hurdles for everyone to get over because sexuality is such a taboo subject. I tell people when I’m attracted to them and they tell me when they are attracted to me to make sure that nothing is going on disacknowledged, that is, an avoidance of reporting feelings which is what we’re trying to cure.
Q: Suppose you met someone whom you found unattractive. How do you handle that?
A: If the person’s outstandingly ugly, then that’s an issue I’m certainly going to bring up to talk about right off. I would say, “I think you look kind of ugly and this is what I think is ugly. I think that big wart on the left side of your face is probably something that puts people off and that you don’t have much of a love life, is that true?” Then we’ll have a conversation about it. That ugly person has probably always felt the negative unexpressed reaction from people. The idea is that they end up not avoiding the damn thing instead of living a life that’s dancing on egg shells. They live life out loud and it’s a whole lot better life.
Practicing Radical Honesty: Motive of Forgiveness:
[44] The motive for practicing radical honesty, by informing others of our honest possibly insulting or offensive opinions is forgiveness.
COMMONSISM & YSHMAEL GUERRYLLA LAW PARTY:
Common Sense Guerrylla Laws for a Sustainable Commons
[45] Guerrylla Law -- or CommonSism (Common Sense Laws for a Sustainable Commons) -- is an ideology founded upon the Taker vs. Leaver ideas of the gorrilla Ishmael, in Daniel Quinn's books: Ishmael and My Ishmael; and the Tragedy of the Commons ideas, as enunciated by Garrett Hardin.
[46] The Yshmael Guerrylla Law (YGL) Political Party’s platform is based upon Guerrylla Law -- or CommonSism (Common Sense Laws for a Sustainable Commons) -- inspired by -- among others -- the Taker vs. Leaver ideas of the gorilla Ishmael, in Daniel Quinn's books: Ishmael and My Ishmael; and the Tragedy of the Commons ideas, as expressed by Garrett Hardin.
[47] CommonSism Guerrylla Laws regulate human procreation and resource utilization behaviour, by means of legally defining the procreation and consumption difference, and consequent related Sustainable Rights/Penalties, between a Leaver and a Taker, to ensure sustainability.
[48] CommonSism asserts that a majority of society's problems - crime, violence, unemployment, poverty, inflation, food shortages, political instability, vanishing species, garbage and pollution urban sprawl, traffic jams, toxic waste, energy and non-renewable resources (NNR) depletion and scarcity are symptoms of Ecological Overshoot, resulting from the AnthroCorpoCentric Consumptionist Left and Right Wing's war against nature, and the failures of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence.
[49] Ecological Overshoot is a consequence of all other ideologies and their adherents failure to legally (a) define the difference between sustainable and unsustainable procreation and consumption behaviour; and (b) provide legal rights to sustainable practices, and legal penalties to unsustainable individuals, corporations and organisations.
[50] Guerrylla Laws (A) simply and very specifically clarify the difference between the consumption and procreation behaviour of an Unsustainable Taker (Scarcity Combatant) vs a Sustainable Leaver (Eco-Innocent); and are (B) used in courts to (a) provide legal rights and socio-political rewards of recognition to Sustainable Leaver's for their Heroic lifestyle choices and practices; (b) confront Taker Scarcity Combatants of their Breeding / Consumption combatant behaviours aggravation of Scarcity induced socio-economic problems, by means of aggravated legal penalties, in accordance to their 'Taker Scarcity Combatant' status.
[51] Guerrylla Laws define the Eco/Ego Footprint procreation and consumption behaviour of an individual as a Sustainable Leaver (aka Eco-Innocent) or Unsustainable Taker (aka Scarcity-Combatant), based upon a sustainable consumption bio-capacity of 1 global hectare (gha) (60 % of 1.8 gha) in accordance with the proactive conservation policies of Bhutan ; multiplied by an individuals Breeding footprint factor of 20 per child.
[52] Sustainable Leaver / Eco-Innocent: 0 children, consumption < 20 gha (Intn'l Biocapacity (1 gha) x 20); or 1 child, consumption < 1 gha.
[53] Unsustainable Taker / Scarcity-Combatant: 0 children, consumption > 20 gha; or 1 child, consumption > 1 gha.
[54] For example: My Consumption Footprint using Sustainable Economy's Myfootprint.org quiz, is 12.75 global hectares (gha). South Africa's average consumption footprint is 38.59 gha. Amici has no children, consequently my procreation factor is 0 x 20* = 0. [(Each Child increases a parents footprint by factor of 20)]. My Consumption (12.75) x Procreation (0) = Eco Footprint of 12.75/0 gha. If accurate, if everyone consumed and procreated like me, we would need 0.81 earths. Conversely, if everyone consumed and procreated like President Jacob Zuma, we would need 2090 earths .
[55] Sustainable Security: Sustainability is Security: “There is no security without sustainability” : In the absence of an international new moral order where Ecocentric laws are implemented to regulate and reduce human procreation and resource utilization behaviour, towards a sustainable, pre-industrial lifestyle paradigm; “overpopulation” and resource scarcity will result in conflict and war (perhaps nuclear ) confronting regions at an accelerated pace , and “collapse of the global economic system and every market-oriented national economy” by 2050 .
Respectfully,
Lara Johnstone
Member: Radical Honoursty Culture
Founder: Yshmael Guerrylla Law Party
Founder: CommonSism: Common Sense Laws for a Sustainable Commons
» » » » [SQSwans (PDF)]
No comments:
Post a Comment