Friday, April 26, 2013

Gender Comm. Complaint: Patriarchal Discrimination by ICASA in TopTV/COSATU Pornography Ruling



Gender Commission Complaint: Patriarchal Discrimination by ICASA in TopTV/COSATU Pornography Ruling

Gender and Gender Ideology Discrimination by ICASA who refuse to consider/hear the submission from the Radical Honoursty culture, a gender balanced AntiCiv Ecocentric (Anti-Patriarchal civilization) primitivist culture, as part of its hearings on Top TV’s application to publicize three Pornography channels.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | TYGAE | 24 April 2013


Complaint to Gender Commission: Subject: CGE Complaint: Discrimination by ICASA in TopTV/COSATU Pornography Ruling (PDF):

Please find attached PDF Complaint: (A) CGE Complaint Form, (B) Complaint: Gender and Gender Ideology Discrimination by ICASA who refuse to consider/hear the submission from the Radical Honoursty culture, a gender balanced AntiCiv Ecocentric (Anti-Patriarchal civilization) primitivist culture, as part of its hearings on Top TV’s application to publicize three Pornography channels.

ICASA’s Ruling is Patriarchal Discrimination: The ruling is patriarchal discrimination, in terms of:

A. The Committee’s decision to rule exclusively in favour of TopTV, On Digital Media, Kopano Ke Matla Investment Company and Cosatu, who are all (a) unsustainable corporations, run by persons who are members of (a) Patriarchal Anthropocentric cultures. The ruling was consequently exclusively in favour of benefiting (a) violent (b) Anthropocentric men and (c) unsustainable corporations.

B. The Committee’s decision to refuse to consider the submission from a non-Anthropocentric, non-Patriarchal sustainable culture: Radical Honesty culture.

C. The Committee’s Patriarchal secretive decision-making process: failing to provide clear transparent closing date for public comment, and then deciding to refuse a non-patriarchal culture’s submission for failing to know when the alleged secret closing date was.

Patriarchy Definition:

[1] A system of society or government, is Patriarchal to the extent that it regulates (a) the relations between humans, nature and other animals species and (b) the relations between humans amongst themselves, in terms of their gender, culture, ethnic, religious and ideological conflicts; for the (c) almost exclusive benefit of violent Anthropocentric humans and corporations.

[2] Consequently a legal, political or social system is Patriarchal to the extent of its (a) failure to provide automatic equal legal personhood and rights to nature and animal and plant species; (b) disregard for the objective and scientific carrying capacity truth of the laws of nature/ecology; and (c) disregard for the laws of human nature; when they contradict the AnthroCorpocentric – breeding and consumption war – objectives of the holders of subjective AnthroCorpocentric Truth.

[3] A society has violent Patriarchal breeding and consumption war objectives, to the extent that its socio-political status symbols involve breeding war, consumption war and violent warrior mythology: (a) breeding war procreation above carrying capacity: i.e. cultures that reward their male members with concepts of manhood virility status, which are based on the man breeding a family above carrying capacity levels; (b) consumption war consuming above carrying capacity; i.e. cultures that reward their male members with concepts of manhood intelligence/virility status, which are based upon the man consuming above carrying capacity levels, to demonstrate his ‘large consumption penis’; (c) warrior mythology, where violent men are rewarded with ‘freedom fighter’ or ‘soldier’ socio-political status symbol medals and awards; particularly if the warrior mythology censors and ignores information to educate the culture’s members, that scarcity induced resource war violence can be avoided by the culture’s members choosing to breed and consume below carrying capacity levels. A culture which teaches a purely defensive warrior mythology; i.e. based purely on defense of its landbase and resources, i.e. which educate the members of the culture to avoid overpopulation and overconsumption scarcity inducing lifestyle’s within its culture, would not be considered a patriarchal culture.

Gender Commission Complaint: Patriarchal Discrimination by ICASA in TopTV/COSATU Pornography Ruling

Gender and Gender Ideology Discrimination by ICASA who refuse to consider/hear the submission from the Radical Honoursty culture, a gender balanced AntiCiv Ecocentric (Anti-Patriarchal civilization) primitivist culture, as part of its hearings on Top TV’s application to publicize three Pornography channels.

Statement of Facts and Chronology of Events:

[1] I am an adult Radical Honoursty Ecofeminist Guerrylla Law Sustainable Security (i.e. Anti-Patriarchal Civilization Primitivism) practicing paralegal EcoFeminist, member of Friend of Wikileaks (FoWL) and the Radical Honourty culture; resident in George, Southern Cape, South Africa; where I run a small EcoFeminist pedal-powered wormery business.

[2] On Friday, 15 March 2013, I read an article on IOL: TopTV has right to show porn – advocate, (Annex A) detailing ICASA hearings on 14 March 2013, related to Top TV’s application to broadcast three porn channels. All the parties who testified for and against, were members of Patriarchal Civilization cultures: Top TV, Doctors for Life, and the Family Policy Institute.

[3] A search of ICASA website to find out information about the hearings, and how to submit an application to ICASA on the matter, returned no information. A search for ‘top tv’, or “toptv” on the ICASA website, brings up no hits. A search for ‘porn’ brings up one totally unrelated hit (Annex B).

[4] Gender Balanced End-Patriarchy-Civ Radical Honoursty Submission:

[4.1] On Monday morning, 18 March 2013, I filed a Radical Honoursty (gender balanced Anti-Patriarchy) culture submission to ICASA (Annex C). The Radical Honoursty Culture submission covered the following topics:

A. Radical Honoursty Culture and Yshmael Guerrylla Law Party values.

B. Request TopTV/Cosatu to fund an investigation by the Gender Commission, to interview all South African individuals found guilty of rape and particularly gang-rape to determine whether they were exposed to pornography and whether their exposure to pornography had any psychological effect – change of personal, cultural or gender identity, or change of perception as to their entitlement to sex from women, or change to their perception of women’s sexuality – in motivating their criminal acts.

C. Request that the Commission Officially request Pornography experts Dr. Robert Jensen and Dr. Gail Dines, to make submissions to ICASA, to provide the Commission with detailed research about the consequences and effects of pornography on gender and race relations in cultures based upon AnthroCorpocentric jurisprudence.

D. Argument Examples detailing AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence’s total failure of credibility, as a system of Jurisprudence, in terms of its (a) failure to provide legal personhood to nature and animal and plant species; (b) disregard for the objective and scientific truth of the laws of nature/ecology, and (c) disregard for the laws of human nature, when it contradicts the objectives of the holders of subjective AnthroCorpocentric Truth.

E. How and Why according to Æquilibriæx jurisprudence, ICASA not only has the legal constitutional right, but also the Æquilibriæx duty to refuse Top TV, permission to broadcast three subscription porn channels.

[5] ICASA Refuse to Hear Radical Honoursty culture submission:

[5.1] On 05 April 2013, I received a response from ICASA: Dr. Stephen Mncube, refusing to hear my submission (Annex D), wherein he stated that:

A. On 28 November 2012, ICASA received an application for channel authorisation from On Digital Media (Pty) Ltd broadcasting as "Top TV". The Authority has decided to subject the application to a public process. On 19 December 2012, the application was gazetted for public comments. The closing date for the public comments was 22 January 2013.

B. The public hearings were held on 14 March 2013 where Top TV and other organisations made oral submissions to ICASA on this matter.

C. The Authority advises Radical Honoursty Culture that its submission is late and it will not be considered.

[6] Radical Honoursty Culture Decision to Await ICASA Decision:

[6.1] This was the first I had been made aware of any alleged ‘closing date’ for public comments.

[6.2] A search for ‘On Digital Media’, revealed a list of 28 links to the same article (Annex E): Authorisation of channels by On-Digital Media public hearings - 14 March 2013, which says nothing about any closing date for public comments.

[6.3] I decided not to make an issue out of the failure by ICASA to provide clear notice to the public of alleged closing dates for comments, or to inform the media to provide such information to the public.

[6.4] I doubted ICASA had the masculine security integrity and courage to investigate the issues raised in the Radical Honoursty culture’s submission. However, I would give them the benefit of the doubt, that they considered the evidence from Doctors for Life and the Family Policy Institute, as sufficient to justify denying Top TV’s application.

[6.5] So, I would wait for ICASA’s final decision on the matter of TopTV’s application.

[7] 24 April 2013: ICASA Approve TopTV’s Porn Channels Application:

[7.1] On 24 April 2013, I read in IOL: TopTV’s porn channels get the nod (Annex F), that “TopTV has been given the green light by the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa to broadcast three adult content channels, according to reports.”

________________________________________

Argument: Overview: ICASA’s Ruling is Patriarchal Discrimination

[8] Patriarchal Discrimination:

[8.1] The ruling is patriarchal discrimination, in terms of:

A. The Committee’s decision to rule exclusively in favour of TopTV, On Digital Media, Kopano Ke Matla Investment Company and Cosatu, who are all (a) unsustainable corporations, run by persons who are members of (a) Patriarchal Anthropocentric cultures . The ruling was consequently exclusively in favour of benefiting (a) violent (b) Anthropocentric men and (c) unsustainable corporations.

B. The Committee’s decision to refuse to consider the submission from a non-Anthropocentric, non-Patriarchal sustainable culture: Radical Honesty culture.

C. The Committee’s Patriarchal secretive decision-making process: failing to provide clear transparent closing date for public comment, and then deciding to refuse a non-patriarchal culture’s submission for failing to know when the alleged secret closing date was.

________________________________________

Anti-Patriarchal-Civilization/Anarcho Primitivist Theory Overview: ICASA’s Ruling is Patriarchal Discrimination

[9] Patriarchy (pa•tri•arch•y):

[9.1] A system of society or government, is Patriarchal to the extent that it regulates (a) the relations between humans, nature and other animals species and (b) the relations between humans amongst themselves, in terms of their gender, culture, ethnic, religious and ideological conflicts; for the (c) almost exclusive benefit of violent Anthropocentric humans and corporations.

[9.2] Consequently a legal, political or social system is Patriarchal to the extent of its (a) failure to provide automatic equal legal personhood and rights to nature and animal and plant species; (b) disregard for the objective and scientific carrying capacity truth of the laws of nature/ecology; and (c) disregard for the laws of human nature; when they contradict the AnthroCorpocentric – breeding and consumption war – objectives of the holders of subjective AnthroCorpocentric Truth.

[9.3] A society has violent Patriarchal breeding and consumption war objectives, to the extent that its socio-political status symbols involve breeding war, consumption war and violent warrior mythology: (a) breeding war procreation above carrying capacity: i.e. cultures that reward their male members with concepts of manhood virility status, which are based on the man breeding a family above carrying capacity levels; (b) consumption war consuming above carrying capacity; i.e. cultures that reward their male members with concepts of manhood intelligence/virility status, which are based upon the man consuming above carrying capacity levels, to demonstrate his ‘large consumption penis’; (c) warrior mythology, where violent men are rewarded with ‘freedom fighter’ or ‘soldier’ socio-political status symbol medals and awards; particularly if the warrior mythology censors and ignores information to educate the culture’s members, that scarcity induced resource war violence can be avoided by the culture’s members choosing to breed and consume below carrying capacity levels. A culture which teaches a purely defensive warrior mythology; i.e. based purely on defense of its landbase and resources, i.e. which educate the members of the culture to avoid overpopulation and overconsumption scarcity inducing lifestyle’s within its culture, would not be considered a patriarchal culture.

[10] Sustainable (sus•tain•a•ble):

[10.1] A Sustainable society practices Sustainable Procreation and Natural Resource Utilization Behaviour. Sustainable natural resource utilization behaviour involves the utilization of renewable natural resources—water, cropland, pastureland, forests, and wildlife—exclusively, which can be depleted only at levels less than or equal to the levels at which they are replenished by Nature. The utilization of non-renewable natural resources—fossil fuels, metals, and minerals—at any level, is not sustainable.

[11] Patriarchy: Civilization & Violence:

[11.1] Derrick Jensen: Civilization and Enlightenment: “Civilization is a way of life characterized by the growth of cities; and that definition is defensible both linguistically and historically. So what that means is that civilization comes from Civitas which means city. Historically that’s pretty much where civilization starts is the rise of cities. A city is a collection of people, living in numbers large enough to require the importation of resources. A couple of things happen as soon as you require the importation of resources. One is that your way of living can never be sustainable. Because if you require the importation of resources, what that means is that you have denuded the landscape of that particular resource. As your city grows, you will denude an ever larger area. Because by definition you are requiring the importation of resources, which means its not there. Functionally your way of life will never be sustainable. You can talk about sustainability all you want, it won't last. The other thing it means is that your way of life must be based on violence. Because if you require the importation of resources, what that means is that trade will never be sufficiently reliable, because if you require a resource that the next village won't give to you, you will take it, because you require it. Which means we could all become the most enlightened beings, on the entire planet, and it wouldn't matter, the US military would still have to engage in militarism, because if not, how are we going to get access to our oil that is under someone else's land? Psychologically and socially it does not matter, you could have this huge transformation of the heart, and if you still require the importation of resources, what are you going to do about it?”

[12] Patriarchy’s ‘Civilized’ War Against Nature & Women:

“Civilization, very fundamentally, is the history of the domination of nature and of women” – Primitivist, John Zerzan in Patriarchy, Civilization, and the Origins of Gender

“It may, I think, even be argued that Communism in Russia, National Socialism in Germany, and Capitalism and Liberal Democracy in the Western countries are really three forms of the same thing, and that they are all moving by different but parallel paths to the same goal, which is the mechanization of human life and the complete subordination of the individual to the state and to the economic process.” - Christopher Dawson, Religion and the Modern State

[12.1] An in depth introduction into the concepts of primitivism and/or the history of patriarchy’s relationship to totalitarian agriculture civilization, can be found in: John Zerzan: (2012): Future Primitive Revisited; (2010): Origins: A John Zerzan Reader; (2008): Twilight of the Machines; (2002): Running On Emptiness; (1999): Against Civilization (editor); (1994): Future Primitive; (1991): Questioning Technology (co-edited with Alice Carnes); (1999): Elements of Refusal. Richard Heinberg (1995): The Primitivist Critique of Civilization. Daniel Quinn (1992) Ishmael; (1996) The Story of B; (1997) My Ishmael; (2000) Beyond Civilization. Robert McElvaine (2001): Eve's Seed: Masculine Insecurity, Metaphor and the Shaping of History; (2001): Eve's Seed: Biology, the Sexes and the Course of History.

[13] Fundamental Differences between Gender Balanced Primitivism & Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilization:

[13.1] Problem Solving: Transparent Listening vs Perception Management Coercion:

A. Leaver Transparent Listening: Every individual and living being (plant or animal) deserves to be heard, where ideas are valued on their merit. Reputations are based upon an individual’s commitment to total transparency which includes exposure of individuals and cultural skeletons for public analysis and cultural ownership.

B. Taker Perception Management Coercion: Only individuals who endorse breeding and consumption war socio-political values deserve to be heard; i.e. those with a large following or those with consumptionist materialist status symbols. Reputations are based upon an individual’s capacity for perception management. Their ability to ignore, silence and censor critics.

[13.2] Leaver Ecocentric Masculinity vs Taker AnthroCorpocentric Masculine Insecurity:

A. Leaver Ecocentric Masculinity: application of a single human standard for all, irrespective of culture; cultural endorsement for taking personal responsibility for procreation and consumption below carrying capacity, where character and integrity are considered socio-political status symbols.

B. Taker AnthroCorpocentric Masculine Insecurity: political correct application of different standards for men from different cultures, and between men and women; cultural endorsement for breeding and consumption wars as socio-political status symbols.

[13.3] Leaver Law of Limited Competition vs Taker Totalitarian Agriculture:

A. Leaver Law of Limited Competition: Agriculture based upon producing enough for survivable needs, enables population control and provision of/sharing of resources to other species to enable their sustainable survival.

B. Taker Totalitarian Agriculture: Agriculture based upon maximizing surpluses, to generate consumption war materialist status, enabling greater population growth, who are used as cannon fodder to conquer new territory and deny other species and groups access to ecological resources for food.

[13.4] Lifestyle Consciousness: Leaver Carrying Capacity vs Taker Breeding & Consumption War:

A. Leaver Carrying Capacity: Cultural values which value procreation and consumption practices below carrying capacity.

B. Taker Breeding and Consumption Wars: Cultural values which endorse breeding and consumption wars as socio-political status symbols.

[14] In Genetic feedback and human population regulation, Russell Hopfenberg argues there are only two agri-cultures (civilized totalitarian and primitive ecological law of limited competition) on planet earth, and describes the consequences between the practices of these two Agri-Cultures:

“Lack of cultural variability is precisely the situation in which the human species finds itself. Except for a tiny minority of tribal peoples on the planet, the human species can be seen as participating in a monoculture. This monoculture, called civilization (Quinn 1992; Cohen 1995), has as its foundation, the basic feature of continually increasing food production. As Cohen (1995) stated, “The ability to produce food allowed human numbers to increase greatly and made it possible, eventually, for civilizations to arise.” Farb (1978) pointed out that “intensification of production to feed an increased population leads to a still greater increase in population.” He also asserted “the population explosion, the shortage of resources, the pollution of the environment, exploitation of one human group by another, famine and war—all have their roots in that great adaptive change from foraging to production.” Farb’s statement makes clear that the “adaptive change from foraging to production” is coming into focus as one that has provided some relatively short-term benefits and many long-term difficulties. These difficulties may ultimately lead to an environment that is no longer capable of sustaining human life (Pimm et al. 1995).”

[15] Primitive Sustainable Leavers: Ecological Law of Limited Competition: “You may compete but you may not wage war”:

[15.1] Daniel Quinn defines the Ecological Law of Limited Competition as such: you may compete to the full extent of your capabilities but you may not hunt down your competitors or destroy their food or deny them access to food.

[15.2] Essentially what this means is that you cannot claim ownership of all the food. You can compete for the food that you need, but you cannot say "all the food is mine and no one else who wants any can have some." You can fight for food but you cannot act in a genocidal fashion, setting out to kill those who compete with you merely because they compete with you.

[15.3] A lion and a hyena may compete with each other to determine who gets to eat the dead antelope. However the lions may not rally together and set out to eliminate hyenas lest they challenge them for any of their kills. To do so would be to operate outside the boundaries of the law.

[15.4] How The Law is Self Eliminating: If the lions did rally together and kill of all the hyenas then there would be more food for them. Their population would increase and their territory would expand. But there would still be other competitors for their food. So the lions set up a special task force to go out and eliminate other species that compete for food and living space.

[15.5] Elimination doesn't occur instantly. It takes place when there is nowhere left to expand, no competitors left to destroy. If a species destroys their competitors then there is more food available to them. With more food they can support a higher population. And with a higher population they need more living space so they expand their territory. But as they expand their territory they meet more competitors who are eating food that could be theirs. So they destroy them, taking all the food in the new territory. With all this new food population expands again and so does territory.

[15.6] And then it happens all over again. This way of life works for a short period of time. It doesn't eliminate the species instantly. Elimination only takes place when there is nowhere left to expand into, no competitors left to destroy.

[15.7] When this happens the way of life implodes. So many competitors have been destroyed that the biodiversity of the ecosystem has been fatally weakened. All that the landscape now supports is the lawbreaker and the lawbreaker's food. With biodiversity gone and the food chain destroyed the food supply of the lawbreakers will fall apart and when the food supply falls apart the lawbreaker is eliminated.

[15.8] Quinn argues that humans are the only species to have broken this law, beginning with Agriculture, 10 000 years ago.

[15.9] Takers exterminate their competitors, which is something that never happens in the wild. In the wild, animals will defend their territories and their kills and they will invade their competitors' territories and pre-empt their kills. Some species even include competitors among their prey, but they never hunt competitors down just to make them dead, the way ranchers and farmers do with coyotes and foxes and crows. What they hunt, they eat." When animals go hunting—even extremely aggressive animals like baboons—it's to obtain food, not to exterminate competitors or even animals that prey on them."

[15.10] Takers systematically destroy their competitors' food to make room for their own. Nothing like this occurs in the natural community. The rule there is: Take what you need, and leave the rest alone."

[15.11] Takers deny their competitors access to food. In the wild, the rule is: You may deny your competitors access to what you're eating, but you may not deny them access to food in general. In other words, you can say, `This gazelle is mine,' but you can't say, `All the gazelles are mine.' The lion defends its kill as its own, but it doesn't defend the herd as its own." "Bees will deny you access to what's inside their hive in the apple tree, but they won't deny you access to the apples."

[16] Two Agri-Cultures: Sustainable Primitive Leavers and Unsustainable Civilized Takers:

[16.1] World Food and Human Population Growth, describes how food supply drives human population growth, and how human population growth adversely affects our environment and our ability to sustain our culture. This began with the agricultural revolution, a cultural change which advocates continually increasing food production. The consequences of Agricultural expansion are: * decreased carbon sequestration (80%), decreased soil nutrients (20%), decreased base stream flow (30%), and decreased species biodiversity (80%).


________________________________________

Patriarchal Discrimination: (1) The Committee’s decision to rule exclusively in favour of benefiting violent Anthropocentric men and corporations.

[17] TopTV, On Digital Media, Kopano Ke Matla Investment Company and Cosatu are all (a) corporations, run by persons who identify as (a) Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric ‘civilized’ members of their patriarchal cultures . The ruling was consequently exclusively in favour of benefiting Patriarchal (a) ‘civilized’ enslaving violence, particularly of women and beta men (b) Anthropocentric men and (c) unsustainable economic resource warfare corporations, which are extensions of Patriarchy’s socio-political status concepts: breeding war, consumption war and violence.

[18] Patriarchal Civilized Slavery’s Profit’s from Violence against Women:

[19] If you give every woman in South Africa the opportunity to make a fully informed consenting decision between the following two societies, what do you think their choices would be?

[19.1] Living in a free non-violent primitive society which has (a) no murder, no rape, no suicide, no homeless, no unemployment, no courts, no police, no prisons, no mental illness, no mental institutions; (b) has no patriarchal objectification and sexualized concepts of ‘beauty’; (c) where her value is not based upon her ‘beauty’, but her character, and she does not have to trade her sexuality for physical or economic safety and security, but can choose to love any man, for his character and personality; (c) as long as she takes personal responsibility for sustaining the non-violent free society by refraining from contributing to scarcity induced overpopulation and overconsumption; i.e. by breeding and consuming below carrying capacity.

[19.2] Living in an enslaved violent ‘civilized’ society which has (a) murder, rape, suicide, homeless, unemployment, courts, police, prisons, mental illness, mental institutions, (b) has patriarchal objectification and sexualized concepts of ‘beauty’, which demean and vilify all women who do not meet those ‘beauty’ requirements; (c) where her value is not based on her honesty, character and integrity, but upon how well she is able to market and trade her sexuality for physical and economic safety and security, and is coerced by the society to purchase safety and security by trading sexual favours to men, in exchange for physical and economic safety and security; and cannot truly make a choice to love any man, based purely on his personality, and (c) where she is expected to be her partners brood sow, and sexual socio-economic status symbol bimbo accessory, to breed/consume above carrying capacity, to thereby aggravate scarcity induced violence, particularly against other women, which maintains the socio-political enslaved violent society which forces women to give up a moral identity, and to exchange sexual favours for safety and security.

[20] I may be wrong, but I suspect, you would find a majority of women, and a majority of beta men, would be amazed that (a) such a free non-violent gender balanced society is in fact not only possible, but has existed for thousands of years; and (b) once they realize that such a society is in fact possible, they would be more than happy to take personal responsibility for procreating and consuming below carrying capacity, in order to benefit from living in such a free non-violent sustainable society, where the foundational principles and values of the society, ensures the safety and security of all women and men.

[21] Why does South Africa not hold a public debate to ask all of South Africa’s citizens, to vote whether they wish to live in a free non-violent primitive society, or an enslaved violent ‘civilized’ society? Because:

[21.1] South Africa’s Patriarchal violent Slave owner ‘civilized’ leaders are afraid that the majority of women would suddenly realize that they actually have a real physical choice.

[21.2] The majority of women would choose to take personal responsibility for their procreation and consumption to gain the benefits of living in a non-violent free primitive community, where their safety and security is guaranteed by the community’s values.

[21.3] It would not take long for the majority of beta men to make the same decision.

[21.4] Suddenly the only people remaining who wish to live in the violent corporate civilized slave plantation are the (a) plantation slave owners, those who politically, academically, religiously, or economically benefit from being slave owners of a violent slave plantation and (b) the psychopath’s who are addicted to violence, and the socio-political benefits they receive from their capacity for violence.

[21.5] A violent slave plantation cannot survive without slaves who are forced to trade their moral identity, sexuality and labour to avoid being victims of the violence inflicted by the civilized Patriarchal totalitarian agriculture slave system. The violent slave system would cannibalize upon itself and eventually collapse.

[22] Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric SlavePlantation: Pornography’s Role as Violent Divide and Conquer Gender & Race Battering Ram:

[22.1] If the ICASA committee were not endorsers of the Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Slavery Plantation; they would have had no problem with hearing:

A. The testimony of pornography experts Gale Dines and Robert Jensen; accompanied by;

B. An investigation by the Gender Commission, to interview all South African individuals found guilty of rape and particularly gang-rape to determine whether they were exposed to pornography and whether their exposure to pornography had any psychological effect – change of personal, cultural or gender identity, or change of perception as to their entitlement to sex from women, or change to their perception of women’s sexuality – in motivating their criminal acts;

[22.2] Which would have provided them with a comprehensive amount of evidence of the role of pornography to (a) dehumanize men and women’s psychological concepts of self as valuable men and women of society, based purely on their inability to meet patriarchal concepts of ‘fuckable’ ‘beauty’ and ‘masculinity’, (b) dehumanize healthy male and female relationships based upon character, honesty, sincerity and commitment, with a focus on replacing relationship values to be based upon violent non-consensual sex; etc.; (c) thereby enlarging the gender wars divide between men and women, for the socio-political profits of the Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Slave Plantation masters.

[23] ICASA denied South African citizens a public debate, based upon the issues raised in the Radical Honoursty culture submission to ICASA, to enquire from South Africa’s women and beta men, whether they wished to live in a free non-violent primitive culture.

[24] Instead ICASA ruled on behalf of the Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric corporate slave masters of TopTV, On Digital Media, Kopano Ke Matla Investment Company and Cosatu, to continue profiting from using Pornography to violently divide and conquer, and thereby enslave South African citizens in terms of their gender, culture and race.

________________________________________

Patriarchal Discrimination: (2) The Committee’s decision to refuse to consider the submission from a non-Anthropocentric, non-Patriarchal sustainable culture: Radical Honesty culture.

[25] The members of the ICASA Committee are all members of Patriarchal unsustainable AnthroCorpocentric cultures.

[26] Complainant is a member of a gender balanced AntiCiv Ecocentric (Anti-Patriarchal civilization) primitivist culture.

[27] Complainants submission involved AntiCiv Ecocentric (Anti-Patriarchal civilization) primitivist culture arguments and evidence which no other member of the public had submitted to the ICASA Committee.

[28] Complainant submits that the motive for the Committee refusing to consider her AntiCiv Ecocentric (Anti-Patriarchal civilization) primitivist culture submission arguments and evidence, were based upon their Patriarchal cultural discrimination of the evidence contained in the AntiCiv Ecocentric (Anti-Patriarchal civilization) primitivist culture submission.

A. Radical Honoursty Culture and Yshmael Guerrylla Law Party values.

B. Request TopTV/Cosatu to fund an investigation by the Gender Commission, to interview all South African individuals found guilty of rape and particularly gang-rape to determine whether they were exposed to pornography and whether their exposure to pornography had any psychological effect – change of personal, cultural or gender identity, or change of perception as to their entitlement to sex from women, or change to their perception of women’s sexuality – in motivating their criminal acts.

C. Request that the Commission Officially request Pornography experts Dr. Robert Jensen and Dr. Gail Dines, to make submissions to ICASA, to provide the Commission with detailed research about the consequences and effects of pornography on gender and race relations in cultures based upon AnthroCorpocentric jurisprudence.

D. Argument Examples detailing AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence’s total failure of credibility, as a system of Jurisprudence, in terms of its (a) failure to provide legal personhood to nature and animal and plant species; (b) disregard for the objective and scientific truth of the laws of nature/ecology, and (c) disregard for the laws of human nature, when it contradicts the objectives of the holders of subjective AnthroCorpocentric Truth.

E. How and Why according to Æquilibriæx jurisprudence, ICASA not only has the legal constitutional right, but also the Æquilibriæx duty to refuse Top TV, permission to broadcast three subscription porn channels.

[29] If they had seriously considered the evidence in the AntiCiv Ecocentric (Anti-Patriarchal civilization) primitivist culture Æquilibriæx jurisprudence submission they would

[29.1] not have been able to objectively rule in the exclusive favour of benefiting Patriarchal (a) ‘civilized’ enslaving violence, particularly of women and beta men (b) Anthropocentric men and (c) unsustainable economic resource warfare corporations, which are extensions of Patriarchy’s socio-political status concepts: breeding war, consumption war and violence.

[29.2] have been forced to acknowledge how and why Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence is a FRAUD.

[30] Put differently, they would have been forced to acknowledge their own endorsement and profit from Patriarchal tyranny’s (a) ‘civilized’ enslaving violence, particularly of women and beta men, (b) unsustainable economic resource warfare corporations and (c) fraudulent AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence

________________________________________

Patriarchal Discrimination: (3) The Committee’s Patriarchal secretive decision-making process: failing to provide clear transparent closing date for public comment, and then deciding to refuse a non-patriarchal culture’s submission for failing to know when the alleged secret closing date was.

[31] Not only is the decision to rule in the exclusive favour of benefiting Patriarchal (a) ‘civilized’ enslaving violence, particularly of women and beta men (b) Anthropocentric men and (c) unsustainable economic resource warfare corporations, which are extensions of Patriarchy’s socio-political status concepts: breeding war, consumption war and violence; patriarchal discrimination; but the process of decision-making is additionally patriarchal discrimination.

[32] The ICASA Committee’s adoption of Patriarchal Perception Management Coercion problem solving decision-making process to exclude complainants AntiCiv Ecocentric (Anti-Patriarchal civilization) primitivist culture submission, is patriarchal discrimination.

[33] Problem Solving: Leaver Transparent Listening vs Taker Perception Management Coercion:

A. Leaver Transparent Listening: Every individual and living being (plant or animal) deserves to be heard, where ideas are valued on their merit. Reputations are based upon an individual’s commitment to total transparency which includes exposure of individuals and cultural skeletons for public analysis and cultural ownership.

B. Taker Perception Management Coercion: Only individuals who endorse breeding and consumption war socio-political values deserve to be heard; i.e. those with a large following or those with consumptionist materialist status symbols. Reputations are based upon an individual’s capacity for perception management. Their ability to ignore, silence and censor critics.

[34] The ICASA Committee’s commitment to Taker Perception Management Coercion had to exclude Complainant’s AntiCiv Ecocentric (Anti-Patriarchal civilization) primitivist culture submission from the record, and more importantly from public discourse, so as to censor and silence the submissions analysis and criticism of Patriarchy’s AnthroCorpocentric ‘Civilized Violence’ culture, and the role of pornography to dehumanize and divide and conquer men and women and races and cultures, for the benefits and profits of the Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Civilized Violent Socio-Political Elite.

Dated at George, South Africa: 24 April 2013

Encl:
A: 15 March 2013: IOL: TopTV has right to show porn – advocate (PDF)
B: ICASA Searches for “Top TV”, “TopTV” and “Porn
C: 18 March 2013: Radical Honoursty submission to ICASA (PDF)
D: 05 April 2013: ICASA: Dr. Stephen Mncube response (PDF)
E: ICASA Searche: “On Digital Media” - Article
F: 24 April 2013: IOL: TopTV’s porn channels get the nod (PDF)

» » » » [TYGAE (PDF)]

1 comment:

Tasnim said...

This blog site is pretty good! How was it made . I view something genuinely interesting about your site so I saved to my bookmarks . You can visit my site.
Sports Cars

FLEUR-DE-LIS HUMINT :: F(x) Population Growth x F(x) Declining Resources = F(x) Resource Wars

KaffirLilyRiddle: F(x)population x F(x)consumption = END:CIV
Human Farming: Story of Your Enslavement (13:10)
Unified Quest is the Army Chief of Staff's future study plan designed to examine issues critical to current and future force development... - as the world population grows, increased global competition for affordable finite resources, notably energy and rare earth materials, could fuel regional conflict. - water is the new oil. scarcity will confront regions at an accelerated pace in this decade.
US Army: Population vs. Resource Scarcity Study Plan
Human Farming Management: Fake Left v. Right (02:09)
ARMY STRATEGY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT: Office of Dep. Asst. of the Army Environment, Safety and Occupational Health: Richard Murphy, Asst for Sustainability, 24 October 2006
2006: US Army Strategy for Environment
CIA & Pentagon: Overpopulation & Resource Wars [01] [02]
Peak NNR: Scarcity: Humanity’s Last Chapter: A Comprehensive Analysis of Nonrenewable Natural Resource (NNR) Scarcity’s Consequences, by Chris Clugston
Peak Non-Renewable Resources = END:CIV Scarcity Future
Race 2 Save Planet :: END:CIV Resist of Die (01:42) [Full]
FAIR USE NOTICE: The White Refugee blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to provide information for research and educational purposes, and advance understanding for the Canadian Immigration & Refugee Board's (IRB) ‘White Refugee’ ruling. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Copyright owners who object to the fair use of their copyright news reports, may submit their objections to White Refugee Blog at: [jmc.pa.tf(at)gmail(dot)com]