YCLSA complaint to SAHRC: One Racial Patriarchal definition of ‘beauty’ calling another racial patriarchal definition of ‘beauty’ ‘racist’!

Letter to YCLSA & SAHRC: YCLSA complaint to SAHRC: One Racial Patriarchal definition of ‘beauty’ calling another racial patriarchal definition of ‘beauty’ ‘racist’!

To test whether a man or woman support violence as superiority; or rule of law/reason and logic, ask them whether they procreate and consume below carrying capacity. If they do, they support rule of law/reason and logic. If they consume or procreation above carrying capacity, they support – consciously or unconsciously – patriarchy’s definition of superiority: violence!

Andrea Muhrrteyn | 06 April 2013 | SQSwans

Sustainable Problem Solving vs Unsustainable Violent Colonialism: Patriarchal Capitalism and Communism

There are some who view a superior civilization as one in which the men do not suffer from fragile ego addictions, and can discuss a matter honourably and based upon reason and logic, if or where they find their reasoning to be in error, to admit such, and amend their working hypothesis conclusion.... such a society is capable of problem solving most problems... such as for example the Mosuo culture in SW China who have no murder, no rape, no suicide, no homelessness, no unemployment, who live in harmony with nature.

A gender balanced culture based on logic and reason concludes that we live on a finite resource earth, and hence if we wish to avoid conflict from resource scarcity, then we must consume and reproduce at a level below carrying capacity. Put differently we do not have the right to ‘fuck’ and ‘consume’ to our hearts content. No patriarchal culture on planet earth has ever been based on logic and reason and required their tribe to breed and consume below carrying capacity.

Then you have patriarchal societies/cultures where men suffer from fragile ego's and are incapable of resolving issues by means of logic and reason. Put differently, they do not want to take control of their penis, either physically, by breeding below carrying capacity, or psychologically, by consume below carrying capacity (social status symbols which psychologically are equivalent to their belief in an extension of their penis/virility). They consider superiority, not superiority of logic and reason and honour and intellect and integrity, but superiority of violence and force. However they do not have the honour or integrity to admit their addiction to violence as a symptom of their masculine insecurity to evaluate their ‘status’ in terms of honesty or honour. Violence is simply another patriarchal status symbol. It is one of the masculine insecurity social status symbols by which they measure any other patriarchal male’s worth, or another tribe’s superiority/inferiority.

I have large respect for a man who is honest about his view of violence being the pinnacle of any civilization, even though I disagree with them... but at least he is honest, and his enemies know.. that is the measure of his values. He has no regard for ‘rule of law’ or ‘logic and reason’. He settles every dispute with his fists. And when he is beaten by a stronger opponent, he does not turn into a victim and starts whining about how he is now oppressed, since he takes responsibility for his choices; that he lost the game of violence is superiority.

I have no respect, and a huge amount of disgust for men who do not have the honour and integrity to admit that they measure a culture's superiority by the level of its inflicted violence, happy to be earning the fruit of the culture’s colonialist violence, while their violence is winning the raping, pillaging wars, breeding and consuming wars... but all of a sudden turning into whining victims when they lose the game of violence and are now oppressed.

To test whether a man or woman support violence as superiority; or rule of law/reason and logic, ask them whether they procreate and consume below carrying capacity. If they do, they support rule of law/reason and logic. If they consume or procreation above carrying capacity, they support – consciously or unconsciously – patriarchy’s definition of superiority: violence!

Either you support the rule of law, i.e. logic and reason, which means you must confront that we live on a finite resource planet, and all tribes must breed and consume below carrying capacity, to avoid scarcity and internal or inter-tribal conflict.

Or you support the patriarchal breeding and consuming game of violent superiority. If so, then at least be honest and admit it, and if you lose, don’t whine.

Letter to YCLSA & SAHRC: YCLSA complaint to SAHRC: One Racial Patriarchal definition of ‘beauty’ calling another racial patriarchal definition of ‘beauty’ ‘racist’!

Dear Mr. Khomo and YCLSA,

YCLSA complaint to SAHRC: One Racial Patriarchal definition of ‘beauty’ calling another racial patriarchal definition of ‘beauty’ ‘racist’! An excellent example of: ‎”In the game of patriarchy, women are not the opposing team; they are the ball.” - Anita Sarkeesian

I am confused. Could you please provide me with a copy of your definition of ‘racism’, and also include a copy of ‘patriarchy’; if you consider it worthy of YCL’s analysis, to formulate a definition.


Patriarchal YCL Shocked/Disgusted Caucasian race is most attractive:

You state in your press release that you are “shocked and disgusted at the survey published in UCT's newspaper ‘ Varsity News', showing the Caucasian race as the most attractive.”

In the Radical Honoursty culture, we consider honour and honesty, the content of a person’s character, to be the highest form of beauty; whereas a person who lies, is two faced, a hypocrite, or practices any form of deception is considered ugly. A person’s physical appearance is irrelevant in terms of their ‘beauty’ as a person, and their attractiveness and value. The only cultures who value physical appearance as the primary valuation of ‘beauty’ are patriarchal cultures. All patriarchal cultures, white, black, etc around the world, share this common characteristic. Most gender balanced or matriarchal cultures, place – as a cultural value – very little, if any valuation on physical appearance as a quality for ‘beauty’.

Similarly the perception of ‘status’ is a patriarchal cultural concept, even when applied and practiced by women who know no better, having been brought up in a patriarchal culture. Dating a woman purely for her physical appearance or race, as a status symbol, is a function of a patriarchal culture, shared by many races. Put differently it is not unique to one race, hence is not a ‘racial’ cultural value, but a patriarchal cultural value. It occurs in all patriarchal societies, and is a consequence of the fragile male ego. The greater the masculine insecurity raging in the particular culture, the greater the proportion of men, who aspire to fill the spiritual and psychological hole in their self identity; with an external material social status symbol. A culture with a majority of psychologically secure men.. do not need ‘status symbols’ to impress other fragile ego men, but rely on their honesty, honour and character, to determine their reputation as to whom they are.

I am the only person in South Africa who is not a member of a patriarchal culture. While many women become feminists, most feminists don’t become so ‘feminist’ that they psychologically and culturally withdraw their allegiance from their patriarchal culture, and join a gender balanced or feminist culture. Most feminists prefer to try to ‘reform’ their patriarchal cultures, and many make the mistake of simply trying to reform patriarchy, by upholding patriarchal cultural values, but simply insisting that a few elite women also get ‘equal benefits’ from the patriarchal cultural society. They do not expose the underbelly of patriarchy, they simply reform patriarchy to the point where they can also benefit from patriarchy’s breeding war and consumption war cultural values.

For the Record: I am European and my husband is African American. Physical appearance had nothing to do with our marriage; our attraction to each other was based on the other persons honesty and courage.

I don’t know what your values are in terms of ‘attractive’. However if, for example, you are African, and you evaluate ‘attractive’ in terms of physical appearance, and you consider the physical appearance of African women to be the most attractive. Your ‘attractive’ values, are patriarchal cultural values, which evaluate a man or woman’s ‘beauty’ based upon their physical appearance, as opposed to other character related qualities. In that aspect, you are no different to any patriarchal Indian male, patriarchal Coloured male, patriarchal white male. You are all patriarchal, judging ‘beauty’ in terms of physical appearance. You all have your own preferences in terms of what physical appearances you consider the most appealing. Are you all allowed to have your own patriarchal preferences? Or does everyone who does not share your preferences have some kind of moral patriarchal deviancy?

What is fascinating is that in all the discussion about ‘beauty’ in terms of evaluating ‘beauty’ as a matter of physical appearance, people are either (a) oblivious that their ‘beauty’ cultural value is a patriarchal cultural value, which was decided for them by patriarchal men; or (b) if they are aware of this patriarchal cultural value, they never honestly and open discuss it as such. They seem to think that patriarchal cultural values of ‘beauty’ as physical appearance are the only ‘beauty’ cultural values that exist, and that there are no cultures, which have other value determinants for what they consider ‘beauty’.

Why is that? Why are you so upset that other Patriarchal males or females (who ascribe to patriarchal cultural ‘beauty’ definitions) have their own patriarchal preferences? Why are you not at all upset about the reality that the article’s patriarchal evaluations of ‘beauty’, did not take any personal responsibility and admit this is a patriarchal cultural ‘beauty’ definition? Why are you not upset that the article made no reference to the reality that there are other gender balanced and matriarchal cultures who have different definitions for beauty, which do not refer to a person’s physical appearance?


Non Racial South Africa obsessed with victim status:

You state: “The YCLSA is working toward a non-racial South Africa in which the deep wounds of the past are not easily forgotten.”

Do you actually mean that? You do not want to easily forget the deep wounds of the past? You want to hang onto those deep wounds, rub salt into them, and never get over them? Never move on? Never say ‘enough is enough of being a victim’?

What is your definition for ‘non-racial South Africa’?

Is it the same as multinational corporate capitalism’s definition for a non-racial South Africa? (Slavoj Zizek: Non Racial Multiculturalism: The Cultural Logic of Multinational Capitalism)


Patriarchal Apartheid/Colonial Definitions of ‘Beauty’:

You state: “Under the apartheid and colonial governments, white was deemed the most desirable of races and blacks were forced to use skin whitening creams that burned their faces in order to find employment and education.”

Apartheid and colonialism were and still are patriarchal cultures. Like all patriarchal cultures – including Zulu, Pedi, Xhosa, etc – Apartheid Boers and Colonial British or Europeans judged women’s beauty, by their physical appearance. In combination with a second valuation of patriarchy – humans as property – they also valued their ‘own’ women as the most physically attractive.

Masculine Insecurity on cultural steroids. Not only are women’s physical appearance objectified, but they are also considered the male culture’s physical property. All patriarchal cultures do the same, it is simply a matter of quantitative and qualitative difference; but all patriarchal cultures believe they ‘possess’ ‘our’ women, and evaluate their ‘beauty’ as a matter of physical appearance.

As a matter of honour and credibility; you cannot make a claim that one patriarchal culture’s actions of possession towards their women, and claims of ‘beauty’ as physical appearance are ‘morally objectionable’; while endorsing the same patriarchal cultural values of possession and objectification in your own patriarchal culture!

That is an extremely masculine insecurity patriarchal thing to do. A man who is secure about who he is, has one standard, by which he evaluates all individuals, from all cultures. Only extremely insecure men (or women) demand that men from another patriarchal culture live upto particular standards, but does not demand that the men from his own culture live upto the same standards.


Colonialism is a Symptom of Patriarchy:

Colonialism is a product and symptom of Patriarchy’s addiction to masculine insecurity breeding and consumption wars. Colonialism, whether it is the colonialism of Europeans conquering African tribes, or the colonialism of African tribes who conquered other African tribes, or the colonialism of both Europeans and Africans who conquered the gender balanced Bushmen tribes. All Colonialism, whether it was Genghis Khan, or Shaka Zulu, or Mohammed, is a product and symptom of Patriarchy.

A patriarchal society, or a society which does not address the causes of masculine insecurity, cannot and will not ever be sustainable. Any ideology, whether political or religious, founded upon masculine insecurity (patriarchy) will result in (a) breeding and consumption war concepts of power and domination (to provide insecure males with social/psychological penis extension status symbols, their fragile ego's lack).

Consumption wars require exponential expropriation of land, natural resources and knowledge. Breeding wars require a war against sustainable consciousness (ecological and political balance) and a human factory farming war economy racket culling. Colonialism is a symptom of Patriarch’s addiction to breeding and consumption wars; i.e. consuming above carrying capacity, and then using the surplus population as cannon fodder to conquer another culture’s resources.

If your argument is that Apartheid and European colonialism is morally reprehensible, and had massive destructive psychological and physical consequences for the tribes conquered; then that is a very valid argument.

However, if you want to be honourable and credible, then you must also admit that all Patriarchal colonialism is morally reprehensible, irrespective of who the patriarchal colonialists were who were doing the breeding war, consumption war conquering; including the patriarchal colonialism practiced by your own ancestors, or current political and cultural leaders!

If you choose to argue that European and Boer colonialism is morally reprehensible, while ignoring those of your own ancestors, or cultural or political leaders, then not only is that a dishonourable argument, from a man suffering from fragile ego, but in doing so, you are – in fact – using colonialist patriarchal methods of argument. You are attempting to colonize the argument, by excusing the actions of your own ancestors/leaders, and demanding that other patriarchal colonialists – in this case Europeans – be held to a different higher standard.

That is what patriarchal colonialists do, whether it is physical, or psychological, or emotional, or cultural or religious: They do not have one standard by which they evaluate and judge the actions of all individuals from all cultures. They excuse their own colonial conquering (whether it is the Cape of Good Hope, or an argument in a debate, they want to win by stealth), but demand others the right to conquer.

If you object to Colonialism (the symptom of Patriarchal culture’s) and want a world where one group of people are not constantly being colonized by another group of people, anywhere and everywhere on the planet; then you must be consistent and object to all patriarchy (the root cause of colonialism).

You cannot just object to patriarchal colonialism when your culture or tribe is the one that has been colonized; but endorse patriarchal colonialism when your tribe is doing the patriarchal colonizing of other tribes! If so, you are in such an act endorsing Patriarchal Colonialism, while PRETENDING TO OPPOSE IT! Put differently, you don’t even have the honesty and integrity to be an honest patriarchal colonialist, and to say ‘hey I support all patriarchal colonialism, let the strongest patriarchal colonialists’ win.


Sustainable Problem Solving vs Unsustainable Violent Colonialism: Patriarchal Capitalism and Communism

There are some who view a superior civilization as one in which the men do not suffer from fragile ego addictions, and can discuss a matter honourably and based upon reason and logic, if or where they find their reasoning to be in error, to admit such, and amend their working hypothesis conclusion.... such a society is capable of problem solving most problems... such as for example the Mosuo culture in SW China who have no murder, no rape, no suicide, no homelessness, no unemployment, who live in harmony with nature.

A gender balanced culture based on logic and reason concludes that we live on a finite resource earth, and hence if we wish to avoid conflict from resource scarcity, then we must consume and reproduce at a level below carrying capacity. Put differently we do not have the right to ‘fuck’ and ‘consume’ to our hearts content. No patriarchal culture on planet earth has ever been based on logic and reason and required their tribe to breed and consume below carrying capacity.

Then you have patriarchal societies/cultures where men suffer from fragile ego's and are incapable of resolving issues by means of logic and reason. Put differently, they do not want to take control of their penis, either physically, by breeding below carrying capacity, or psychologically, by consume below carrying capacity (social status symbols which psychologically are equivalent to their belief in an extension of their penis/virility). They consider superiority, not superiority of logic and reason and honour and intellect and integrity, but superiority of violence and force. However they do not have the honour or integrity to admit their addiction to violence as a symptom of their masculine insecurity to evaluate their ‘status’ in terms of honesty or honour. Violence is simply another patriarchal status symbol. It is one of the masculine insecurity social status symbols by which they measure any other patriarchal male’s worth, or another tribe’s superiority/inferiority.

I have large respect for a man who is honest about his view of violence being the pinnacle of any civilization, even though I disagree with them... but at least he is honest, and his enemies know.. that is the measure of his values. He has no regard for ‘rule of law’ or ‘logic and reason’. He settles every dispute with his fists. And when he is beaten by a stronger opponent, he does not turn into a victim and starts whining about how he is now oppressed, since he takes responsibility for his choices; that he lost the game of violence is superiority.

I have no respect, and a huge amount of disgust for men who do not have the honour and integrity to admit that they measure a culture's superiority by the level of its inflicted violence, happy to be earning the fruit of the culture’s colonialist violence, while their violence is winning the raping, pillaging wars, breeding and consuming wars... but all of a sudden turning into whining victims when they lose the game of violence and are now oppressed.

To test whether a man or woman support violence as superiority; or rule of law/reason and logic, ask them whether they procreate and consume below carrying capacity. If they do, they support rule of law/reason and logic. If they consume or procreation above carrying capacity, they support – consciously or unconsciously – patriarchy’s definition of superiority: violence!

Either you support the rule of law, i.e. logic and reason, which means you must confront that we live on a finite resource planet, and all tribes must breed and consume below carrying capacity, to avoid scarcity and internal or inter-tribal conflict.

Or you support the patriarchal breeding and consuming game of violent superiority. If so, then at least be honest and admit it, and if you lose, don’t whine.

Why do you think your patriarchal political and religious and cultural leaders are not having this discussion publicly with all citizens and members of their tribes? Why are your tribal leaders not asking you simply: Do you want to be a member of a tribe where violence rules, or where reason and logic rules? Why are your patriarchal tribal leaders not requiring you to take personal responsibility for breeding and consuming below carrying capacity? Why are your patriarchal tribal leaders encouraging you to breed and consume above carrying capacity?

Why do you think the only person willing to discuss this matter with you, and raise your consciousness about it, is a member of a gender balanced culture?

Why do you think your political leaders have censored my ‘reason and logic to breed and consume below carrying capacity’ arguments in every single court I have gone to in this patriarchal country? Why do you think the Constitutional Court refuse to process my application to review South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Fraud, for its failure to confront patriarchy’s breeding and consumption wars as a direct causal factor of resource scarcity and violence?

By now you should have come to the realization that both Capitalism and Communism are patriarchal ideologies. Both capitalism and communism ignore the logic and reason of ecological limits, which require the men in their societies to take personal responsibility for procreating and consuming below carrying capacity. Industrial civilization – whether capitalist or communist – is patriarchal in its deliberate refusal to produce, consume and reproduce below finite resource carrying capacity limits.


‘Racist Survey’, Hurt Caused, Publishing of ‘Racist’ Survey:

You state “As an expression of our condemnation of racism and the hurt caused, YCLSA will be lodging a complaint with the South African Human Rights Commission .. In our complaint, we will demand a full apology and retraction from the newspaper for the racist survey it published. It is disturbing enough that a survey of this nature was conducted, for it to have passed all editorial controls and be published, proves there is a serious problem at UCT.”

Only psychologically insecure people are ‘hurt’ by words, or reality. Once again we are dealing with patriarchal cultural values. Patriarchal cultures, where a large proportion of the males in that culture, suffer from masculine insecurity/fragile ego’s, is a culture that demands ‘sycophancy’, ‘political correctness’, ‘hate speech laws’, etc.

An individuals psychological security is directly proportional to their appreciation for living in brutal reality. The more you are willing to search for, confront, appreciate and relate to reality, for what it is, not for what your fragile ego demands that it be, the greater your psychological security. The more your concept of dignity is based upon your character and commitment to honour and truth telling, the greater the impossibility that your ‘dignity’ shall be affected by how anyone treats you.

Corrupt Patriarchal rulers realized many eon’s ago, that if they focussed their energies towards obstructing the fragile ego men in their culture, from attaining masculine security; then they could manipulate those fragile ego men for their own political status and profit. Masculine insecure ego men are extremely easy to manipulate and use as vote, cannon or consumption fodder. Not only the consumption of patriarchal capitalist products, but also patriarchal capitalist and communist ideas. Give a fragile ego man the ‘right’ to avoid reality, to avoid being ‘offended’, to avoid being ‘insulted’, to avoid the personal psychological growth that comes from listening to other’s honest opinions about ourselves, and most fragile ego men, do not have the critical thinking capacity to ask: ‘Why are my patriarchal leaders encouraging me to avoid hearing or relating to other people’s honest opinions about me’? Why do my patriarchal leaders want to encourage me to be easily offended; to be enabled by legislation to silence anyone who ‘offends’ me? Why do my patriarchal leaders want to stunt my psyche and obstruct its search for confronting reality? What will I learn from reality, that my patriarchal leaders don’t want me to? Because if they allow you to grow your psyche beyond ‘being offended’, beyond masculine insecurity, to searching for truth, psychologically appreciating and relating to reality; you will confront realities that make it impossible for them to use you, as their psychological, emotional, cultural, racial, ethnic, physical slave!

“There is not a truth existing which I fear or would wish unknown to the whole world” - Thomas Jefferson

There are many patriarchal truths, covertly published in UCT’s silly survey, which scare the shit out of our YCL fragile ego, masculine insecurity worldview, which we do not want known, do not want to debate, do not want to expose as the symptoms of living in a patriarchal breeding war and consumption war society, where women are status symbol brood sows; but want to censor and silence, so that our fragile masculine insecure ego’s will not be offended, by being required to confront reality?


Racist Capetown:

I don’t know what the YCL’s definition of ‘racist’ is, but it is possible, that Capetown is ‘racist’ according to your definition.

If your ‘racist’ definition is very broad, and purely evaluated in terms of the subjective interpretation of the listener; which it appears to be, then its quite possible that almost anyone’s behaviour can be interpreted by any listener/observer as ‘racist’. According to such a definition of ‘racist’, a person could subjectively interpret anything you say about ‘race’ to be ‘racist’, even though you may have no subjective or objective ‘racist’ intentions. This is a big problem with ‘racist’ definitions which focus entirely only on the subjective interpretation of the listener, and have no concern whatsoever for (a) the subjective intentions of the speaker/writer; or the (b) objective factual accuracy of the statement, and the subjective knowledge about the in/accuracy of the speaker.


Radical Honoursty / Yshmael Guerrylla Law Definitions:

Legal Tyranny of Vague Definitions: A Legal Tyranny occurs in any society when its (a) jurisprudence has vague and abstract legal definitions, denying its citizens clear and concise simple language definitions for clear understanding of those particular terms, such as for example ‘terrorism’ or ‘exterminate’, or ‘communist’, etc; and/or (b) multicultural jurisprudence which adopts the dominant culture’s legal terminology of any legal concept, such as for example ‘hate speech’ or ‘racism’, as being the one and only legal definition relevant to all cultures; when in fact it is the dominant culture’s legal definition and is in conflict with minority cultures legal definitions; and does not recognize that minority cultures have different legal definitions for the particular concept.

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.

Hate: Hate is to (a) withhold your honest subjective truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, no matter how offensive, from the listener; and (b) to do so to their face, particularly while expressing your subjective truth, behind their back, and (c) to bull**it yourself, that what you are doing is not ‘hate’; but ‘manners’ or ‘being nice’ or ‘being polite’ or ‘being professional’, etc.

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, in What is Racism? Or, how Philosophy can be ‘Practical’: in his book: Racism, Guilt, Self-Hatred and Self-Deceit).

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 ).

Conclusion: The aforementioned opinions about patriarchy and its consequences are my working hypothesis conclusions. I am happy to discuss and hear evidence to the contrary, and if of sufficient weight I am happy to update and amend my working hypothesis conclusions about patriarchy. I welcome your response.

» » » » [SQSwans :: (PDF)]