SAHRC, CRL Rights, FVP & ANC AnthroCorpocentric Definitions of 'Racism' & 'Hatespeech' not endorsed by RH & YGL

SAHRC, CRL Rights, FVP & ANC AnthroCorpocentric Definitions of 'Racism' & 'Hatespeech' not endorsed by RH & YGL

Any past or future 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.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Radical Honoursty Culture | 07 March 2013

[3] AnthroCorpocentric Multiculturalism: Cultural Definitions:

[3.1] The ANC and other Political Parties and African and European South African cultures adhere to AnthroCorpocentric dominant common law cultural jurisprudence, including its endorsement of AnthroCorpocentric Multiculturalism , or MultiCorpCultural Colonialism, in accordance to the dictates of Multinational Corporations.

[3.2] As dictated by Multinational Corporations, and their addiction to ‘Public Relations Image management’ and cultural colonialism hegemony, these parties assert that there is one and one only definition for ‘hate speech’, their corporate colonial masters definition. Similarly there is one and only one definition for ‘racism’; their corporate colonial masters definition. No culture is allowed its own cultural historical definitions for abstract concepts of ‘racism’, or ‘hate speech’ or ‘love’ or ‘hate’ or ‘reconciliation’; because everyone must be blindly obedient to the Corporate Colonial Masters and their Cultural Colonization of all cultures into Zombie Consumers, obedient to the Corporate Masters AnthroCorpocentric Legal Tyranny.

[3.3] 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.

RH & YGL statement RE: SAHRC 'Hate Speech' Ruling against Lewende Hoop: Die Raadsplan

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’.

National Review: Blacks too Inferior to Be Capable of Listening to Criticism; so NR Fires John Derbyshire

National Review: Practical Philosophy Conditions for Firing John Derbyshire

Lara Johnstone | Radical Honoursty | 08 April 2012

The following African Problem Solving Radical Honoursty Ecofeminist Email and letter were sent to National Review to challenge them to adopt Dr. Gedaliah Braun's definition of Racism: What is Racism; or How Philosophy can be Practical; as the pre-requisite for firing John Derbyshire. However National Review appears to have declined (perhaps due to Masculine Insecurity issues) and decided to fire Mr. Derbyshire.

Here follows the email and pdf letter to National Review.

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2012 1:09 AM (GMT+2)
To: John Derbyshire (**@nationalreview.com), (**@takimag.com)
Cc: The Observer (**@observer.com); Observer: Drew Grant (**@observer.com); NY Daily News: Alexander Nazaryan (**@edit.nydailynews.com); Atlanticwire: Elspeth Reeve (**@nationaljournal.com); Gawker: Maureen O’Connor (**@gawker.com); Daily Caller: Matt Lewis (**@dailycaller.com); Proteinwisdom: Jeff G (**@proteinwisdom.com)
Subject: National Review: Practical Philosophy Conditions for Firing John Derbyshire

Mr. John Derbyshire
National Review

CC: National Review: Rich Lowry; Ramesh Ponnuru; Jonah Goldberg; Jon Henke
The Observer: Mr. Drew Grant
NY Daily News: Mr. Alexander Nazaryan
Guardian: Paul Harris
Atlanticwire: Elspeth Reeve
Gawker: Maureen O’Connor
Forbes: Josh Barro
Think Progress: Faiz Shakir
Daily Caller: Matt Lewis
Little Green Footballs: Charles Johnson
Proteinwisdom: Jeff G

RE: Challenge NR & Critics: Practical Philosophy Conditions for Firing John Derbyshire

My Honourable Problem Solving suggestion on the matter is as follows: Challenge those who demand Derbyshire be fired for ‘racism’ with the following conditions.

1. They must provide their personal or publications definition of racism.
   
2. If their defintioin of racism is not the same as that of Dr. Gedaliah Braun’s philosophical definition, then the National Review can – if appropriate - publicly acknowledge that “According to ‘X’’s definition of ‘racism’, which is “XYZ’; Mr. Derbyshire is indeed a racist; however according to Dr. Gedaliah Braun’s definition of racism, as adopted by the National Review as its official ‘racism’ definition; it is the conclusion of the National Review that Mr. Derbyshire is not a racist’.
   
3. In the spirit of Dr. Gedaliah Brauns’ Practical Philosophy definition of ‘racism’, should any publication wish to challenge any of Mr. Derbyshire’s facts and unequivocally prove such facts to be in error; and additionally Mr. Derbyshire refuses to impartially enquire into, or engage in such enquiry into the true facts of the relevant ‘racial’ matter; then Dr. Gedaliah Braun shall be enquired to determine whether Mr. Derbyshire is indeed a racist; according to his definition and if so decided, then Mr. Derbyshire shall be fired, as a racist according to the National Review’s definition of racist.

Full letter attached in PDF

Respectfully,

Lara Johnstone
African Radical Honoursty Problem Solving EcoFeminist

Etymology and Geneology of the word 'racism': Origins of Racism: Curious beginnings of a useless word.

The Origins of ‘Racism’

The curious beginnings of a useless word.

Samuel Francis | American Renaissance

The Oxford English Dictionary is a multivolume reference work that is one of Western scholarship’s most remarkable achievements — the standard dictionary of the English language on what are known as “historical principles.” Unlike most dictionaries, the Oxford English Dictionary also provides information on the first historical appearance and usage of words. The range of the erudition in the Oxford English Dictionary is often astounding, but for AR readers, one of its most interesting entries is for the word “racism.”

According to the second edition (1989) of the Oxford English Dictionary, the earliest known usage of the word “racism” in English occurred in a 1936 book by the American “fascist,” Lawrence Dennis, The Coming American Fascism. The second usage of the term in English that the Oxford English Dictionary records is in the title of a book originally written in German in 1933 and 1934 but translated into English and first published in 1938 — Racism by Magnus Hirschfeld, translated by Eden and Cedar Paul. Since Hirschfeld died in 1935, before the publication of Dennis’ book the following year, and had already used the word extensively in the text and title of his own book, it seems only fair to recognize him rather than Dennis as the originator of the word “racism.” In the case of the word “racist” as an adjective, the Oxford English Dictionary ascribes the first known usage to Hirschfeld himself. Who was Magnus Hirschfeld and what did he have to tell us about “racism”?