Radical Honesty SA to Hans-Erik Iken Hans-Erik Iken thinks that only Dumb, Crazy, Mental and Moral Fossils act Honestly and Honourably? Hans-Erik Iken Twitter: @HansErikIken 18 June 2011 Dear Mr. Iken, Your Twitter account states that you love debates and yet that your tweets are rarely serious:
Should any of your tweets referring to Lara Johnstone and Radical Honesty as among others ‗crazy‘, ‗building apartheid‘, ‗smoking bad dope‘ and a ‗mental and moral fossil‘ be taken as serous honourable social liberal constructive criticism? ―@leratomolele You a member of Lara Johnstone's group? I think not my lady, you are far to smart for that :p‖1; ―So, I checked up on this Lara Johnstone (nee Bosman) a bit.Seems the crazy one wishes to return to Holland LOL.She is not wanted there :p‖2; ―What fringe people like Lara Johnstone don't seem to realise that while they were building Apartheid the real Europeans moved on from the 19th century.‖3; ―If I ever came across a Lara Johnstone while I was living in NL I probably would ask where she got was she was smoking. Would be bad dope :D‖4; 1
http://twitter.com/#!/HansErikIken/statuses/81967526090780672 http://twitter.com/HansErikIken/statuses/81972472605446144 3 http://twitter.com/HansErikIken/statuses/81972877217366017 4 http://twitter.com/HansErikIken/statuses/81973472905003009 2
―What mental & moral fossils like Lara Johnstone don't get is that their ideas are not wanted anywhere in the world, well maybe in Siberia.:P‖5
If you are an Honourable ‘Social Liberal’; and your criticism was Serious and Constructive: Lara Johnstone is a member of the Radical Honesty culture and religion. Radical Honestly highly values sincere and serious honourable constructive criticism; no matter how blunt. If you consider yourself an honourable social liberal, and your remarks were founded on scientific journalistic or ethical theoretical principles and relevant evidence; please share your evidence for your conclusions with us. Radical Honesty‘s psychological, political, ecological, emotional, socio-economic etc policies and principles are founded on the best science we can find. We are always on the lookout for sincere and serious constructive criticism founded on scientific evidence, so that our policies can be updated with the latest scientific knowledge. We have no allegiance whatsoever to political correct left or right, extreme left or right, communist, socialist, capitalist, nazi, liberal, libertarian, anarchist, multi-cultural, black or white ideologies. Our primary concern in applying any ideological problem-solving blueprint to any particular circumstance is: DOES IT WORK for the individuals involved? Does it solve their problem? If it doesn‘t work in that circumstance; we flush it down the toilet. Undoubtedly our ‗does it work‘ problem solving attitude has resulted in a degree of problem solving that has not been replicated by any other culture in the world (to my knowledge). Our culture has no murderers; no rapists, nor have any of our members conceived any unwanted children. Our members have total freedom of speech; we do not subscribe to any socialist, capitalist, nazi, liberal, black or white political correct Victimology stories. We have no lawyers. Our members are taught our – being specific about anger and forgiveness social contract6 – communication and noticing skills of honourably resolving our disagreements with each other face-to-face. Our political, cultural and religious leadership is 100% transparent including any corporate or individual funding of any project or campaign. I welcome you to provide me with any honourably constructive criticism about any of Radical Honesty‘s policies and practices, whenever you choose to do so. I am unaware of the evidentiary foundation for your tweets, and iin Radical Honesty we consider impartial enquiries and evidence important for our conclusions. Should your statements be serious and founded on sound scientific evidentiary arguments, I sincerely would like to hear what those sound scientific evidentiary arguments are.
For the Record: SA Media’s Censorship of Scientific Journalism Campaign: Details of SA Media‘s censorship and cover up of Radical Honesty SA‘s legal and activism efforts on behalf of scientific journalism campaign: (I) to expose the media‘s censorship of the PopulationEnvironment Connection (How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection); (II) establish a Scientific Journalism Media Publication rating system, which could be monitored by anonymous Media Inspectors, similar to Restaurant and Hotel Inspectors, can be found at: Censored: The War You Don’t See: Root Cause Problem Solving: Scientific Journalism Campaign7: To issue an advisory ruling, with expert witness input from Wikileaks and/or OpenLeaks ‗scientific journalism‘ experts, in support of a clear classification system of ‗media corporations‘; similar to Hotel Star Ratings and Smoking Label warnings. For example: (a) Three Star Media Corporations practice unbiased and politically incorrect scientific journalism; (b) Two Star media corporations practice left or right ideological propaganda when it contradicts scientific journalism truths, and withhold from their readers access to the original documents they are reporting their bias upon; (c) One Star gutter yellow smear propaganda 5
http://twitter.com/HansErikIken/statuses/81977606865551361 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/090611_sqworms_prh-social-contract?mode=a_p 7 http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2011/06/censored-war-you-dont-see-root-cause.html 6
journalism, which has no interest whatsoever in scientific truthful reporting, only profiting from spreading gossip and malice. All media corporations are required to publish their ‗scientific journalism‘ hierarchical star status, in a designated space on their front page, clarifying their Star Status, and what that start status means regarding the scientific journalism or not quality of factual information being sold to the reader.
For the Record: Radical Honesty Leadership Paradigm: Radical Honesty‘s leadership paradigm refuses to bullshit the psychological infant public8 -particularly those afflicted with Dunning and Kruger 9 Cognitive Biases10, such as Status-Quo Bias11, Anchoring12, Bandwagon Effect13; and Primacy Effect14 -- with public relations lies and illusions. Bluntly, Radical Honesty only appeals to people who15: 1. Are Sick to death of relationships founded on political correct sycophancy and lies. 2. Refuse to wade through the ever-rising tide of corporate and political bullshite. 3. Had enough of being burned, duped, fooled, conned, scammed and screwed over. People who have confronted the reality that: Truth-Telling And Transparent Leadership are currency. Radical Honesty leaders would rather have no fans, no followers (we only have colleagues), than any ignorant moron imbecile schmuck who believes that you can solve relationship problems, by political correct arse-kissing; or that you can solve socio-economic or political problems, by refusing to address their root causes. Radical Honesty solve relationship and socio-political problems, like engineers solve engineering problems. We find the true source of the problem. We eliminate the source of the problem. End of Problem. As you can no doubt gather, Radical Honesty do not practice any form of public relations image management whatsoever. Unlike image Edward Bernaysian PR management chameleons who put forth a false image to the public, and hide any possible perspective that could be negatively interpreted by citizens who suffer from Dunning and Kruger16 Cognitive Biases17; with Radical Honesty: WHAT YOU SEE IS WHAT YOU GET! We don‘t do the Bernaysian Chameleon PR corporate and political bullshite. ―Love your neighbor as yourself‖ doesn't mean that you are supposed to lie about anger; it means to tell the petty, unreasonable, unjustifiable truth—good and loud and direct so you can authentically get over it so you can love that neighbor for real again, not phony it up and talk about how nice they are while lying through your teeth. Try treating other people as poorly as you treat yourself. At times, being honest about your anger is the only way you have of sharing who you are. Love is sharing what you have, even if you're having a fit. Telling the truth is loving your neighbor.‖ – Brad Blanton, Practicing Radical Honesty
Of course this requires a measure of courage, honour and integrity, not to measure a herculian commitment to transparency; and psychological security; no longer obedient to the Ego‘s psychological infant bicameral mind: That type of psychological infancy also demands that ‗I Think, therefore I am‘ be considered Sui Generis, i.e. Unique as the only concept of Self, and an absolute, which cannot be questioned. But it is not Sui Generis (unique) because there are many other concepts of Self.
8
http://www.hellomynameisblog.com/2009/02/greatest-branding-secret-in-history-of.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias 11 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_bias 12 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring 13 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect 14 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_effect 15 http://www.hellomynameisblog.com/2009/02/greatest-branding-secret-in-history-of.html 16 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect 17 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias 9
10
Mr. McBride seems to think that his mind is who he is; does he? But he forgets that it is his mind whom he has put in charge of making that decision? That means there is a conflict of interest, his mind has to make a decision as to whether his mind is who he – Mr. McBride – is? So surely his mind should clarify the decision-making process of how his mind came to that conclusion, based upon what psychological and philosophical and neuro-science evidence? Cause minds just like politicians don‘t always tell the truth! So, is Mr. McBride‘s mind, who he is? Or does Mr. McBride consider his being, the little baby of head, arms and legs, who grew up to be a being of a man, while growing a mind, a being whose eyes see, whose ears hear, and whose skin touches, a being that effortlessly provides this seeing, hearing, touching feedback information to the mind that he grew in his brain, to analyse and then provide his being with a final report about the feedback provided to it? If we are a conscious being, then our being uses our mind – an analytical tool -- to evaluate information, from numerous sources, analyse it and come to a conclusion. What is Mr. McBride‘s mind‘s concept of self, the foundations for his belief in his dignity, etc? It is a fragile-ego autocratic dictatorial mind that chooses ‗I think, I am Unique‘, and the right to psychological infancy (sycophancy), as its definition for dignity; but if that is what Mr McBride‘s mind wishes to be, it has such a right, but it should practice transparency and disclose that information, and take responsibility: I am a psychological infant, and I demand the right to psychological infancy and sycophancy, based on whatever evidence he wishes to put forth. [..] The meme is a unit of information (or instruction for behaviour) stored in a brain and passed on by imitation from one brain to another. Dawkins gave as examples; ideas, tunes, scientific theories, religious beliefs, clothes fashions… The most obvious (and scary) conclusion from modern neuroscience is that there is simply no one inside the brain. The more we learn about the way the brain functions the less it seems to need a central controller, a little person inside, a decider of decisions or an experiencer of experiences. These are just fictions - part of the story the brain tells itself about a self within (Churchland and Sejnowski, 1992; Dennett, 1991). We seem to live in a muddle that we think matters to a self that doesn‘t exist. I want to find out why. 18 (Radical Honesty Concourt Amicus: Citizen v. McBride19)
For the Record: Citizens Right to Choose Non-Radical Honesty Leadership: Radical Honesty however totally respects all citizens‘ rights to choose to: 1. Remain in relationships founded on political correct sycophancy and lies. 2. Drown in their leader‘s ever-rising tide of corporate and political bullshite. 3. Be burned, duped, fooled, conned, scammed and screwed over by their political, religious, corporate and media leaders. If or where Battered TRC Fraud Syndrome and Battered Voters Syndrome citizens suffering from Dunning and Kruger20 Status-Quo21, Anchoring22, Bandwagon23 and Primacy Effect24 Cognitive Biases25, are addicted to being lied to and deceived; we endorse them their right to experience the most 18
Waking from the Meme Dream: Who Am I? Do I Exist?; by Susan Blackmore; Paper presented: The Psychology of Awakening: International Conference on Buddhism, Science & Psychotherapy Dartington 7-10 November 1996; also The Psychology of Awakening: Buddhism, Science & Our Day-to-day Lives. Ed. G.Watson, S.Batchelor and G.Claxton; London, Rider, 2000, 112-122 19 The Radical Honesty perspective of the ‗right to psychological infancy‘ concept of ‗dignity‘ was submitted to the Constitutional Court (The Citizen v. McBride) in [B] Sui Generis Me-ism Sycophancy Deception, as part of: Ubuntu Brief of Amicus Curiae Lara Johnstone, Bushido Dischordian Futilitarian, In Support Of: Radical Honesty Common Sense Population Policy Social Contract Interpretations of Promotion of National Unity & Reconciliation Act, 34 of 1995: [A] A Purposive Sui-Generis Absurd Necessity: http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/cct2310_a_sui-generis?mode=a_p [B] Sui Generis Me-Ism Sycophancy Deception: http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/cct2310_b_suigeneris?mode=a_p C] Corp-Abstractism Just War Deception: http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/cct2310_c_corp-abst-decep?mode=a_p [D] Brincibia Just War SumMary: http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/cct2310_rhbd_d_just-war-summ?mode=a_p [E] Radical Ubuntu Tsedeq Interest: http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/cct2310_rhbd_e_tsedeq-love?mode=a_p 20 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect 21 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_bias 22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring 23 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect 24 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_effect 25 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias
superb burned, duped, fooled, conned, scammed and screwed over experiences, their psychological infant fragile ego‘s addiction to political correct sycophancy desire.
Conclusion: Req. for Information: Were your tweets about Lara Johnstone and Radical Honesty serious? Should any of your tweets referring to Lara Johnstone and Radical Honesty as among others ‗crazy‘, ‗building apartheid‘, ‗smoking bad dope‘ and a ‗mental and moral fossil‘ be taken as serious honourable social liberal constructive criticism? If so, please provide such serious honourable social liberal constructive criticism to myself. I look forward to hearing it and shall give it a serious impartial enquiry. In the absence of any honourable correspondence from yourself: My working hypothesis conclusion is that: Your tweets are not serious; your social liberalism is not of the honourable – share constructive criticism face-to-face - kind. You are a gutless coward two-faced hypocrite, who likes to smear people‘s names behind their back. Your conclusions are not based on impartial enquiry of scientific evidence, but on your ego‘s attachment to psychological infancy. For the Record: Anyone who is incapable of acting honourably, of at the very least, sharing their constructive criticism to another to their face, cannot join the Radical Honesty culture. We don‘t want liars and gutless, backstabbing, gossiping, two-faced hypocrites in our culture. If we did; we may as well join your culture! Respectfully,
Lara Johnstone Radical Honesty SA