Humourous definitions

Wow! What a heavy series of posts we have been through. Since it is Easter, a time of celebration, it is time for hilarious definitions about some words which have been abused by the current government:

Policy - money hand outs given to sections of the Australian community favoured by the Labor party, that is mothers who are given a baby bonus or paid maternity leave even when Labor in is a deficit.

Boats - a strange looking sea-faring vehicle that needs to be turned back immediately to another country, namely Malaysia where it will, in the view of the government, teach asylum seekers a lesson not to annoy the Australian government

Misogyny - the hatred of Labor party women and other elites, but not the hatred of Liberal party women. This is because only elite women have value by virtue of their progressiveness in women's rights. All other women are of no value because they are not supportive of the progressive agenda.

Misandry - does not exist in the view of the "handbag hit squad" (a phrase coined by Liberal MP Kelly O'Dwyer), allegedly consisting of the gang of four, namely Julia Gillard, Nicola Roxon, Tanya Plibersek and Deborah O'Neil.

Mining tax - a tax that only collected about 1% of the intended revenue to be received by the government

Welfare groups - groups that help the government win votes by demanding the government to tax the working class, but not the super rich business class like the mining magnates, by making the government look like the caring socialist government that seeks to make everyone equal

Working class - the group of people that make up majority of the population who the government secretly likes the most because they have adequate taxation capacity, but no power to stop the government from hitting them with a tax hike that may one day go up to about 70% (like France).

Communalism is not Utilitarianism

Many people in the West believe that communalism is based on a utilitarian framework. Some even  believe that a communalistic society is a mere ideal that cannot work. What is meant by 'cannot work' needs to be carefully defined.

Communalism seeks to care for the needs of the community as a whole, and that no one or no group should only be looking after their own needs. Thus, community-oriented societies such as Asian societies tend to be against individualistic pursuits of pleasure and comfort. Goals such as working to contribute to the community, instead of having a career as a status symbol, and looking after family rather than just having it all as a sign of accomplishment are worthy of pursuing.

This is in stark contrast to the West where people must have a career to show how independent one is, or where a person who is unmarried, particularly a woman who is unmarried lacks something.

Utilitarianism is the idea that worthy goals or achievements should be maximised for the greater good. This, in effect, endorses the harm caused to certain groups or individuals for the good of the public. It may seem that this is communalistic, but this is in fact, anti-communalist, because communalism is the idea that all people should be cared for because all the equal. Communalism does not endorse majority groups harming minority groups, not minority groups harming majority groups.

Survey Link

Feel free to complete survey below:

<a href="http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/WMKWPLW">Click here to take survey</a>

Just copy http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/WMKWPLW and go.

What Individualism Is

The ideology of individualism is dominant over communalism in the West. Individualism is the idea that the individual need to look after oneself before others. Looking after oneself before others means to serve oneself, rather than others. In other words, the needs of community and family are placed after the self - they are of a lower status than the self. The needs of others are not as important and do not deserve any care, unless, of course, they can benefit the self.

Individualism is selfish. Although people need to look after themselves, the needs of others need to be cared for in pursuing one's interests. I am skeptical of charities, particularly the ones that seek to help only certain group of people gain their self-interests, as opposed to helping the community as a whole, such a humanitarian groups. Such charities claim that they have to do so, in order to care for the community. I do not agree with this claim as the different sections of the communities depend on each other. 

A community is a whole body made up of different parts with different functions. It is a lie that there is no such thing as society because we all depend on others achieve our interests and obtain our needs. 

The term 'charities; has been abused, especially by interest groups that campaign for the rights of one's own groups. These groups often seek rights without responsibility. They seems to care for the whole community by claiming that groups that oppose their views and actions are oppressing them. 

It is not that focusing on helping a certain group of people is wrong. It is that it is selfish to pursue one's own rights without caring for the needs of others. 

What Communalism Is

Communalism comes from the term 'community'. It is essentially about caring for the needs of the community as a whole rather than placing a focus on the needs (or wants) of the individual. Community is society that is made up of people who are inherently dependent on each other.

Dependence, in this context means that people need other people to get what they need or want. For example, an employer provides jobs, the government needs its servants for government to function effectively. No one is independent of other like an island, that is, no man or woman is an island. Every person has talents to contribute to the community and every person has boundaries. How people use their talents and accept their boundaries is what many struggle with, especially in our modern society.

Modern values teach people that independence and self-sufficiency make one successful. There is no such thing as a self-made person because every successful person (whatever successful means) depends on others who have helped them get there. No person is ever redundant. A person made be made redundant by a company or goverment body, but no person is redundant in terms of his or her existence. That a person can become redundant as a human is a lie, so don't believe it. Don't make yourself feel you need to be independent of others, because you need others to help, just like how others need you.

Every person has a purpose in life - a purpose that involves serving others, not serving oneself.

Communalism vs Individualism: How it is viewed in the West

Many people in the liberal West cringe at the term communalism. Many become worried about the rights of valued minorities, not unvalued minorities, believing that communalism is about maximising happinness for the greater good. I argue that it is not communalism, but individualism that harms society more. Communalism is often associated with socialism and communism. This is partially true, but communalism can be understood, not only in the political sense, but the social, cultural and moral sense.

Most Asian and African cultures are communalistic. There is a strong emphasis placed on family and community values. To many in the West, this communalistic system would lead to the marginalisation of minorities. However, the marginalisation of minorities also occur in individualistic societies, if not treated worse in individualistic societies.

Gay movement: Redefining the meaning of Equality (3)

The homosexual lobby shouts louder for equality each day. It preaches to the masses about marriage equality, telling them about how they can't get married while others can. It has influenced many by instilling the generally accepted belief that homosexuality is an inherent personal characteristic.

Studies have shown that homosexuality is not switched on by a gene or sets of genes. Homosexuality is a behaviour, not a personal characteristic that a person cannot change, such as one's race, sex or age. People are not born homosexuals. Rather, they become homosexual as a result of  their experiences and social environment in which they live in.Therefore, it follows that legalising gay marriage would be like legalising paedophilia or rape on the (false) premise that a paedophilic or raping tendencies are natural and cannot be changed.

Gay movement: The Change in Power (2)

The homosexual movement was active in encouraging people to support their stance. Like many other political movements, the campaigned at universities to produce a generation that was supportive of gay marriage and the like. Once a generation of people who believed that the so-called traditional values were no longer relevant, and the sexual revolution which gave birth to the notion that sex should be freely shared, cohabiting between opposite sex couples became acceptable.

Cohabiting has become normal, and anything which was against it was attacked as conservative and naive. The homosexual movement had gained more momentum ever since the sexual revolution and so, it become generally accepted that homosexual relationships are acceptable and deserve respect. Now, homosexual activists are fighting for equality in their terms, that is, gay marriage rights.

Gay movement: The History of Gay Rights (1)

The whole modern conception of gay rights is not merely a product of creativity, but is also a political agenda that attempts to change the moral rules. In our postmodern world, the morality is regarded as idea, if morality even exists. The belief that homosexuality is wrong, is based on the concept of Natural Order - that men and women were made to marry each other, followed by reproduction exclusively within marriage. This concept is now a foreign one in the postmodern Western society.

The homosexual movement sought not only to purport that homosexuality is not immoral, but that homosexuality is moral on the grounds of equality whatever equality might mean.

It is important to understand that equality means equal treatment of people equal in status in the relevant matter. Thus, it follows that persons or groups of unequal status should be treated differently to ensure equality.

I will explore the issues underlying the concept of gay marriage in the next few posts.

Source: Defending a Higher Law by Tradition, Family and Property

The 10 Media Commandments

We are a postmodern world.  People are becoming increasingly confused about many things, especially the younger generation. The media often takes advantage of this to put forward a certain idea. When people criticise it for being devious, it accuses its critics of being narrow-minded or naive. The following "commandments" come from the Western media:

1. Report not the facts, but what you think of the facts in your opinion. Construct what you think to be the facts.
2. Do not tell the whole truth because there is no truth. Only tell selected facts. 
3. Tell the younger generation of men that they have to be muscular to be a real man.
4. Tell the younger generation of women that they have to be beautiful in our prescribed way to be a real woman.
5. When interviewing a politician one likes, ask them questions that are easy for them to answer to make the masses support them, whether it be a question they undoubtedly cannot answer owing to privacy reasons. (Does this remind you of anyone?)
6. When interviewing a politician one dislikes, ask them questions that silence their point of view. 
7. Whenever a cultured, upper-middle class western woman goes missing, report only her point of view. Make the people feel sorry for her.
8. If a man, or a uncultured, lower-class or a non-western woman goes missing, or is killed, do not report only their point of view, unless their families give us money.
9. If a government policy is aimed at helping cultured, upper-middle class western women, then express how the government has not done enough.
10. If a government policy is aimed people who do not fall within the group specified in commandment 9, then express how the government has done enough and how it has marginalised cultured, upper-middle class western women.

Ban sex-selective abortion, but not abortion: Selfish and Hypocritical

The radical feminists are ardently campaigning against sex-selective abortion. However, they support abortion. The reason for this is that many girls have been aborted. There is also a possibility that boys may be aborted in (some Western) countries where females are favoured because they are believed to be more hardworking or stronger than males out of pure feminist bias.

Abortion should not be legalised in the first place. Banning abortion will prevent any sex-selective abortion. The radical feminists are those who cannot be trusted because they spread false ideas about our world. They  have obviously forgotten that they were once a foetus. Maybe they should think about why they were given birth. If they were not aborted, they would not be able to enjoy, as they do, inciting hatred towards men.

If sex-selective abortion were targeted at males, the feminists would be happy. Why? Feminists are misandrists.

The Modern Feminist Speeh

The progressive liberal media has contributed to legitimising misandry (the hatred of men) in the name of "misogyny". It has twisted the definition of equality by supporting the evil proposition that because men dominate (whatever that means) over women, women need to be able to express the thoughts about men in any way women want regardless of how insulting or rude it is.

The following would be a modern feminist speech:

We have almost come to a stage where we are equal to men. We have equal pay and laws to protect the safety of women. However, we need more women in politics to control the vices of men. We do not have such vices. Men are the ones with the vices.

Although men are sometimes hurt by the actions of some women, we must look after women only to help ourselves. We do not need the support of men or our children. We should punish rape, but not seduction of men by women because we are entitled to indulge in physical pleasure. Men are not entitled to indulge in physical pleasure because they have to work for us. They are our slaves who are not even entitled to fundamental basics.  We need men to work for us as slaves because otherwise they will bully us.

We got to where we are by ourselves - only half of the world's population. We do not need the other half of the world's population although everyone contributes to the activities that go in our global community. 

Women are placed on earth to have fun. Men are placed to work for us so we can have fun. Past treatment of us by men is our excuse. Although it makes the society chaotic and destabilised, and hurts people, it is legitimate because women are the ones in control.

Modern feminism is a double standard. I would even argue that the past treatment of women by men may not even have been so bad. At least it was probably not as sneaky and cunning.

Modern (radical) feminists should be ashamed of who they are and grow up. They should learn to care for others.

Progressivism v Conservatism: How the media fuels the battle

The modern mainstream media is one that is very obviously a pro-liberal, progressive media. It disdains conservatism. The divide between progressivism and conservatism is increasing. The progressive side is giving more voice and is approved by the media, whereas the conservative is portrayed a radical and not to be trusted by the media. However, whenever a labelled conservative is taking a more liberal, progressive, stance, such a person is being applauded as a proper, right-thinking person.

The media achieves this by only showing one side of the media and by using twisted definitions of highly emotionally charged (HEC) words to debunk the views of conservatives, scandalise conservative views, and even accuse conservatives as hypocritical and bigoted.

The media has instilled many assumptions that are completely erroneous, but generally accepted by educated masses, whatever educated may mean. The definition of 'educated' is one that can be highly contentious, and the same applies to many other terms. Definitions of words can be twisted to induce people to accept certain assumptions and to silence people.

That is why this blog exists - to dispel any confusion people have.

Enjoy reading at you pleasure! xoxo

What the media stands for

The media has become increasingly political and biased owing to a rise in commercialisation of the media. Media reports are given an incentive to encourage support for certain groups that provide more funding.

The media, of all of things, cannot be trusted. It is worse than the government in some cases. I smell a stench that is a concoction of nauseating bias, dirty politics, and above all, hypocrisy. Thy name is Media.

The media in postmodern liberal societies have supported the propaganda of interest groups who have attempted to delude people of reality.

In short, the media stands for Manipulative, Evil, Domineering, Immoral Activity.

Feel free to express what the acronym media stands for.

The Lie about Egalitarianism

The Australian society like to think of itself as one that treats everyone equally. That is the heart of egalitarianism. The term 'equality' is a very ambiguous terms and so are terms like 'empowerment', 'freedom', 'choice' and 'independence'. What is equality? It seems that equality, as it is generally accepted means to treat people the same. To treat people the same means that there is a need to be the same as others, as opposed to being different.

On the surface, it may seem as though egalitarianism, equality and respect is key. However, it has a catch. Its underlying values is based on the idea that people should only treat others in the way one is treated by others. This contradicts respect which involves humility. Being humble is to give up the right to treat others badly when one is wronged by another. 

Egalitarianism simply means that no one should be of a superior position, and thus no one deserves extra respect or reverence. It is true that people do not need to bow down to others, but sometimes, one needs to listen to those in a higher position in the workplace or government because they have the responsibility to lead. 

Egalitarianism leads to individualism - the idea that the individual is paramount. 

Let's respect other cultures, but respect them less than our own

Australians like to think of themselves as one people who like to embrace diversity and are respectful of others. We like to think that we give everyone a "fair go". Do Australians really respect people of other cultures?

It is can be hard to draw the line between a misunderstanding of other cultures, and a dislike of other cultures. However, this is not an excuse to hate others, or deliberately choose to misunderstand others on the grounds of their race or national origin. One thing I have noticed is the lack of intercultural understanding when interacting with people of other cultures. This forms a barrier between people of different cultures.

It is understandable that people may not understand other cultures, but the deliberate misunderstanding of other cultures leads to cultural tension. This leads to people forming cliques made of people of their own cultures. People as a result, characterise people in terms of their race.

When have you last heard something along the lines of that "Asian chick", "White guy" or that "Aboriginal dude"? Most people would have heard phrase like that quite often.

It shows that we are a society that is so immune to racism that we embrace it. We think that distinguishing someone for their race is a form of respect. It is not. It shows that one looks another through racial lens.

People of ethic minorities are probably more likely to suffer from racialisation the most, as well as sexualisation by the opposite sex. This sexualisation, however, is probably less likely to be done by people of the same race as them.

It is no wonder the Australian society is one that is individualistic and anti-communalistic. How can a community be built if it is wrenched with disunity and abuse?

My uni is (sadly) run by femocrats

Universities can be said to be the cornerstone of building society. Most people in our increasingly materialistic and self-centred world would agree. This makes university a place of acquiring critical thinking skills as well as a place to brainwash a whole generation of naive uncritical students who are full of youthful open-mindedness.

My uni is run by femocrats. How do I know?

First, we have a gender equity officer. She is usually as woman. The Women's Collective is closely associated with her. They wrote a letter to the Student Union asking them not to be "disrespectful" to her, simply because they wanted to cut down funding. The Women's Collective (at my uni) exists only to weaken men and take away the future of children. It fights for abortion using the pretext that it is needed to "help" women, spreads the idea that there is no such thing as an immoral woman, while all men are immoral, while supporting women who have multiple romantic relationships are the same time.

Second, a vast majority of scholarships are given specifically for women. This has made women feel entitled to place themselves on the pedestal above men, and self-centred.

What a sad world we live in. I urge men to wake up to an ever demanding femocracy (not democracy) and stand up against it.

We will need campaigns for 'Violence against Men (by women)' in the future if this does not happen.