Letter by An Anarchist

Dear Radical Progressive

The term 'politics' is used by the radical progressives to label groups with views that conflict their views. The conservatives also do the same. Who is right? Who is wrong? One cannot tell what is 'political' and what is not simply by reacting to such debates based on emotion, sympathy and tuning in the the hype, or following popular opinion.

Politics, in the true sense of the term, is about getting what one wants. Therefore, all humans are inherently political. However, getting what one wants to see is not necessarily bad. Seeking to do good for others is not a bad motive. Unfortunately, politics in modern Australia is almost, if not always about seeking to serve a cunning, devious agenda based on lies.

Thus, it is understandable that people do not trust what you say, and that people think you are crazy or mentally ill. You turn black into white, white into black. You spread rumours through manipulating cold, hard statistics which undermine your sinister, disgusting agenda. You brainwash people into think you are a victim, when you are in fact, a militant aggressor. You are like a watermelon - green on the outside, red on the inside.

You should be ashamed of accusing the conservatives of being hypocritical when they express their sincere opinion about your views on community, family and marriage - the key institutions which build society. You say your agenda will be good for the community as a whole, and have admitted you are only seeking to satisfy your own selfish interests. You know your "logical" social framework will not work. You understand it only lead to destruction. Yet you say you want to serve the community.

Your hypocrisy is appalling. I have no sympathy for your cries for help. You do not deserve sympathy.

Hope you realise that the best political system is no political system.

Regards

An Anarchist

Great Quotes from the Dear Readers of Good Writing

Hi Friends

I have some great quotes made by from some of the readers of Good Writing in real-life scenarios:

"The only political system is no political system."

[Referring to a politician] "He's like Kevin Rudd. He's everything [that people want to hear] to everybody."

The Law is No Silver Bullet for Social Stability

Some others argue that the law should be based on rights to ensure social stability. Social stability concerns whether people are more likely to engage in antisocial behaviour that harms others. Provided people do not harm others in the positive sense, there is no be no legal reproach towards the one who does not interfere with the action of others. Interfering with the actions of others is to act in a way that discourages or stops the actions of others. This idea is the core of Asian thinking. Asian countries do not tend to interfere with the internal affairs of other countries on the grounds that there is a perceived need to help those other countries.

However, the law can be seen as merely a set of rules drafted by the government. Whether these laws are followed and accepted by the society subject to the law is another matter. Whether people follow the law determines whether the law operates as a framework for society to work. Enforcement is practised to ensure that people comply with the law, however, enforcement alone does not make people follow the law. Whether the law serves as a social framework is inherently dependent on whether they are accepted. In some cultures, the law is regarded as something that exists for political reasons rather than to protect the needs of people. This is especially true in authoritarian states, but is also true in liberal democracies.

The law is indeed limited in its ability to control the way people behave. It does not matter how tough the laws of a country is. If people do not see that they are to be followed, and  choose not to follow them, social stability is not maintained. However, without laws, social stability would be worse. The concept of rights is what justifies the need for laws to protect human dignity.

Academia in modern universities treats the law as though it is the silver bullet for protecting human dignity. However, it is not.

The Concept of Rights and Happiness

It is a well accepted idea in these days that there is no such thing as an absolute right and wrong. In fact, anyone who dares to make such a statement is labelled as proud, arrogant, hypocritical, or negative. With regards to negativity, it is not a matter of whether a statement implies something and explicitly makes a negative comment. I dare ask the postmodernist, if you think there is no right or wrong, what is "negative" with respect to ethics and morality? We are so inculcated with the idea of no absolutes and that everything is not only open for interpretation, it is as one interprets. This is the core of postmodernism. 

Many argue that the concept of rights is not a matter of morality, it is about achieving human happiness. Human happiness is all we need, we have been taught, and it all seems to make sense. Whenever we lose happiness, all we think is how do we regain it. Many of us devote our lives to buying happiness, beauty, love, health, power and influence. Do these things really make us content with who we are? Do they? I urge anyone to challenge me for saying that we can chase after these things, only to lose them. 

The question that remains is whether helping people, or even emancipating the rights of the marginalised bring happiness.  Sometimes, we can have so much freedom and yet be unhappy. Having such freedom or even protection of human dignity may lead to happiness, but such a framework is not enough to justify why the law should care for the rights of others. 

Everything's a matter of interpretation (except when it offends me)

These days in the West, everything is a matter of interpretation. Words have no meaning, and a construct. In our modern individualist society, where the individual is paramount, words have a meaning that depends on what the individual says. It is now up to the individual to define words on one's terms. This many sound very egalitarian and communalistic by not imposing on people any code of conduct regarding the use of words. However, this has lead to the battle of opposing groups to decide what is offensive and what is not.

This era of postmodernism has lead to the cloud of repression which seeks to control the thoughts and expression of people. People can longer express their opinion about certain things because their opinion is deemed "offensive" in itself. The cloud of repression empowers the political correctness police made up of certain identifiable categories of ideologues to impose their views of others such that anything who do not conform is ostracised. Political correctness has now dominated our thinking. The PC police is getting stronger and recruiting more unsuspecting people into a trap - a freedom trap which twists the definition of freedom and liberty.

Tony Abbott has been a casualty of the PC war. He was lambasted by the media for saying a female colleague has sex appeal, but a woman would not have been lambasted if she said the same of a man. These days, a feminist woman can say anything, but her enemies (conservative women and men) can't because their views are "irrelevant" and "outdated". This is because the feminists are now deemed to be ones that can dictate who says what, among other progressive radical groups. The hypocrisy of the PC police wreaks of the most repugnant stench.

The adoption of PC starts at university where students must follow the politically correct norm with the pretext that it is the way in live in society. Students and lecturers who criticise certain groups from a "conservative" perspective are silenced because no university wants to look naive and conservative. It is in the best interests of every university to look enlightened. Progressiveness is the new Enlightenment.

Indeed, the silencing of the truth cannot be changed by a single individual, but it can change when the ignorant masses realise what type of society we live in - one that oppresses what is true and fights for all perversion.

Social Progressivism is about Only helping Minorities

It seems that helping only minorities (what is a minority in the first place?) is the only acceptable form of humanitarianism. Any suggestion that helping the dominant is not only laughable but wrong, and supportive of the redundant, archaic conservative "capitalist", "imperialist" agenda. The progressive radicals think attempt to make people feel sympathetic towards these privileged minorities and nothing but anger and hatred towards the oppressed dominant.

'Oppressed dominance' is not an oxymoron. It is the oppression of the dominant groups that they cannot complain or even speak of their ill-treatment. These is the oppression. The privilege of the minorities is that they can use their identity to cry victim. Anyone who even suggests that they are not so innocent, or not innocent at all, for that matter is ostracised the progressives.

It seems that the progressives scream blue murder as soon as people attempt to critique them. It is only ironic that they don't realise that they can be the most extremist, bigoted and hypocritical bunch of all.

The sad thing is that this idea that the minorities cannot never be privileged and that he dominant can never be oppressed is what drives university education.

University is the breeding ground for the Ghosts of Minoritarianism. These ghosts ran rampant where the university graduates go to work in - everywhere.

What they taught at School

At school,
They taught you that the Australian society is
One that is fair, equal and communalistic,
They hammered into our head that
We need to respect other cultures, beliefs and religions
And to not challenge them, but let them change our identity
They would tell us, as though some gospel truth that the "fair go" should be our ideal
Now that you have grown up,
You realise we are not as fair to all other people
As we should be
You realise we let the underdogs take advantage of the more powerful
And yet say that it's fair enough
You realise that many cannot bear
The sight of another becoming more successful
But yet felt the deepest sympathy when they were weak
Anyone who even dares to comment on
Women (of the majority ethnic groups), homosexuals or
Ethnic minorities of poor countries or
Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims or Jews
Is  "sexist", "homophobic", or "racist" or "intolerant"
But anyone who casually makes fun of
Men, and ethnic minorities of rich non-European countries
Especially rich Asian countries
Is praised as a hero to be placed on a pedestal
Where is the "fair go"?

The Hidden Agenda of the Typical Lecturer

Most lecturers at university have a personal, moral, or worse still, a political agenda to influence students in negative ways. Many lecturers in the postmodern age  have liberal values which are based on postmodern philosophies. Postmodernism is responsible for many of the twisted and illogical  ideologies of the modern world such as feminism, liberalism, identity politics and progressivism.

The reason why so many lecturers have liberal values is that universities like to have a progressive rather than conservative image, an image associated with being educated and sophisticated, rather than naive and backwards.

This is why university students need to be able to challenge not only the views of lecturers, but be able to attack the logic of these views. Once the logic is attacked, one can get a foothold and expose their twisted ideologies.

Beware of cunning deceitful lecturers

Academia has contributed much to the philosophical pandemonium faced by our modern world, in particular, the youth of today around the world. These philosophies have been incalcated in the minds of many, influencing the way we think, act, live and ultimately, how we will lead the next generation.

What one thinks is very important. It determines one's outlook in life and how one will behave. How one behaves has a huge impact on others, and ultimately, the world. For every act you make, you are influencing others to do the same. Indeed, every individual has the potential to influence. Therefore, it is crucial that the modern youth develops a "capacity for doubt" and a "hankering for the truth".

I will explore how many seemingly academic, logical philosophies are really not as logical as they really are in the next few posts.

Media = Hypocrisy

These past 5 or so posts sum up the media's unethical bias towards certain groups who position they can exploit and its hypocrisy. This bias has influenced the Australian society to perceive different groups the way the media has represented them as the media is the source of news. No news as reported by the media is completely objective.

Each is told from a certain perspective. However, some perspectives are more legitimate than others as they are more truthful and less self-centred in the sense of being demanding of one's own rights.

"I support the underdog (because they can't beat me)"

Egalitarianism seeks to ensure that there are no superiors, the "tall poppies". However, there are people who do deserve more rewards than others by their merit. The underdog is someone is who is assumed to not be given equality opportunities, or a "fair go". However, it is not always true that a weaker group or person (oops, not being PC) deserves more help, or is even not given a fair go. Many in our egalitarian society support the underdogs, but when they become stronger, these supporters can't bear to see the success. Those who had been underdogs become an eyesore.