Interference with the Affairs of Others is Utterly Unnecessary and Stupid

Interfering with the private or personal affairs of others has become a socially and politically fashionable trend in the Australia. Whether you critique the beliefs of another culture, political group or religion, or, make a statement about how hard or annoying you find another to be, you are sure to have someone reprimand you for doing so as if it was a demonic evil thing you were doing. I've had that happen to me before. Forget about whether the person is in a position to understand what you are saying, it is absolutely patronising. It is also insulting when the person does not understand the framework from which you operate and they criticise you for being "intolerant", "bigoted" or being "unhelpful". The legitimate critiques people make are a private affair and need no reprimanding, and therefore unnecessary.

The only criticism that deserve criticism for being criticism are the ones that attempt to stop itself from being critiqued.

Letter to Rights Groups

To the Rights Groups

You are always talking about "rights", saying that the rights of what you call minorities are not respected. You tend to put these groups into discrete categories to the exclusion of all others - women, homosexuals, refugees and certain ethic minorities (but not all ethnic minorities). You are always trying to lecture us about equality and fairness.

If person of a "marginalised" group such as an ethic minority, woman, refugee or a homosexual commits a kills a person who is of a dominant  (redundant and outdated) group, it deserves to be treated with leniency. If a person of a dominant group even dares to think that a person of a "marginalised" group is untrustworthy, you would immediately demand that person by ostracised by society. You may say, it is not as though we demand that they be executed, but really, thinking someone is untrustworthy is not wrong in itself. You make it that only you can say that dominant groups are untrustworthy simply because you cannot accept their strength, rather than dominance.

You use the term dominance erroneously as many of those people of marginalised groups are very successful. You use it to psychologically induce people to accept your lies about victimhood.

You are not a decent bunch. You do not genuinely care about people - you are only after your own cunning self-interests to control those who you are jealous of.

The Centrists and Communalists

PS: We are the ones who you call "conservative".

Letter from Rights Groups

To everyone, in particular the dominant groups

Rights are entitlements that all people should be able to enjoy. Owing to the many injustices in this world, the rights to many people are eroded and it is always minorities who suffer. Minorities are people whose rights are neglected. Since about 99% of people do not care about the rights of others, we need to take radical action.

We need to take away the rights of dominant groups, because dominant groups oppress us. They are the ones who are evil and are always to be blames. It is true some of us are strongly disliked by dominant alpha groups, but how can we be evil? We support minorities for the good of humanity. People should not look down on us, they should look down on those who hate us. However, if we hate others, it is because we have a legitimate right to.

We claim rights to protect others. We are entitled to more rights than others because we are disadvantaged. The suffering we face is because of dominant groups. Who are these dominant groups? Men, straight people, people from rich, and increasingly strong non-Western countries or people of these cultures. These people are the ones who have no right to existence because we the minorities say so. What we the minorities say should not be questioned. We are not trying to control and silence others - we are trying to gain our needs.

In minoritarian solidarity

A Rights Group

PS: We are a minoritarian group that supports the rights of minorities.

Not giving enough weight to an unpopular argument (2)

Those of you readers from Russia would find this of great interest. The ABC's PM program covered a report titled 'Russia Passes Controversial Anti-Gay Law'. I could be wrong, but based on what I have seen in the Australia media, it appears to be perhaps the most controversial topic in Russia. The report appeared to give disproportionate weighting to the arguments against gay marriage and assumed that support for gay marriage is the only acceptable stance on this topic.

The report describes the opinions of two Russian MPs, Elena Drapeko and Tamara Pletnyova who voiced their opposition to gay marriages. It does not silence their opinion, but does not explore the reasoning behind their opinion. Instead, Macey goes on to say that supporters of the legislation are 'trying to protect Russia's young'. The report, on the other hand, allows opponent of the bill, Rodney Croome to logically give reason their views. 

Rodney Croome is the  national director of Australian Marriage Equality. So obviously, he has an interest in the legalisation of gay marriage for he himself is a homosexual. Croome criticises the law for preventing foreigners, including Australians for being able to speak nothing but negatively about homosexuality. He also criticises Russia for having laws that do not suit his values. Just like how every person, including him, has their own values, every country has their own values. He may be a lecturer in sociology, but this does not mean that he is always right about social values. Like everyone else, he has no right to change their values and behaviour to suit his self-interest. 

Croome finishes of the report as though he is able to conclude like an expert. He is an expert, that is, in the eyes of the ABC who are helping to champion the progressive agenda. The report is a subtle, cunning pro-homosexual propaganda which is an attempt to silence alternative views.

Last note: For those of you in Russia, could you please give your comment about whether it would be right to say that foreign media has attacked Russia for this law. Your insight would be appreciated. Thanks.

A Counter Revolution against the Norm

American cultural anthropologist Margaret Mead once said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."

Indeed, it is. However, whether the change is good or not is another matter. In a world that is becoming increasing feminist, The Antigones has started, not a movement, but a gathering of people to counter the increasing feminisation of the Europe, and the world at large. Some have labelled it an extremist group. Some  have expressed admiration for its courage to stand up for real womanhood which has been destroyed by radical feminist groups. Some have applauded it as the leader of an antifeminist counter-revolution.

Feminism has destroyed womanhood by telling women that they need to become like men or that women do not need men. It is based on the idea that women do not need men in the family, community or social life. It has failed to recognise that men and women are inherently different and that both have different gifts. Everyone has gifts that are given to them to serve others, not harm or hurt others. Individualistic ideologies, including feminism has conditioned society to think that help others is a sign of oppression.

The Antigones embodies real womanhood and femininity. It makes it clear that real womanhood is not about disempowering men. It is about empowering men. Only when men and women help each other will there be community. One's sexuality is a unique gift, not a curse. Feminism uses the historical injustices faced by women as a pretext to disempower men, leading to the breakdown of families and hence, community.

Watch the video message from The Antigones to Femen, a radical feminist group. 

What!? No election campaign ads yet?

Have you realised that there have been no election campaign advertisments launched by either the Australian Labor Party or the Liberal National Party? It would just cost too much money.

That Julia Gillard called the federal election shows that she wants to maintain government for a little longer in case they loose because they have no confidence, and to repair their many internal party and policy problems. This shows that the ALP is one that is damaged.

It is now up to ALP to repair what they can. Whether they can swing unsure voters and whether the masses can forgive them for what they did to a democratically elected leader will determine the results of the upcoming election on the 14 September 2013.

Equality: What it really means (2)

Equality, as it is understood in the postmodern world means no differences in the role played in the community or family. However, difference in roles does not mean inequality of social status. It follows from the postmodern understanding of equality that only where there are no difference in roles that people are of equal status, and that no one is a subordinate. No longer does equality mean having an equal chance or access. Equality is the inherent dignity of each human being to be treated the same as others. It is not a mere social construct, but what is means to be treated as a human. Equal opportunities does not mean that social differences between people must be eliminated. A society can be a diverse one, in which different people play different roles to build the community.

Equality: What it really means (1)

Equality is term with strong emotional connotations. We like to fight for equality (more often than not for ourselves, while ignoring the injustices others face), we like to fight for our rights. Only those whose position are regarded as worthy enough to be equal become the subject of such civil rights or political movements. If only some are worthy to be treated as equals, who should they be treated as equals and, more importantly why only some people, not all people? That some are worthy enough to be treated as equals is an oxymoron. Equality is about treating every person with the same dignity and that people are treated based on their behaviour. It is not a matter of having the same roles in the community or family. It is a matter is being treated the same as others on the basis of behaviour, not personal characteristics.

That 'all [people] are equal, but some are more equal that others' accurately describes the true state of affairs, especially of that in the postmodern world. The rights of the poor, the unemployed and the persecuted are often neglected. It has never been, not is it popular to fight for the rights of the poor and the persecuted. How often have you heard of the term "pauper's rights", compared to "women's rights" and "children's rights"? Such terms are coined for political purposes, to gives the movement political ground.

"You can't impose your morality on us" (2)

Pro-abortionists are the other group of people who use this catch phrase. They may called themselves pro-choice, but pro-choice is pro-abortion because only abortion gives that choice, the choice to kill a baby. Similarly, like pro-homosexual advocates who use the title liberalists, pro-abortions now call themselves fighters of reproductive justice. If everyone deserves the right to be free from violence and to not be murdered, then would it not be wrong to kill a person who is still unborn? An unborn baby is a person.

Foetus in the womb who is clearly alive. 

ABC journalist Stella Young, who is a disability advocate is open about her support for abortion. As a disability activist, however, she is irked about killing babies who are disabled for being disabled. Some pro-abortions use the pretext of rape, that it is not a woman's fault that she became pregnant when raped. Neither is it a woman's fault when she is not raped. So you see, it is not only about the woman! The child has an equal right to life as the woman. Even in cases where the mother's life is in danger, abortion is not justified. Abortion is the deliberate killing of a baby.

All people who support abortion were once foetuses. I urge all pro-abortionists to remember that they were once foetuses. Their mothers choose life for them, not her own life over theirs. Abortion is inexcusable.