Guilt-tripping, Rights and Oppression

Person A: "There are no such things as rights."

Person B: "What about discrimination against [demographic group of Person A]?"

Person B above has engaged in guilt-tripping, to make Person A feel guilty. This is the evil technique liberalists like Person B use, to push forward liberalism. Rights and oppression come together. Rights are a self-perceived entitlement to have and do as one chooses, leading to bullying.

If you talk to me about rights, don't you DARE use guilt-tripping. There is no such thing as rights, only obligations to be kind to others and be righteous.

Accommodating for Evil

In the age of tolerance, people love to talk about being 'compassionate' for people who demand their rights and declare their victimhood as though it was something to be celebrated. This has lead to society accommodating for immorality. Many liberalists in Australia and the West love to point out how discriminatory Asia is in the way it treats rioting minorities and single mothers. But, isn't that because many liberalists love to be 'tolerant'?

To be Discriminated Against is the New Black

No one likes to be discriminated against. Of course, you may say, no one likes it. But why is it so fashionable to scream 'DISCRIMINATION!' in Australia, as though it was something to be proud of? Because it gets one attention from the media and makes people feel guilty about their "higher" social status (as the "victim" constructs it). It is so fashionable to be discriminated against the Australia.

Darwinism (4): Practical Applications of Darwinism

Darwinism has been applied by fascists and dictators to dehumanise people - literally. Hitler argued that Jews were not people by using pseudo-scientific arguments that drew from Darwinist evolution. Mao and Stalin used Darwinism to justify the mass murders of their own people.

For Counterexamples to Evolution see: http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Evolution

Human Selfishness Proved by Psychological Studies

Psychological studies have shown that people are more likely to help others who are perceived to be victims only if they can be categorised together to have a common characteristic. (Levine, M., Cassidy, C., Brazier., G., & Reicher, S. (2002). Self-categorization and bystander non-intervention: Twoexperimental studies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(7), 1452 – 1463.) This, I believe is not a propaganda tool. It is a plausible claim. Just look at all the media attention and public attention devoted to  Jill Meagher when she was raped and murdered. Compare this attention to a person of an ethnic minority or a man.

The media is controlled by mainly feminists who identify with only middle-class, cultured, Western career women like themselves. The psychological theory which has been thoroughly studies explains why these stuck-up hypocritical bastards from the media who preach "tolerance", value the lives of Westerners over Africans, Indigenous Australians, Jews, Asians and anyone else who is not an Australian Westerner.

Whatever your opinion about the blatant media bias, the theory shows human selfishness that is inherent in all humans.

What Discrimination Really is

Australians yell out "discrimination" every time their self-perceived entitlement or  "right" is "violated". There is no such thing as a "right"  in the objective universal sense. There are only categorical imperatives to do or not do so certain things. Thus, discrimination cannot arise when one's right is violated, it only occurs when people break the categorical imperatives. Categorical imperatives are what every person must follow for the imperative to operate universally. This is the core of the Kantian theory of ethics. Discrimination occurs when people treat some more harshly or lenient than others with respect to fulfilling these obligations.

Of course, for a country in which obligations are foreign, and any call for obligation is equated to slavery, no one in Australia would understand this, except for a very few.

Stop Political Correctness Facebook Page Slogan

Modern universities are a propaganda tool for liberalism. Anyone who holds alternative beliefs is considered a bigot. How open-minded are the liberals.

And in Chinese for the fun of it:

现代大学是一个自由主义的宣传工具。任何人谁拥有另类的信仰被认为是一个偏执狂。如何开明的自由派。

Sociology: The Indoctrination Machine

The Chairman of China, Xi Jin Ping once said that, to foreigners, there is not one China, but a thousand different slices of China.  What a profound phrase! There are indeed many ways to look at society. One sees society through one's lens which has been shaped by one's values and beliefs.

Sociology is the study of society. Hence, in sociology, one of the subjects which I have studied, social theories are taught. There are many ways to look at society, and this is no cliche. Sometimes, what others interpret as a lack of something, may not be seen as an issue by another because the latter believes the lack is not a lack at all.

 For example, people in Asia do not talk about rights. Instead, these people talk about communalistic obligations. People in the West may see this a dangerous because it leads to entrenched discrimination because people are not able to fight for what they see as rights. However, people from communalistic societies could argue that  allowing people to fight for rights leads to unacceptable selfish behaviour and does not stop discrimination. Different social groups have a different framework of thinking, and hence a different social structure.

Sociology courses in Western universities are based on humanistic, rights-based framework. It is not an objective ideology that all must submit to, but a subjective one. It is a perspective. The dangerous thing about sociology courses is that lecturers are in a position to indoctrinate students with ideologies that are dangerous - ones that incite hatred against certain groups who are against the liberal regime, in the guise of tolerance. Tolerance, in which one must support certain minorities and hate those who are against them. This is the hidden agenda that infiltrates modern universities - the intolerance of tolerance.

The Hidden Face of Racism

There is a clear distinction between immigrants, former immigrants and the children of immigrants from non-Western countries, and those who of the dominant ethnic group in Australia. This distinction is imposed by society. 

Many Australians are extremely ignorant of non-Westerners in terms of their behavior, thinking, culture and lifestyle. They make the most ridiculous assumptions about non-Westerners. 

Asians are assumed to be all the same - hardworking, but insular and negative about others, and not to be trusted because they are too capable

Middle Easterners are assumed to be all the same - Muslim, and insular and narrow-minded, but to be admired for any outstanding achievements because they thought to be are not as capable in the work force.

Africans are assumed to be all the same - refugees, umemployed, of a lower mentaliy and responsible for crime

Aborigines are assumed to be all the same - drunkards, violent, and incapable of finding work 

This is the truth about racism, in its latent, hidden form, in Australia.

What a University Education Should Be

The purpose of encouraging people to undergo university education should not be to merely get some qualifications, on top of enjoying leisure. It should be about developing character and understanding more about the society, culture and values. It is not a means to an end, but an means to another mean. Education is a life long process indeed. 

Many modern universities are infiltrated by liberal thinking academics who attempt to indoctrinate naive, uncritical thinking university students, who make up the majority, by teaching certain philosophies are rational, fundamental or objective. Some stop students who have alternative views, that is, conservative views from speaking out by using fear tactics in classrooms. 

Such students are increasingly seen as "racist", "sexist", "homophobic" or "illogical" because conservatives make up a minority - sometimes a minority of one. Conservatives have what many see as outdated, irrelevant or redundant ideologies which deserve to be punished. In addition to this, the student body in charge of providing services to students can use their position to silence alternative voices, while claiming that they speak for all, simply because politically incorrect alternative views have no place in a liberal university.

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 Rise of Advocacy Journalism

The media has increasingly engaged in advocacy journalism. Advocacy journalism is now the norm in Australia. Its principle is that it should report in a way which helps certain groups, especially minority groups. This is the new media bias. The Australian Broadcasting Channel would be the leader of the new media bias. It makes it look not only normal, but fashionable to engage in advocacy journalism. Leigh Sales and Chris Uhlmann should win the Logies for Advocacy Journalism. I will analyse an interview between Uhlmann and Opposition Immigration spokesman Scott Morrison in a later post. 

The media uses 7 main techniques to paint a picture that makes certain groups look like they are suffering or more oppressed  than others. What if they are, you may ask. While it may be true, it is important to very carefully analyse any media report that seems factual. 

These 7 techniques are:

1. Deliberate propaganda - distortion of facts, statistic
2. Institutional bias - reporting of events based on the ideological framework of the media organisation. The media organisation is too arrogant to accept that the views of others may also be legitimate. 
3. Sensationalism - appeal to the emotion rather than reason. These reports tend to use dramatic sound and visual effects to make people feel more emotional towards the people. They tend to make the audience either feel disdain towards the archtypical criminal and sympathy towards young attractive women who behave inappropriately.
4. Omission - leaving out facts or phrases made by interviewees that would distort the picture. Look very carefully whenever a news show like 7:30 report presents a taped interview
5. Political correctness or sensitivity - fear of offending certain racial, cultural, religious groups. They tend to downplay the unacceptable actions of people of minorities while thinking it is acceptable to blame the dominant groups for the problems and struggles faced by minorities. Totally unacceptable in the eyes of anti-minoritarians.
6. Confirmation bias - facts are presented in way that represents different groups in the light that the majority thinks they are. It reinforces negative stereotypes of dominant groups and positive (erroneous) stereotypes of "minority" groups
7. Audience bias - the media organisation knows that most of its audience have a certain ideology and hence, present stories that only present facts from its framework. This is why some media websites ask its viewers about their age, gender, residence, political parties, views about certain issues, etc. These factors influence a person's views.

How an Egalitarian Society can Encourage Reverse Discrimination

Despite what majority of people think, discrimination is prevalent everywhere, even in an egalitarian society like Australia. Egalitarianism is not about fairness or justice. Egalitarian is merely about not having anyone put oneself as superior to others. Not having any "tall poppies" has nothing to do with fairness or justice. It only concerns people not elevating their position or status above others. Isn't that fairness, you may say. No, its not. Egalitarianism can give rise to, as it has in Australia, reverse discrimination on the grounds that the underdogs need to be privileged to be given a fair go.

Those of underdog status often abuse their status by playing victim to force others, the silent dominant groups whether majority or minority into control. Sounds familiar? It should. Not all the minorities by population abuse their status to control the dominant groups and force them into submission to their will. Egalitarianism has lead those of "underdog" status to do so. Such reverse discrimination is often worse than that of the majority because those perceived underdog status are able to legitimise such discrimination. Those who do not cry victim cannot legitimise discrimination. The differences in ability to legitimise discrimation is discrimation in itself. Those who use their "underdog" status to do so such hang their heads in shame.

It's Not Possible for me to Discriminate, but it is Possible for Others to Discriminate

It is generally accepted that there are no truths. It follows from this premise that every view is equally valid. No view should take dominance over others, or so, as the postmodernists (or radicals) like to maintain. Are the postmodernists really neutral? The postmodern progressive left have set a certain set of standards that the  general society should following, on the grounds that equally can only be achieved by collective tolerance and respecting the views of others to be equally valid. This has allowed some groups to claim that others are discriminating against them simply because they are criticised by others. The groups that criticise others for the wrongness of their actions are silenced because on grounds that their views are not correct.

The hot topics of our modern society such a racism, homophobia and misogyny have been subject to the postmodernist respectful guise of tolerence. Anyone who criticises a group for being unethical or immoral is immoral or corrupt themselves because they are making their views dominant. This seems to make sense from a postmodernist perspective, but isn't this rebuttal a criticism in itself? Since, it is a criticism of another's views, isn't it just as wrong to make such a criticism. For one to criticise others for being critical of one, while being critical of that criticism is one of height of hypocrisy. 

This is exactly the radical left does. Those who are against them are bigots, those who are for them are virtuous. This hypocrisy is one of the most devious, disgusting kind, that deserves the greatest criticism. It deserves the utmost shame. 

It is based on the erroneous premise that "it is not possible for me to discriminate, but it is possible for others to discriminate". It is not a matter of being left or right. It is a matter of truth versus lies. 

Sympathy for Minorities Simply because they are Minorities

The Australian society is one that is very liberal. In being liberal, it is one that places a strong emphasis on empowering minority groups. However, many people forget that majority groups can become victims at the hands of those in the minority groups. The flipside of this is that, minority groups become empowered by virtue of their status as a "marginalised", "victimised" and "disadvantaged" minority. Minorities can escape blame for violence, abuse or insults directed against dominant groups. Dominants groups cannot. I am not for a moment saying that it is a game of dominant  v minority, but the modern Australian media and the progressive radical left have made this the case.

The sympathy shown to minorities simply because they are minorities is based on the erroneous, naive assumption that minorities can do no harm. Minorities can do much harm, and in fact, more harm that dominant groups. Take this example. Many people assume that women cannot commit violence. That is not true at all. Statistics show that women are equally likely to commit violence. Feminists may (naturally) criticise this statement as one that is based on social expectations and roles of women. However, the truth is that no one should be acting violently towards any person in the first place. This has nothing to do with gender roles whatsoever. Laws have been put in place to protect women, but not men from domestic violence and custody disputes. Women in Australia have been able to escape blame in broken down child custody disputes. Men cannot simply because they are expected to be loyal to their wives, whereas women who leave their husbands are assumed to be suffering at the hands of their husbands.

 Sympathy for minorities simply because they are minorities is evil. It is discrimination that is worse than that perpetrated by dominant groups because it allows people to escape blame. The progressives say this is "equality". The truth is that it is anything but equality.

Political Correctness: A Pretext for Some Being More Equal than Others

Political correctness is used as a tool by some groups to silence others from expressing their views about certain sensitive issues. Some are not allowed to express their views because their views are different from others, that is of course, the political correctness police. Only those who impose the rule of political correctness are allowed to because they are "marginalised". They claim to be marginalised, but they are dominant. They are wolves dressed in sheep's clothing. Anyone who follows them are the sheep who are mislead by the sinister and devious agenda of the political correctness police.

As a result of the sensitivity of issues imposed by political correctness, the left and right, the secular and religion, heterosexual and homosexual, male and female have become more polarised than ever. Anyone who is one of either the right (conservative), religious, heterosexual or male is no longer free to express one's views. Instead, any on these categories of people who express their views is deemed as 'dangerous' or 'cannot be trusted' because their views are invalid.

Academics, journalists, professionals and politicians who impose political correctness and enforce it are the most hypocritical bunch. They claim political correctness must be imposed to maintain freedom of belief and freedom of speech, but do not support it when it is against them. They only support it to use it against others.

Shame on anyone who dares makes this a devious or manipulative statement. 

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.

The Slaughter

A cow is looked after by its master. The master's duty is to look after it.
Thus, a cow should obey it. This used to be the case.
Now, cows have rebelled against their masters;
Anyone who rebels against their master is one who do not care for others.

They seem friendly, but they are aggressive.
They seem smart, but they are foolish.
They seem innocent, but they are domineering.
They seem benevolent, but they are manipulative.

Above all, they are proud.

They complain when others don't understand them.
But they always get away with it when they mistreat others because
They can claim that they are victimised.
Their life is focused on accumulating
Wealth, power and pleasure.
To fatten themselves, ready for the slaughter

They do not know of the path they are leading.
They are not ready for slaughter and
Laugh when others talk about it.
Slaughter is facing them at any time.

A cow has come to the end of her life.
Pleading with her master to spare her life
She claims "I did not know".
"You did know," her master replies, "but you failed to prepare yourself".
For there is no excuse.

Two shots are fired.
Upon the first shot, she falls to the ground.
"She deserved it," the righteous say.

So the fattened cow was remembered as
The one who was not ready for slaughter

Insanity, Debauchery and Hypocrisy

Australians often think that their own culture is great one. Australians condemn violence against women (which has become a more important topic that violence against other groups), do not support war and respect others, and above all, treat everyone as equals. However, before we can analyse Australian cultural attitudes, we must ask who is considered 'Australian' and who is not in the people who live on this land of Australia?

Everyone must ask themselves, how do we treat people of other groups, before we can really call ourselves an egalitarian society.

I will explore the following in the next blog posts:

• Secularism and how Christian minorities are treated
• Sexual ethics
• Australian women
• Racism and sexism directed towards men and women of ethnic minorities
• Egalitarianism

Don't fall for her because She's Hot

A young woman wanted to show everyone how she "had it all". She achieved straight 7's academically, and could always be seen hanging about with the same group of girlfriends. All her friends had boyfriends, so wanted to have five. She was not kind to others, but she no problem getting five boyfriends because she was hot.

She used s*x to get all five. They all paid for "it". Her boyfriends were feared by everyone, especially the less mature boys, because they enjoyed watching them wince whenever they would be bullied by the alpha females. They were alpha males.

The young woman had been going out with her alpha males for a month, when one of them become physically involved with another girl. Angered, she vowed that she would not trust men ever again, because one of the five boyfriends left her for another.

The Women's Collective held a rally to sought to help women who had been facing relationship problems with men. She spoke at the rally:

"I want to help women who have been bullied by men. I know from the bottom of my heart how it feels, I have been through this myself. I want to empower women to feel good about themselves in relationships."

All the feminists cheered in approval.

Everyone else knew what had really been going on. She had seduced all five of her boyfriends who were going out with other girls. A right-thinking person would think that she had learnt her lesson, but she had not.