People who make Legitimate Politically Incorrect Criticisms are Socially "Inappropriate"

A typical situation in high school would be when another person, usually a 'popular' girl in my experience reprimanding someone for being socially "inappropriate", whatever "inappropriate" means. These days in the postmodern era, speaking for the truth whether it involves criticism of false doctrines is met with a backlash. Only for making legitimate criticism about a doctrine by attacking their logic. Most of the people who make such reprimandings are typically people who do not understand the doctrine or beliefs being criticised, and yet think that they are right to interfere with the freedom of speech of others. These people are typically very legalistic, and believe that the as long as something is socially acceptable, it is morally right. It seems that these people are the ones who need reprimanding. They are infected by the virus of political correctness.

These people, in my experience, typically become prefects in Australian schools because they are seen as
more "responsible" for having the initiative to call someone out for merely saying something true but not accepted as true. No wonder, our society is becoming more morally deluded because schools instill legalistic hypocritical politically correct values in students. It all starts in the educational system.

Feminist Indoctrination and Double Standards

Many people do not realise how indoctrinated they are by feminism. Feminism has blinded people, including men and boys themselves to think that they are the ones who are responsible for all the 'plight of women'. Google searches reveal 10 ways the world is sexist against men and boys, such as how boys are expected to always give in to the wishes of their girlfriends no matter how pushy or manipulative she has been. As someone brought up in a more conservative culture, as opposed to the liberal Australia culture living in Australia, I can see very clearly the double standards against men. On the other hand, women in the Australia, and perhaps the West at large, are not in any way reprimanded for being manipulative. In fact, I have seen how such manipulation by Australian women is encouraged - regarded as a sign of a "strong, "independent" woman. This sort of manipulation is considered one of the most despicable character traits in cultures where there is an obligation of respect for all others, such as in Asia.

No wonder men do not want to marry and have lost respect for women in the West. It it all too understandable.

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.

Typical Australian-style hypocrisy

Female doctors accuse pro-life doctor Mark Hobart of anti-abortion campaign after he refused a couple an abortion on the grounds that is was the killing of  a (baby) human as all abortions are. These doctors were saying that there were against sex-selective abortion, only on the grounds of gender. However, if it was not, it would be justifiable because it is a "choice" and the "right" to "control" one's body. A baby is not part of the mother's body. It has its own body.  Nothing to it. The views of those doctors if they were aborted themselves, would be completely different - in fact, quite the opposite. Abortion is murder. Yet, doctors claim it is need to save a life, but it does not take away the fact that it is the killing of a person. The hypocrisy of doctors who have these views smells of rotting stench. One could reasonably suspect that these feminist doctors would support the abortion of a boy for being a boy, but not a girl for being a girl. That is what feminism is.

Abortion is wrong for being what it is. Discrimination is also wrong, but not the reason why abortion is wrong in itself.

Characteristics of the Typical Australian University Student

There are several identifiable characteristics of the typical Australian university student. Most of them are influenced by their parents, as children are influenced by parents. Owing to the rise of the welfare state, and the very concept of liberalism, the country has produced a generation of degenerate, perverse people. These characteristics are:

1. Sense of self-entitlement - thinks that one deserves to be not only complemented, but treated as smart, attractive or worthy of respect, even when one is not.
2. Self-obsession 
3. Intoxicated without shame 24/7 such that their brains cannot function
4. Fornicators without shame, only to feel used, and yet blame others. 
5. Aggressive, but call it "assertive" because one should get what one wants
6. Racist towards ethnic minorities - refers to "Asian sluts" explicitly while most of them themselves do not behave in a better way, assumes that Indigenous people are all drunk, excludes Indigenous people and people of other ethnic minorities from the equality equation, 
7. Always talking about getting smashed
8. Dressing up inappropriately
9. Violent - two policewomen were telling of friend of mine that women are more violent then men. Many girls think it is a "right" to beat up their boyfriends. How do I know? I can see by the very way they speak to them and about it. It tells it all. 
10. Sense of superiority over international students - because they are racist
11. Critical attitude towards people of the stronger non-Western countries about their internal problems, out of pure hypocrisy. Seriously, Australia has no problems? This is truly OFFENSIVE. 
12. Sympathetic towards those "others" who are weak, but find it an eyesore when those who are weak become strong. Hence, the general dislike of East Asians, but a pretentious sympathy towards Central Asians.
13. Stereotypical attitudes towards people of non-Western cultures. - Majority of Australians treat the Asians, Africans, and Middle Easterners as all the same respectively. Some even lump together all the non-Western cultures as a bunch of machos, who don't believe in equality and fairness, and who disrespect minorities. 
14. Class warfare - hatred of those who earn more and assuming that those who earn more are thieves, when most of the haters do not get off their bottom to work harder. These haters are self-entitled people who think that they should earn more, even when they do not work as hard. Hence, a general dislike or hatred of East Asians who they think to be more hard-working than them.

Bigoted feminists (wait, I can't say that because they are WASP females)

A good friend of mine asked me why is it that I dislike feminism so much. Why? Because feminism is the ideology that women should have more privileges and power than men.

What is the evidence? Where is it? It is found in the media interviews and reports with the typical Australian female, that is, a WASP (White, Angry, Superior Proud Of It) feminist.

The sex discrimination commission of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Elizabeth Broderick once answered in reply to a question as to why she supported gender quotas, is "why should men control the supermarkets when there are women do the shopping?" One could ask her, why should women be control the hospitals when there are men who go to hospitals. Leigh Sales once said in an interview "I must ask myself would Kerry [O'Brien] have been asked to pose in a photography with his children". Sales does not realise that the reason why attention has been focused on (Western, not non-Western) women is that they make up the majority of the media.

But wait, I can't say that, even as a woman myself because they are Australian (read: Western) females, not men or women of ethnic minorities.

"You impose your views on me, but I don't impose mine on you", says the liberal

Modern universities are a propaganda tool for liberalism. Anyone who dares to even hold personal values or beliefs that are against liberal beliefs is deemed a bigot without question. The young university liberals think they are so inherently open-minded because they are progressive, liberal and, above all, anti-conservative. Most of those who do not get involved in politics or have a concern, the apolitical -  have liberal leanings: they believe that, if nothing else, one should not be a conservative. One should attack conservatives, never liberals even if the liberals are outrageous and act in a bullying manner.

The liberals say, "it's fine if conservatives have their views, but they should not impose it on others. They are the ones responsible for doing so, not the liberals." They say legislating with respect to (conservative) personal beliefs constitutes to imposing one's views on others. However, legislating with respect to liberal values is not imposing views on others? Do liberals not have personal beliefs? Regarding legislation, the values of some ideology, irrespective of what it is will ultimately underlie the law. That is the nature of policy. There is no policy that 100% of people are satisfied with, and you what? That's life. 

The liberals, of course, say that it does not impose views of others when its values are legislated with respect to because they provide "open choices" for all. But, there is a catch in this. What one may appear to be open choice is not always that - a choice. 

The Intolerance of Tolerance

These days, everyone, especially the anti-conservatives who are proud of the perception of themselves as open-minded, progressive, good citizens enforces the rule that one must be tolerant. What does this mean? One must accept with others say and believe, regardless of what it is. The truth, is that one cannot accept all ideologies, beliefs and values as some contradict. People who believe in a universal, objective truth are harshly criticised by the majority for being intolerant on postmodernist terms.

Postmodernists claim to be very open-minded, but they are against anyone who claims there is a universal, objective truth. How can this be "tolerant", for it is also against something - absolutism. This inconsistency reveals the hypocrisy of those who scream blue murder when someone believes in an absolute truth, but yet support those who attempt to impose their relativistic views on others.

It is true that some absolutists are hypocritical. That that of relativists of worse, as they pretend to be believe in no truths, but act as though this is the truth - their version of the truth.

What happens to money in a welfare state

What happens to money in a welfare state? Very simply. Government collects tax from  the working class and the business class. It then gives money to groups like:

• Prisoner' legal services;
• Unemployed people, some of whom are in desperate need of financial assistance;
• Refugee' legal services; and of course,
• Mothers, even if they are very rich, because only their contribution to the society counts. That of others do not. 

It forgets about:

• The elderly
• Single fathers
• Immigrants who work
• Indigenous people

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.

Radical Feminism in Australia

Check out this article about radical feminism in Australia:

http://antigones.fr/page/5/

Stop Political Correctness

There are many sickening double standards in society, but some of them can't even be spoken about. Others are considered legitimate. Political correctness is a way of enforcing whose rights are privileged and whose rights don't exist. The PC police often sides with minorities because it makes them look benevolent, when they are, in fact, cunning and devious. As long as PC is allowed the thrive, such entrenched, often minoritarian, double standards will triumph. It spells the death of community and wages more culture wars and division. 

Join Stop PC at https://www.facebook.com/groups/stoppc/

Freedom of Political Communication

Freedom of political communication is defined by the progressives. If freedom of political communication is truly free, it is not defined by any particular group, but by each individual. Why should the progressives tell us all what to say and what not to? It is ironic how it is offensive to criticise the progressives, but noble to criticise those against its agenda.

Welcome to the world with the progressives dictate what we can say.

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.

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"?

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.

The Media: "Some people deserved to be blamed more than others"

The media often talks about victim blaming. Victim blaming is often raised in relation to rape cases. A male asylum seeker was gang-raped in a detention centre as exposed by a whistleblower. Exposing such evil acts is noble without a doubt. This nobility can  be contrasted to the hypocrisy of the media regarding the way it reports such issues. 

It is true that no one seems to be really saying that the asylum seekers should not be in Australia regarding the case. However, the media does not ask questions about why something so terrible can happen to the victim in this case, a Pakistani male who is seeking refuge in privileged country. The media raises this question whenever people comment that a woman, typically a young, attractive Australian woman may not have had to be subject to such treatment had she not gone out at night. It says that its "victim blaming".

Blaming someone involves removing accountability from a perpetrator on the grounds that the perpetrator has a legitimate right to harm the victim. Therefore, saying that a victim may not have suffered something had they not been at the wrong place at the wrong time does not amount to victim blaming. It is merely a statement explaining the possibility of an event.