Hollywood Exposed (3): Boys gone Mad

Similarly, Hollywood is full of bad boys who glorify violence, drunkness, misogyny and aggression. They encourage boys to degrade themselves by getting smashed, taking drugs, being violent and breaking the law.

However, they have been judged more than Hollywood bad girls. Much judgment has been directed towards them by women's groups to claim to seek ending the exploitation of women and girls. Why do such activists not criticise the Hollywood women who are equally bad, and influence young women to degrade themselves? It is because they think women are 'morally superior'.

What people see on screen has a much greater effect than one knows. Until one is shocked into seeing how much one is influenced by TV, one will be influenced by it.

Why are so Many Men Scared of their Wives? Advice for marriage

Why? It is because their wives are bossy, evil, conniving hags who seek to control them using emotional techniques. These women pretend to be so sweet, but are really a bunch of serpents. Women often pander to men, but belittle their men when they don't give them what they want.

Many men in China today, a family-orientated culture, do not visit their families, all because of their wives. Their wives do not encourage them to because they don't like their family. How sad! No wonder divorces are increasing, and thus, one should not simply blame men just because they feel they can't cope with their marriages. This social phenomenon of men being scared of their wives is present universally.

Take Obama's wife for example. Her scowling, screwed face, when Obama was just taking a selfie with the English and Dannish PM was evident of her controlling aggression.

To the modern controlling conniving wife: if your husband wants to divorce you, it might be because of you. Don't just blame him because he doesn't think he can cope with you anymore. It is more likely that it is because of the way you treat him.

Advice to men: Never marry a woman who thinks you need to serve her to satisfy her by her standards. Such women are selfish, conniving hags.

Backlash?

Sweden, reportedly, has an oppressive radical feminist government. According to the writer of the blog, Why I Left Sweden,  despite high living standards that are the envy of the world, the culture is one that is oppressive, particularly towards men. People often think that their actions will not have consequences, but they do. A video in Sweden depicts a group of young women who not only murdered a man, but celebrated it. Videos, and the media generally indicate the culture of a country, but not always. Could this possibly explain any rise in violence against women and rape in Sweden, or any other feminist country for that matter?

Critique of Melinda Tankard Reist's 'We must follow France and Put an End to Exploitation'

Melinda Tankard Reist has been described as a conservative feminist, (whatever that means) who fights against abortion, pornography and violence. While these are plausible goals, one could argue that her focus is too narrow by excluding boys and men who are subject to pornography. Furthermore, it can be argued that she assumes that all women in prostitution do so involuntarily.

 In her article, We must follow France and Put an End to Exploitation, she uses the death of Tracy Connelly as a example to suggest that all prostitutes want a way out. However, there are many who do it for the easy money and pleasure in any country. She also asks why the government has not made legislated to help prostitutes on the grounds that they are exploited as though only prostitutes are the only people in the world being exploited. While it is absolutely wrong to exploit anyone at all, it is not merely governmental responsibility to stop exploitation. The community has a larger responsibility in preventing exploitation by teaching children family and community values as the government is not a body that can stop everything immoral.

The ultimate silence that Reist makes is that prostitution damages men and children, not just women. It destroys families. What destroys men destroys families, what destroys families destroys communities, what destroys communities destroys a nation. This silence is deafening and so it appears that Reist is only trying to put forward her self-righteous agenda which only focuses on a favoured section of the community, rather than the community as a whole.

Any fight against the vices of the world needs to be done out of love for all others including those who are unlovable and cruel, not out of a legalistic sense of duty or moral outrage.

Imagine a Boot Stamping on a Human Face

Imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever. This is what Big Brother said to Winston, the protagonist of George Orwell's 1984 who sought to resist a totalitarian government, but tragically failed to do so. Sadly enough, one need not imagine such a violent oppressive act. One need only see what is happening through the news and by personal observation.

Australia is becoming increasingly violent. A man stomped on someone's head as a act of violence in New South Wales. This is only one is many cases of violence. However, such acts of violence against a man is not portrayed by the media as something that is shocking or even unacceptable. It is portrayed as something normal and tolerable, fueling a culture of violence. Only acts of violence against Australian women are portrayed as unacceptable and worthy of condemnation, whereas acts of violence against all others are unworthy of any media attention. In addition to this, speaking out against the media for omitting such acts is considered 'sacrilege' in our culture because speaking out about media bias towards its favourite group incites 'violence against (read: Australian) women'.

Silence about evil is worse than the act of evil itself. Thus, the media is a boot that stamps on the faces of certain groups by politicising the suffering of others.  The media is the root of all hypocritical "benevolence".

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.

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.

Beware the Nice Sweet Person

There has been a great deal of campaigns in Australia regarding violence, that is, violence against (Australian?) women but not violence against other groups. Violence is force used against someone such that the victim is unable to resist it, to control the behaviour of the subject in the long term or short term. Physical acts which perpetrate such force are obvious, but verbal abuse is not. This is because it is hard to determine whether verbal messages cause someone to behaviour accordingly to another's will. Furthermore, behaving according to the will of another may not necessarily be done out of lack of individual autonomy.

The signs of a violent person are:

• repetitive or constant swearing
• immodest dressing
• often gathering together with people who are aggressive
• intentionally rude gestures
• unsympathetic 
• appreciation/taste for crude jokes, especially jokes which make fun of oppression or weakness of others, but yet feel offended when people make jokes about them
• attempting to spread ideology that picks on only certain groups while forgetting it own group regarding violence e.g. feminism, in particular Australian feminism

If there is one piece of advice I could give you, it would be that people who seem nice and demand good respectful treatment, usually in a way which makes you feel bad because you know you haven't done anything wrong are the people who can be trusted the LEAST. There are many people like this at the university I attend, and perhaps in the whole country. The domestic university student population is largely representative of Australian youth. This  should remind you of certain people. The Jezebel spirit has entrapped Australian society.

Australia: The land where the victim can be in a "dominant" group

Australia is very pro-minoritarian country, in particular feminist and full of violence. Political correctness and postmodern moral relativism are the two culprits that are responsible for such evil perverted ideologies. One in three victims of domestic violence is a man. Men are silenced from speaking out about violence perpetrated against them by a close female partner or family member. Academia has turned a blind eye to this social reality in the name of advancing the ideology of liberalism - that morality is relative, and that those who are of 'dominant' groups (whatever that means) are always to blame. This idea itself is corrupt. Welcome to decadent Australia.

I strongly recommend you check out this link. http://www.unimondo.org/Notizie/Australia.-Quando-la-vittima-porta-i-pantaloni-143151. The author, Daniela Bandelli is an Italian journalist who specialises in social issues and is conducting a PhD on gender violence discourses. 

Daniela blogs at http://danielabandelli.wordpress.com.
Her LinkedIn profile can be found at : http://au.linkedin.com/pub/daniela-bandelli/7/b46/558.

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.

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.

Stupid feminist quote No 2

I haven't the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white hetero-sexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary-vested-interest-power. But then, I have great difficulty examining what men in general could possibly do about all this. In addition to doing the sh*twork that women have been doing for generations, possibly not exist? No, I really don't mean that. Yes, I really do. - Robin Morgan

Robin, many revolutionaries who reformed a country are European men, such a Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky. They reformed the country because it was warranted. Women have supported their families and this is job that should not be looked down upon. It is one that should be respected because it is required to build a community. No person is an island. In other words, no one can be independent of others. You only want attention and power over others. To gain such power, you put down people who are different from you. How open-minded and tolerant are you.

Exposing feminism even more (1)

Many people of all sides of politics, and a whole range of beliefs have awoken to what feminism really it. Feminism is the one who seems innocent, but is really the serpent under.

Stupid quote 1:

I feel that 'man-hating' is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them. - Robin Morgan

Robin, hating others is stupid because the person being hated will learn not to care, and so you will only endup making yourself bitter. Oppression is to take away another person's inherent dignity, dignity one has by virtue of one's birth. You had a very full-on career. If you were oppressed, you would be not able to have such a career. You would not be able to live the way you do. If you were oppressed, you would be beaten and no one would listen to what you say, except for those who want to seek their own political gain. That is how the world works. No one cares about the oppressed, including people of the same group who are not oppressed. I don't know your personal life and your experiences with men, but your credibility is absolutely questionable, to say the least.

Robin, this is a stupid statement. If one wants to be treated with dignity, one must treat others with dignity first. You think no one can see through your intention, but it is clear. You just hate men. That's it.

PC : The Friend of the Radical Social Engineers

PC enables radicals to twist the truth, and indoctrinate the masses with false assumptions, such as the assumption that only women are victims of violence, and always the victims, and that men are always the perpetrators. This leads to unjust policy making. Injustice leads to the destruction of society, hurt, despair, brokenness. To those who still support PC, brace yourself for the times of despair and suffering to come. I dare you to brace yourself.

Radical Feminism in Australia

Check out this article about radical feminism in Australia:

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

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.

Revised definitions

 On the 26 June 2013, Australian history made its most significant turn in politics. A prime minister who ousted a democratically elected predecessor was ousted by that predecessor himself. Some called Kevin Rudd, the man who returned to the top job a traitor, while some called him a hero. The following definitions are revised definitions of Australian politics.

Julia Gillard - The prime minister who cut uni fundings to fund primary school, initiated an investigation into the pay discrimination against women, while cutting single parent's welfare. All in the run up to the 14 September 2013 election which she called.  She is the first prime minister to oust a sitting PM only to be ousted herself. Before the 2010 election, she declared that there would be no carbon tax under the government she would lead, but introduced it after her government was elected.

Kevin Rudd - The comeback kid who will have a "emission trading scheme" instead of a "carbon tax". He says the ETS is not a carbon tax, but it is. It's just that it has a different name. He unwound the Howard government's effective asylum seeker policy, only to have more boats coming to Australia.  A great campaigner, he is able to make himself popular with a diverse range of people in the public. This is the main quality which allowed him to make his comeback.

Tony Abbott - Most famous opposition leader in Australia. He is known for his 3 word slogan: "Stop the boats". He has had the most vile comments made about him and yet others question why is it people on the left, and not people on the right who cops the worst abuse. Feminists complain about Gillard needing to put up with the worst abuse, but people on the conservative side have to put up with equally demeaning abuse, if not worse. Gillard has the protection of women whereas conservative men in politics, and even progressive ones, do not. It seems like what the progressives say is always right and that everyone else has to conform to it.

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. 

The Law is not the Absolute Remedy to Social Disputes

Law is taught at universities from a humanistic perspective. Humanism is the idea that humans are absolutely capable of fixing our own problems, including resolving disputes between people. There is no doubt that the law is needed to maintain social order by providing a framework for society to live, and to protect human liberties.

However, it cannot be denied that the law alone cannot change wrong social attitudes towards different groups or aspects of life. The law is merely concerned with what people do, not what people think. Laws cannot change the hearts of people.

At law school, students are taught that democracy is unquestionably the best form of government  because people can choose their government, any disputes can be resolved by the law and that any social reform need not take ethics or morality into account. Most students to take these assumptions at face value without challenging these ideas.

People attack one for being a communist as soon as one critiques democracy. People attack one for being sexist as soon as one critiques any female privileges granted by the law. People attack one for being bigoted,  conservative and illogical as soon as one critiques the lack of concern for ethics or morality to guide legal principles.

Such assumptions must not go unquestioned. One must never forget how powerful is the spirit of the law in influencing the way people behave and think.