Where does 'Equality' Come from?

There is a great deal of debate and talk about equality, but the one question no one ever asks is: what is the origin of equality? By whose standards does equality come from? We seem to think that we can use human standards, however, humans have shown that they cannot agree on what is the meaning of equality. Thus, it appears, that equality cannot be found by using human standards. There must be something else to provide for equality, or else, equality has no meaning.

Foreign Intervention is Stupid, Useless and Garbage! (unless it is to acquire more resources)

Some silly people think that their government needs to involve itself with military means in the internal political affairs of other countries. They think that not doing so amounts to allowing atrocities to happen. It may seem like so on the surface, but such silly naive people do not realise that military intervention (or foreign intervention) not only worsens the situation, but that war is murder. Yet these people claim that they helping to reduce murders in war. That I need to even write this goes to show how naive and politically useless some people are.

To say military intervention is a moral obligation is to say that one must report to the principal of one's own school how two people from another school are fighting, especially when that school has its own principal.

Unlimited Rights

It seems as though, in the postmodernised world, everything is possible as there is no right or wrong. Hence, paedophilia may one day be regarded as a right since there is no absolute right or wrong. It would be before we know it, a group of paedophilic oversexed academics gather together to form the Children and Adult Love organisation to promote "loving" relationships between children and adults, and there would be the paedophile (or in PC terms: child-lovers) rights movement. The term 'paedophile' would be changed to child-lovers to push forward the movement.

Human Rights are Self-rationalisation Tool

Human rights is the idol of the modern world. People scream about violation of their "human rights" as soon as their pursuit of their self-interests or those of their allies have been violated. However, they turn a blind eye and even justify the same act they condemned when others are subject to the same treatment. Therefore, human rights have been used as a tool of rationalising one's interests. This is what 'human rights' are for. It is to advance the humanist agenda of progression.

Communist phrases

• Whether you like it or not
• Do as I say without question
• You must give up your rights
• Your must respect the authority of the government
• There is no such thing as a right
• Rights are self-perceived entitlements
• Weaker groups do not deserve more help or privileges

Freedom's Curse

When people have no freedom but fully under shackles, they idolise those who do.
When people are given even the least bit of freedom, they abuse it and ask for more.
When people have too much freedom, only the people who are oppressed by the people with too much freedom will realise the curse of freedom.
True freedom has its limits.
She prevents people from taking away the dignity of others
But supports the works of those who attempt to serve others.

Australia is a country with too much freedom. Way to much such that people who are violent towards international students, in particular, Indian students are excused. People who have such views are the true racists. They make up a majority of the population. People who speak out against too much freedom are immediately dubbed "communists" because lack of freedom is associated with communism, especially Chinese communism. To make things, worse, Chinese people are stereotyped as communists and assumed to be communist when expressing one's views about the need to constrain civil liberties (whatever it is) and human rights (whatever it is). Chinese people are thought to be backwards, and uncivilised, by many in the West, simply because the West thinks it is superior.

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.

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.

Human rights are Relative

What is regarded as a legitimate right or not a legitimate right is relative in this world. This is the standard of the world - rights are relative. Most accept rights to be how they themselves see it and not accordingly to a set of universal objective standards. This accounts for the increasing tension between different groups over rights are people entitled to.

Human rights are rights according to how humans see their rights and therefore, are typically focused on self-interest rather than caring or understanding others. This is the core of most of the 21st century campaigns. Many 21st century human rights activists point the finger at groups which insist that rights are derived from objective and universal moral standards for being against human rights. The term 'human rights' is the perhaps the most spoken about, and most emotionally charged issue in the modern world.

The West has criticised non-Western nations like China and Russia for lack of human rights defined according to Western values. It had criticised China for taking away the rights of the people to vote and Russia for its laws regarding homosexual propaganda. It has criticised India for female genital mutilation and the Middle East for restricting the way women dress. However, just like how one can criticise others for disrespecting human rights according to one's own standards, others can do the same in return. What is perceived as a right is based on the cultural and religious values one has. Rights are no simple issues.

It seems that the West, in criticising other countries for not respecting human rights can be in turn be seen to be guilty for some of its practices. Asian, African and Middle Eastern countries may criticise the West for its usury and sexual ethics from their perspectives. However, they don't because they do not see how their culture is superior over others.

The Root of All Conflict

The issue of what rights should trump that of others has been the root of conflict over history. In our increasing self-entitled, narcissistic and materialist world, one can be forgiven for thinking that the conflict of rights is an exclusive modern day challenge. The truth is that we only seek our rights before respecting or even acknowledging that of others.

A right is an entitlement that others must respect. A right may be positive, meaning that others must do something for another, such as the right to free contraceptives that are to be funded by the government. On the other hand, a right may be negative, one in which others must not interfere another's liberty. One such example is the right to not be subject to human sacrifice.

The "Innocent" Journalist is not so Innocent

The media, especially the modern Western media is among the most evil institutions of all. It seems to be fighting for democracy, accountability, transparency and freedom. However, it is only when one looks beneath its seemingly noble surface that one realises it has a more sinister agenda.

Leigh Sales from 7:30 reports seems like an innocent journalist. She is intelligent in the eyes of some, but biased and cunning in the eyes of others. Her interview with federal opposition leader Tony Abbott which won her a coverted Walkley Award, is perhaps most revealing of her biased agenda to support the government, or who knows what else.

First, she keeps on insisting to Tony Abbott what former CEO of BHP Billiton Marius Kloppers said about capital tax from a source that she does not reveal. What Kloppers says is obviously to protect himself and look after his money and power. Klopper's statement is a biased source and cannot be used alone to give authority about the implications of the capital and mining tax.

Tony Abbott has been smart enough to read a statement of another party who gives an opposing view. It is either that Sales is pushing forward an agenda to destroy Abbott's credibility or that she fails to see how Klopper's statement cannot be used alone. Sales, however, is shrewd enough to know that Klopper's statement cannot be used alone as an authoritative source. So, it can be reasonably inferred that she is attempting to attack Abbott's credibility as a politician.

She even asks Abbott if he has read the judgment. Whether he has read it or not does not matter, as the capital and mining tax are economic issues, not legal issues in this particular context. This is exactly what Abbott should have said. Sales in an arrogant journalist who pretends to know everything, even things she does not know. She has successfully hidden her intention by her sweetly supercilious, plastic smile.

Secondly, she asks Abbott about why he said that asylum seekers are illegal. As a law graduate, he should have explained that they are illegal in the positivist sense in Australia because they bypass the immigration passage designated by the state. This allowed Sales to rudely barge in and expresses her mere opinion that she doesn't think asylum seekers are illegal. She has successfully crafted a straw (wo)man argument that asylum seekers are legal because they are all innocent and legitimate. The whole point of processing asylum seekers is to determine whether they are genuine, legitimate asylum seekers as opposed to fugitives, or worse, terrorists.

Sales assumes her moral high ground when she is of no moral standing. She is a cunning devious journalist who has no place in the ABC.

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.

The Hidden Face of Political Progressivism

Political progressivism loves to express it hate for conservative politics and criticises it for not doing enough to help marginalised, oppressed groups. While some groups have been historically oppressed, some of these historically oppressed groups still claim that they are oppressed. It is important to remember that humans generally prefer to fight for their rights rather than help others. Humans like to receive help from others, rather than help others. As such, these "oppressed" groups use their historical position of oppression to claim that they are still being "oppressed". They attempt to twist history and make others deluded about their current plight to gain sympathy. They blame others when they are not able to achieve or gain what they want, and claim that others in dominant groups are evil.

The only thing more evil than oppressing others, is to lie that one is being oppressed to gain what one wants.