Psychopaths are Not Merely Explosive Bombs

Modern psychology teaches us that psychopaths are merely people who have gone mad owing to one's genetics and one's dire circumstances. Thus, the modern psychologists say, mass murderers and serial rapists are the way they are because of genetics and their circumstances. Yes, genetics and circumstances may play a role, but ultimately it is the moral centre of the individual that decides whether one would do such things. There are many crazy people out there, but not all of us do such things. Why? Because we have a moral centre. To say that psychopaths killers do what they do is like saying that the mean girl or bully boy only does what she or he does because of one's inherited genes, plus a set of bad circumstances. Modern psychology is: a propaganda tool for liberalism.

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.

Who can you Trust?

The people who can least be trusted as people who are treated nicely and with great esteem, but do not treat others like that. So, beware of who you are working with, in a relationship with and who you talk to regularly.The views and ideologies of an individual determined whether one will respect others. Those who hold individualistic ideologies or attitudes, such as the Jezebel spirit can not be trusted much, if at all. Anyone who falls into the snares of such a person should break free immediately.

How PC has Damaged Society

What political correctness has done to society: it supresses the truth. PC is typical of those who reject universal objective categorical imperatives of obligations, because they want to impose their (low) standards of morality (or lack thereof) on others. This is so that they can justify their own actions and silence those of criticise them. PC is HIV.

Top 10 Most Annoying phrases

There are many annoying phrases in the Australian language. These phrases are a manifestation of liberalism and individualism which stench is that of rotting carcass:

1. I can do whatever I want
2. Are you going to the [name of bar, hotel] to get drunk?
3. Did you slap him/her?
4. Who did you get with?
5. I had a great one night stand
6. I want pay rise [but I don't want to work  harder]
7. I should get whatever I want
8. I demand the right to do whatever I want
9. I can say whatever I want
10. I can go whatever I want [and I get angry when people inquire because it is offensive]

Yet, people who use these phrases get angry when people who they deem to be "others" use them. How hypocritical!

10 things uni students really need to learn

There are so many things that uni students of Generation Y need to learn. They are:

1. Conflicts between different countries, cultures, subcultures are not as simple as a mere matter of oppression
2. If someone has an indecent, or an aggressive demeanour, chances are that the person is an aggressive, abusive person
3. People of minority groups are not necessarily marginalised. In fact, many of them are put on the pedestal only because they are valued "minorities".
4. Pointing out differences between different groups is not discrimination. As soon as people do this, university liberals scream blue murder.
5. Siding minorities is dangerous. No longer is there any justice when this happens. This is the state of modern Australia. 
6. Targeting a particular group for their behaviour is may or may not be discrimination when it is true. This technique has been used by radical academics to legitimise hate against certain groups. However, when you target such people for their actions, they yell out "discrimination" as though only you are capable of discriminating, while they are not.
7. People who appear to only target particular groups for the behaviour are often very concerned about people who hate political correctness. This is because they want to control the society. They hate free speech because they think they are right, only to find out that they face opposition.
8. Know the organisations or political movements that your colleagues are part of. If they are from liberal collectives, beware of what they say when they talk about politics. If they seem very sweet and decent, be even more careful of them. Chances are that they are an enemy of truth and free speech.
9. It is not a matter of being left wing or right wing, it is matter of doing the right thing. Being left or right wing does not determine whether one is doing the right thing. 
10. People who claim to be tolerant are not as tolerant as they really are. They are usually people who tell others to put up with their (disgusting) behaviour, but say that everyone should be tolerated, except for those who criticise them - usually people who believe in moral absolutes.

This is only an short list. I could go on to list more things. Seriously, most of the Generation Y uni students are so immature, childish, self-centred and unaware of cultural and moral decline. Most of them are also very perverse and immoral. No offence. This is the truth. 

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.

Capitalism is the only way to go

Commerce, economic and business subjects are taught from a capitalist framework. To understand what is meant by this, one must understand the spirit of capitalism. Capitalism is the ideology that free markets are fundamental to building an economy. I may not be a student of economics or commerce, but I have studied accounting before in high school, and I know that the sole or main purpose for the existence of a business is to make profit. One does not need to be a student of economics to know this.

Capitalism thrives on individualism, that one is entitled to what one earns and has the right to do what one wants with one's earnings. One needs to have the 4M's to do start a manufacturing or production business: materials, manpower, money and machinery. Manufacturing is in the primary sector as it gives rise to the ability to engage in trading goods. Without the 4M's, businesses cannot start and a country will not be able to create wealth. The fundamental needs for food, shelter, water and transport will be hard to meet.

This is in complete contrast to the idea the idea that everything is used rather than owned by the individual. The government controls the use of everything rather than owns it. This idea is communism. My understanding of communism is not that of a dictatorship, although it is usually associated with a dictatorship, but a communalistic wealth distribution to eliminate private ownership.

The underlying principles in commerce, economic and business subjects are that the self is paramount - that one needs to look after oneself before looking after others. This is true, but this idea tends to influence people to neglect the needs of others. Furthermore, based on my past experiences, many people are induced with the assumption that the wealthier one is, the harder that person works, and the poorer one is, the lazier that person is. Although it may be true in some cases, not everyone is born into a wealthy resourceful family. People cannot be blamed for being poor, just because they are poor.

Capitalism is essentially about survival of the fittest. If one is not fit enough, it's just too bad.

What Individualism Is

The ideology of individualism is dominant over communalism in the West. Individualism is the idea that the individual need to look after oneself before others. Looking after oneself before others means to serve oneself, rather than others. In other words, the needs of community and family are placed after the self - they are of a lower status than the self. The needs of others are not as important and do not deserve any care, unless, of course, they can benefit the self.

Individualism is selfish. Although people need to look after themselves, the needs of others need to be cared for in pursuing one's interests. I am skeptical of charities, particularly the ones that seek to help only certain group of people gain their self-interests, as opposed to helping the community as a whole, such a humanitarian groups. Such charities claim that they have to do so, in order to care for the community. I do not agree with this claim as the different sections of the communities depend on each other. 

A community is a whole body made up of different parts with different functions. It is a lie that there is no such thing as society because we all depend on others achieve our interests and obtain our needs. 

The term 'charities; has been abused, especially by interest groups that campaign for the rights of one's own groups. These groups often seek rights without responsibility. They seems to care for the whole community by claiming that groups that oppose their views and actions are oppressing them. 

It is not that focusing on helping a certain group of people is wrong. It is that it is selfish to pursue one's own rights without caring for the needs of others. 

What Communalism Is

Communalism comes from the term 'community'. It is essentially about caring for the needs of the community as a whole rather than placing a focus on the needs (or wants) of the individual. Community is society that is made up of people who are inherently dependent on each other.

Dependence, in this context means that people need other people to get what they need or want. For example, an employer provides jobs, the government needs its servants for government to function effectively. No one is independent of other like an island, that is, no man or woman is an island. Every person has talents to contribute to the community and every person has boundaries. How people use their talents and accept their boundaries is what many struggle with, especially in our modern society.

Modern values teach people that independence and self-sufficiency make one successful. There is no such thing as a self-made person because every successful person (whatever successful means) depends on others who have helped them get there. No person is ever redundant. A person made be made redundant by a company or goverment body, but no person is redundant in terms of his or her existence. That a person can become redundant as a human is a lie, so don't believe it. Don't make yourself feel you need to be independent of others, because you need others to help, just like how others need you.

Every person has a purpose in life - a purpose that involves serving others, not serving oneself.

Communalism vs Individualism: How it is viewed in the West

Many people in the liberal West cringe at the term communalism. Many become worried about the rights of valued minorities, not unvalued minorities, believing that communalism is about maximising happinness for the greater good. I argue that it is not communalism, but individualism that harms society more. Communalism is often associated with socialism and communism. This is partially true, but communalism can be understood, not only in the political sense, but the social, cultural and moral sense.

Most Asian and African cultures are communalistic. There is a strong emphasis placed on family and community values. To many in the West, this communalistic system would lead to the marginalisation of minorities. However, the marginalisation of minorities also occur in individualistic societies, if not treated worse in individualistic societies.

The Lie about Egalitarianism

The Australian society like to think of itself as one that treats everyone equally. That is the heart of egalitarianism. The term 'equality' is a very ambiguous terms and so are terms like 'empowerment', 'freedom', 'choice' and 'independence'. What is equality? It seems that equality, as it is generally accepted means to treat people the same. To treat people the same means that there is a need to be the same as others, as opposed to being different.

On the surface, it may seem as though egalitarianism, equality and respect is key. However, it has a catch. Its underlying values is based on the idea that people should only treat others in the way one is treated by others. This contradicts respect which involves humility. Being humble is to give up the right to treat others badly when one is wronged by another. 

Egalitarianism simply means that no one should be of a superior position, and thus no one deserves extra respect or reverence. It is true that people do not need to bow down to others, but sometimes, one needs to listen to those in a higher position in the workplace or government because they have the responsibility to lead. 

Egalitarianism leads to individualism - the idea that the individual is paramount. 

Let's respect other cultures, but respect them less than our own

Australians like to think of themselves as one people who like to embrace diversity and are respectful of others. We like to think that we give everyone a "fair go". Do Australians really respect people of other cultures?

It is can be hard to draw the line between a misunderstanding of other cultures, and a dislike of other cultures. However, this is not an excuse to hate others, or deliberately choose to misunderstand others on the grounds of their race or national origin. One thing I have noticed is the lack of intercultural understanding when interacting with people of other cultures. This forms a barrier between people of different cultures.

It is understandable that people may not understand other cultures, but the deliberate misunderstanding of other cultures leads to cultural tension. This leads to people forming cliques made of people of their own cultures. People as a result, characterise people in terms of their race.

When have you last heard something along the lines of that "Asian chick", "White guy" or that "Aboriginal dude"? Most people would have heard phrase like that quite often.

It shows that we are a society that is so immune to racism that we embrace it. We think that distinguishing someone for their race is a form of respect. It is not. It shows that one looks another through racial lens.

People of ethic minorities are probably more likely to suffer from racialisation the most, as well as sexualisation by the opposite sex. This sexualisation, however, is probably less likely to be done by people of the same race as them.

It is no wonder the Australian society is one that is individualistic and anti-communalistic. How can a community be built if it is wrenched with disunity and abuse?

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

It used to be...(5)

It used to be that people who served the community because they truly wanted to make a positive difference were revered. These people made sacrifices for serve the needy, the poor, the vulnerable and the oppressed.   Power, money, fame and career meant nothing to them. Desiring these things were regarded as desires that contradict the desire to serve others.

Now, people can serve others and their personal needs. It is now normal, and even, fashionable to claim that one wants to serve others through their career where they can also gain power, money or fame. Serving others can be done while serving power, money or fame. Former Attorney-General Nicola Roxon stated in her resignation speech that she encourages young people to consider public serve because one can fight for what one believes. This may be true, however, it does not show an attitude that seeks to serve others although to may outwardly claim to. Instead, it is out of pure selfishness - to fight for what one wants, not what is right.

What people want is not necessarily right. In fact, what people want is often self-centred and has no regard for what others need. The most popular phrase in Australian slang is "I can do what I want". Really, it is not about what one wants. This is evidence that the Australian society is individualistic, self-centred and arrogant. No wonder relationships break down, people fight and, above all, people get hurt. All sorts of people get hurt, not just the groups that are popularly considered to be vulnerable.

The media has contributed to such an individualistic, self-centred and arrogant culture. It portrays the idea that people can serve their own personal desires and the needs of others. It exults rich, powerful or famous people when they act generously because they are not expected to. Although this is realistically true, it reinforces the false idea that people can serve both personal desires and others at the same time.

Helping others now seems hypocritical thanks to the media and an individualistic culture. Helping others can only be truly regarded as serving others when it is done in love for others, not out of selfish ambition.

It used to be..(4)

It used to be that work was done to serve the family and community. The husband and wife would distribute out the work as to who would work at home and who would work in the community. Either way, work was done to serve others.

No longer has work become a service to the community. Work now needs to be a career, especially for women. There has been many expectations placed on women to have a career and family. Those who can have both are successful. Those who can't are unsuccessful. Work that is not capable of being a career, that is, work that is not intellectual, or involving leading others, is not valuable. Such work is regarded as non-work.

Interestingly enough, a career, as the term is understood in the postmodern world, does not have to be one that is lucrative. It can be one that has much power or fame. Many of the powerful politicians and public servants, such as commissioners, are really just after the fame and power, in the guise of wanting to help others. Many of the powerful women politicians use women's rights as a pretext for their want of fame and power. It is an easy pretext to use because half the population is female, such that they can get more votes, and that such an issue is regarded as a sensitive one.

People have become so focused on their careers at the expense of relationships. Parents have neglected the needs of their children by letting other people look after them. Young people are becoming increasingly arrogant about their prospects. Women have become extremely proud about their careers that they look down on stay-at-home mothers.

That work has become a status symbol means that helping others is choice that people make depending on what they can gain. Our humanity has gone. Welcome to the postmodern world where there are very few  who truly serve others through their work.

It used to be...(3)

It used to be that friendship was about respecting others. It was about helping each other through the hard times. Now, friendship is dependent on how the individual person views one's friends, rather than how the person is viewed by others. This is evidence of how we are becoming increasingly individualistic.

We treat our friends as people to be used. It is all about how many friends we have, not how many people who we are a friend of. The idea of friendship is to give each other personal pleasure and to gain personal desires. Friends are now, as understood in the postmodern sense as people to have fun with. One has to have more friends to have more fun, meaning more pleasure.

The activities that we enjoy with friends has become a status symbol. Gaining, not making "friends" is a point-scoring activity. People talk about who is their friend, not who are they friends with. Social life has become a norm to show-off one's popularity, instead of helping others with their needs. As a result, gaining friends has become a political tool for people to gain influence and control over others.

No longer do we feel satisfied about ourselves, but we are concerned with what others think about us. To feel more popular, we look at how many friends we have to feel assured about social status.