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'?

Foreign Intervention = Asking for Trouble

Many people in the West assume that they are capable of helping countries ravaged by civil war and should attempt to help such countries accordingly. However, civil wars are never simple and both sides have a self-interested agenda, whether they be the government, rebels or juntas. People who fight against others have an agenda to advance their own means whether it be for a good intention or a bad intention. Of course, some will criticise this argument as one which is attempting to find an excuse for not 'helping' others. Fighting always involves harming or hurting others, something that is completely against helping others for their good. Using harm to fight others from harming others does not enable one to help others. The need to 'help' others has been used hypocritically by the West to show its "altruism" to gain support from the weaker countries, only to find that these countries often resent the West even more than they did before foreign intervention.

Nasty, Hypocritical Pretentious Journalists - Typical (small 'l') liberals

Again, Leigh Sales engages in the ABC liberal-style advocacy journalism which hypocritically stands up for minorities, in this case, refugees. This is not to say she is the only journalist who does so, and so it would be unfair to say she is the only person who does so. However, she is the classic example of an advocacy journalist. Her interview with Immigration Minister Scott Morrison involved asking questions based on the assumption that her opinions are facts or, even worse, truth. She starts of with a leading question about the way 'asylum seekers' were treated, such that there is no way the interviewee can argue against her (superficial?) opinion without looking like he does not understand the question. When he tries to put forward his case, she cuts him off.

Sales, like many liberals, is like a growing child who assumes that anyone who disagrees with her, or tries to build a case against her is bad, evil or not to be trusted. Many liberals, one could suspect, feel sympathy for people who are deviant, or engage in illegal activity because they themselves are perhaps not strong enough or moral enough to follow the law where the law is morally and ethically sound.

People identify with people who have one thing in common with them and have no capacity to attack (having grounds to criticise) them tend to feel sympathy for them, or even think that the bad behaviour of people similar to them is justifiable. On the other hand, those who one perceives to be  capable of attacking them and have something in common with the perceived potential attacker are despised the most. This is perhaps why the media typically feels "sorry" for minority groups - because it makes them look like they are giving the minorities a voice.

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

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.

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。

Running Away (2)

She was sent to a detention centre by authorities. She was a woman who only knew who to care for her own cosmetics, and even did not mind starving to death. She was pregnant and bawled at the other women whenever they did not ask her if she was fine. As if she did it herself.

After 2 weeks in the detention centre, the authorities notified her that they did not approve her application. She had thrown her documents of the boat when coming to the land of milk and honey. The authorities had contacted with authorities of her home country. They had informed them that these group of boat people were mostly former prisoners of felony.

They had come to the new land to defy the law. They were a lawless bunch of self-entitled prisoners who were experts at playing victim. It was found that they salvaged their own boat on purpose on the way to the new land, leaving 187 people dead. Yet, the authorities made it their responsibility to check for missing bodies, as though it was their problem, their fault. If only they were not so naive.

Note: This is a fictional story. The characters are not based on real people.

The Origins of Political Correctness

There is a hard ideological difference between the so-called left and right wings. The left uses political correctness to get its agenda across. The right uses a case-by-case approach when it comes to making policies. Its policies are not based on any social victimisation theory, social "equality" theory or social "justice" theory. The origins of political correctness came from World War I when Marx predicted that all the workers of the world would unite and destroy capitalism - to get rid of all oppression. Marxism was divorced from economic theory, and become married to culture, hence the birth of cultural Marxism. Critical theories in all areas such as feminism, queer theory and postmodernism flowed from cultural Marxism - the need to help the oppressed. However, whether these critical theories are really about helping the oppressed or just pretending to be oppressed is a different matter. Marxism has been abused by certain minorities to yell out "victim" and blame the dominant groups.

I recommend you check out the link below. It explains the origins of political correctness in depth.

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrt6msZmU7Y

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

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.

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.

Examples of media siding minorities

Interview with Scott Morrison by Chris Uhlmann about war against people smugglers:

These asylum seekers are from poor and developing countries, not rich and developing countries like India. The media would most likely react with indifference if the asylum seekers were fleeing from political persecution in rich but developing countries. How much media attention do asylum seekers from China in Australia get? Almost next to none. The media assumes moral authority in making the public feel sympathy towards asylum seekers from poor countries. This is how it engages the community. The technique works because it reflects the attitude of the general society. It sympathises with those from poor, developing countries while feeling jealous of those from rich but developing countries.

The row over Derryn Hinch who commented that the R v Adrian Bayley, as known as Jill Meagher case would be trial by media is another classic example. All he was doing is to remind the public that the comments made on social media may affect the case. This is in no way siding with Bayley the accused. If the victim was not an attractive western woman, one could almost be certain that this row would not occur. Don't believe me? There is a real media phenomena termed the 'Missing White Woman Syndrome' by professor Sheri Parks from University of Maryland. Do you remember the last time when a person who was not a 'white woman' went missing? Probably not if you are living in Australia, US or UK.

Check this out:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22441124
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cHEeVs3T4A&feature=youtu.be

"Minorities are to be supported because they are minorities" says the media

If there are any groups the media will always love, they are the minorities. That is, the groups which claim that they are the minority and play the victim card, not the groups who are really minorities. This is because they help make the media influential. The media thrives on the suffering of others. Before we blame the media, we must look at ourselves as a community. 

We love to watch how others are suffering because it makes us feel better, or convinced that we are not the worst off. That is why. We love to hear negative things about others. We forget the good things others do, and never forget the bad things others do. That is who we are as people. 

Social behaviour allows the media to thrive by siding minority groups. Siding minority groups means to make their (deceitful) voice of suffering and oppression heard. As a result, it can be said that the resentment towards people of "victimised" groups is forgiveable, albeit based on a stereotype. 

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.

Uncovering the Media Bias of the ABC

Many regard the Australian Broadcasting Channel (ABC) as a fair and accurate media source. However, the impression of facts that it gives is often in support of those it regards as minorities. The role of the media reports is to describe the facts, not impress its views of the facts on the public. The role of independent media (like blogs), however, is not to describe facts, but to analyse them. That is exactly what I will be doing in my next posts.

The Pride in Helping the Marginalised

Some people help the marginalised, not out of genuine care and love for them, but out of pride. They feel sympathy for these marginalised groups and even guilty, for being in an "elite" position. Catherine Deveny, in the SBS series Go Back to Where You Came From, upon arrival in Afghanistan cries about how guilty she feels for being Australian. The thing is, that one cannot change their background. No one wants to be marginalised or oppressed. However, for some, it is their story of the past and present which cannot be changed. Thus, there is no point in feeling guilty for anyone who is marginalised as one's social or cultural status cannot be helped.

However, such as statement is made out of pride. It is the type of pride one feels for having more or faring better than others. It may not be malevolent, or even be of benevolent intentions, but it is inherently based on pride; it is condescension. This explains why so many in the Third World are extremely skeptical about aid from Western nations. The people of Third Word countries are all too familiar with the condescension shown by many Western aid organisations.This pride comes from being humans with a greater reason to be proud. When there is no greater reason to be proud, we tend to feel envious or jealous of those who fare better than us.

Helping the weak when one is strong makes one proud, but helping the strong when one is weaker makes one feel jealous.

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.

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 "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.