The Enemy of Big Government is a Happy Stable Family

Why is it that socialistic governments support government-funded birth control? Birth control funded by the government encourages people to engage in more extramarital sex, increasing the chance of single parenthood, in particular, single motherhood.

Statistics shows that nonmarried households have a higher rate of living in poverty than married households. This can be explained by the greater stability of a family which has married parents. Poverty places a family in a position of dependency on the government, providing the government grounds to provide them welfare, further feeding dependency on the governments. Such governments encourage such dependency of families in poverty as means of maintaining their voting stock.

This dependency can be broken by increasing solidity of families which would involve parents who are married, not merely in a relationship where one can leave another. But wait, marriage is now meaningless because marriage is now a mere contract. No wonder so many people do not want to marry.

Liberal journalists Assume they are Superior

The liberal media loves to control what people think. They call it their job because they think they are superior to everyone, especially since they are anything but 'conservative' - the dirtiest word in liberal vocabulary. CNN Desperately Defends Obama's Relationship with Radical Professor is a classic example. The journalist tells a person with an alternative view about the Critical Race Theory that he doesn't understand the Theory. She reminds me of Leigh Sales and Chris Uhlmann. Leigh Sales, in particular, likes to repeat questions to a people she does not agree with simply because she thinks she is so smart, open-minded and superior, only to find her enemies turn the tables on her.

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.

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.

The Ugly Face of Liberalism

Liberalism may seem to be tolerant. Not so. It blames dominant strong groups for the problems faced by the weaker minority groups. That's why it supports more government control - a government that can teach the dominant groups a "lesson" to share their wealth, while the privileged minorities get away with everything. Minorities in the modern Western world get away with everything from paedophilia, custody disputes, drunken crimes and tax evasion. Read the news if you don't believe me. The High Court has decided to take into account Aboriginality as a factor for the sentencing of a crime. How ridiculous is that - to take into race, no matter what race as a factor for the sentencing of a crime (before you call me a racist). Here's some good news though: A female paedophile will be jailed for what she DID.

Liberals are really just jealous of those who are stronger than them, and feel sympathy for weaker groups out of their own pride. In the words of Karl Marx, liberals are useful idiots. They can be used by anyone. That is why so many naive young uni students, political and apolitical, are liberals. It is because they are selfish, naive and not willing to accept reality.

Liberal Universities Exposed

A dialogue between a non-liberal and a liberal about universities shutting down the views of anti-liberals and liberals thinking that they are right while alternative views are wrong. Liberals are the most likely group to say to others about their political views that they are "wrong" as though politics is objective.

Check out: Liberal Universities explained

If you haven't already join: https://www.facebook.com/groups/stoppc/

The Attitudes of the Conservatives v Liberals

There is a difference in attitude between the people on each side of politics. No side of politics are the same in the strict sense. The only similarity is that they all have an agenda. What the agenda serves is a different matter. The two images below are examples of how the ideology of both the conservatives and liberals can be compared. Although they are generalisations, they may contain some elements of truth.

The Perverse Progressives

Majority of people I have dealt with are perverse progressives whatever "progressive" means. Progressive seems to mean that one is very open-mined and liberal. This often means that is order for one to be progressive, one must forget the traditional values, that is family and community values and ensure that everyone complies with the new set that seeks to liberate people. This liberation is seen as good by many as it seems to mean that they are free to believe as they please, free to think as they please and free to say as they please. Majority of people think that it is the most liberating ideology which will create a harmonious, civilised and peaceful society. This is the stupidest and most perverse philosophy, no offence.

What is even more sad is that many people think it is perfectly normal. If one does as one pleases whenever one pleases and however one pleased, there will be people whose dignity is interfered with. This subverts the principle of equality that most people swear by. Yet, the majority thinks it is a good philosophy because it is "tolerant" and "open-minded". One does not need to be a conservative philosopher to see that is a a foolish, perverse philosophy. This is the disgusting core of liberalism.

Liberals (with a small 'l') think that conservatives are very narrow-minded, backwards, naive and foolish to believe that there must be a set of rules that society should live by, in terms of do's and don'ts. However, liberals themselves have a principle too - that one must not criticise others for their actions or beliefs because it is their beliefs and actions, such that no one should be criticised except those who opposes them, that is, the people against moral relativism. The liberals are really not as "open-minded" as they really are.

"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. 

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".

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.

The Hidden Agenda of the Typical Lecturer

Most lecturers at university have a personal, moral, or worse still, a political agenda to influence students in negative ways. Many lecturers in the postmodern age  have liberal values which are based on postmodern philosophies. Postmodernism is responsible for many of the twisted and illogical  ideologies of the modern world such as feminism, liberalism, identity politics and progressivism.

The reason why so many lecturers have liberal values is that universities like to have a progressive rather than conservative image, an image associated with being educated and sophisticated, rather than naive and backwards.

This is why university students need to be able to challenge not only the views of lecturers, but be able to attack the logic of these views. Once the logic is attacked, one can get a foothold and expose their twisted ideologies.

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.

Not giving enough weight to an unpopular argument (2)

Those of you readers from Russia would find this of great interest. The ABC's PM program covered a report titled 'Russia Passes Controversial Anti-Gay Law'. I could be wrong, but based on what I have seen in the Australia media, it appears to be perhaps the most controversial topic in Russia. The report appeared to give disproportionate weighting to the arguments against gay marriage and assumed that support for gay marriage is the only acceptable stance on this topic.

The report describes the opinions of two Russian MPs, Elena Drapeko and Tamara Pletnyova who voiced their opposition to gay marriages. It does not silence their opinion, but does not explore the reasoning behind their opinion. Instead, Macey goes on to say that supporters of the legislation are 'trying to protect Russia's young'. The report, on the other hand, allows opponent of the bill, Rodney Croome to logically give reason their views. 

Rodney Croome is the  national director of Australian Marriage Equality. So obviously, he has an interest in the legalisation of gay marriage for he himself is a homosexual. Croome criticises the law for preventing foreigners, including Australians for being able to speak nothing but negatively about homosexuality. He also criticises Russia for having laws that do not suit his values. Just like how every person, including him, has their own values, every country has their own values. He may be a lecturer in sociology, but this does not mean that he is always right about social values. Like everyone else, he has no right to change their values and behaviour to suit his self-interest. 

Croome finishes of the report as though he is able to conclude like an expert. He is an expert, that is, in the eyes of the ABC who are helping to champion the progressive agenda. The report is a subtle, cunning pro-homosexual propaganda which is an attempt to silence alternative views.

Last note: For those of you in Russia, could you please give your comment about whether it would be right to say that foreign media has attacked Russia for this law. Your insight would be appreciated. Thanks.

"I can't be Unfair, Only others can be Unfair to me"

Australia prides itself on giving everyone the fair go. Do we really? It seems as though many in the mainstream society, that is, the postmodern progressives, think we are becoming fairer because we call out racism and sexism. We are angered by such attacks, especially racist attacks. This may be true, but there are many assumptions our society makes about who is an extremist and deserves to be called out for their beliefs.

Don't believe me? People who do not support abortion, euthanasia or gay marriage are dubbed as "naive" or "extremist". 

One would quite rightly wonder why it is some people are free to have their beliefs and why some are not. Whether one supports the progressive agenda is a fundamental freedom of belief, a core belief that the progressive espouses. Therefore, it is the height of hypocrisy for the postmodern progressives to attack those who are opposed to its agenda for their beliefs.

Not only do the postmodern progressives attack its opposition as extremists, but it attacks all those who attempt to critique it. They have imposed PC, which should stand  for punitive conformity to the progressive agenda, not political correctness, on the society as a whole. It accuses conservatives as hypocritical, but it appears that the progressives are worse. The conservative agenda does not impose PC, but it against PC. 

The progressives core ethic is that it knows best for society, and hence that is can't be unfair, and that only others can be unfair to the progressive movement. 

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.