Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

The problem with privilege

Should people in Government organisations be able to censor, threaten , ignore, deny expression in others? Do you think this happens in Beyondblue, and every other organizations - that there are people actively abusing people like this - just because they

Gooner… it is an interesting read and its hard to find the differences between fact and conjecture.

I know of and believe that there are real cases of violence against women, but as you state it is 40 years of subtle manipulation that has opened loop holes in other areas..

we all know of the ease at which a DVO or AVO canbe established using "infered violence" and how legal agencies used this as a "standard" entry on a DVO application regardless of the truth..

We all know of the "make the B@#$%'s pay" dogma that was rife throughout the 80's and 90's. But when there is an office of the status of women (and i know they do more than promote anti-violence) and there is no office of the status of men then things are amiss. When there are in the majority vastly more (funded) "womens groups" that also encompass "family" issues lobbying government than there are men's groups then something is out of balance.

There is an air of change and we have seen some of it… Reading posts on here including press articles that talk about "mothers paying increased rent, fuel, etc… etc…" with no mention of the cost of these increases on men - or the fact that the ideology as the mother as the primary care giver is still firmly implanted in society's mind…. regardless of how many fathers woudl give their left arm to look after their kids more.

There is still work to do to get it "fair" and public perception is definitely worth changing.
My thing continues and escalates.

In my view there is clearly censorship and repression - not only of just certain gender views and issues but also of discussion generally.

But decades of indoctrination really have done their work. Many of those involved in the repression and censorship are not able to recognise they are doing it. (although some are evil most are just too stupid).

If you raise a whole group of society to be victims and expect money, handouts and support (and be loud about it) and another group to be breadwinners, workers and perpetrators (and be quiet about it) - then what you think you get?

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
See its NOT called repression and censorship anymore Jon - its now called being Politically Correct… and like you I take real offence with the word "Correct"….. who says you arent being correct in your writings…

The Russians had a name for Political Correctness.. Committee for State Security or KGB


"For the purposes of everyday life it was no doubt necessary, or sometimes necessary, to reflect before speaking, but a Party member called upon to make a political or ethical judgment should be able to spray forth the correct opinions as automatically as a machine gun spraying out bullets."
?  George Orwell, 1984

having said this then the following statement is also true:

What we call "political correctness" actually dates back to the Soviet Union of the 1920s (politicheskaya pravil'nost' in Russian), and was the extension of political control to education, psychiatry, ethics, and behavior. It was an essential component of the attempt to make sure all aspects of life were consistent with ideological orthodoxy - which is the distinctive feature of all totalitarianisms. In the post-Stalin period, political correctness even meant that dissent was seen as a symptom of mental illness, for which the only treatment was incarceration

As Mao Tse-Tung, the Great Helmsman, put it, "Not to have a correct political orientation is like not having a soul." Mao's little red book is full of exhortations to follow the correct path of Communist thought, and by the late 1960s Maoist political correctness was well established in American universities. The final stage of development, which we are witnessing now, is the result of cross-fertilization with all the latest "isms:" anti-racism, feminism, structuralism, and post-modernism, which now dominate university curricula. The result is a new and virulent strain of totalitarianism, whose parallels to the Communist era are obvious. Today's dogmas have led to rigid requirements of language, thought, and behavior, and violators are treated as if they were mentally unbalanced, just as Soviet dissidents were.
From:
An Englishman looks at the Soviet origins of political correctness.


… and therefore to sum up

In the 1930s, collective guilt justified murdering millions of Russian peasants. As cited by Robert Conquest in The Harvest of Sorrow (p. 143), the state's view of this class was, "not one of them was guilty of anything; but they belonged to a class that was guilty of everything." Stigmatizing entire institutions and groups makes it much easier to carry out wholesale change.

[hmmmm this sounds somewhat familiar if you replace Russian peasants with "CSA Payers" ]

From: An Englishman looks at the Soviet origins of political correctness.

by Frank Ellis

But am I now off topic…??

Last edit: by nxus

nxus said
See its NOT called repression and censorship anymore Jon - its now called being Politically Correct… and like you I take real offence with the word "Correct"….. who says you arent being correct in your writings…

The Russians had a name for Political Correctness.. Committee for State Security or KGB


"For the purposes of everyday life it was no doubt necessary, or sometimes necessary, to reflect before speaking, but a Party member called upon to make a political or ethical judgment should be able to spray forth the correct opinions as automatically as a machine gun spraying out bullets."
? George Orwell, 1984

having said this then the following statement is also true:

What we call "political correctness" actually dates back to the Soviet Union of the 1920s (politicheskaya pravil'nost' in Russian), and was the extension of political control to education, psychiatry, ethics, and behavior. It was an essential component of the attempt to make sure all aspects of life were consistent with ideological orthodoxy - which is the distinctive feature of all totalitarianisms. In the post-Stalin period, political correctness even meant that dissent was seen as a symptom of mental illness, for which the only treatment was incarceration

As Mao Tse-Tung, the Great Helmsman, put it, "Not to have a correct political orientation is like not having a soul." Mao's little red book is full of exhortations to follow the correct path of Communist thought, and by the late 1960s Maoist political correctness was well established in American universities. The final stage of development, which we are witnessing now, is the result of cross-fertilization with all the latest "isms:" anti-racism, feminism, structuralism, and post-modernism, which now dominate university curricula. The result is a new and virulent strain of totalitarianism, whose parallels to the Communist era are obvious. Today's dogmas have led to rigid requirements of language, thought, and behavior, and violators are treated as if they were mentally unbalanced, just as Soviet dissidents were.
From:
An Englishman looks at the Soviet origins of political correctness.


… and therefore to sum up

In the 1930s, collective guilt justified murdering millions of Russian peasants. As cited by Robert Conquest in The Harvest of Sorrow (p. 143), the state's view of this class was, "not one of them was guilty of anything; but they belonged to a class that was guilty of everything." Stigmatizing entire institutions and groups makes it much easier to carry out wholesale change.

[hmmmm this sounds somewhat familiar if you replace Russian peasants with "CSA Payers"]

From: An Englishman looks at the Soviet origins of political correctness.

by Frank Ellis

But am I now off topic…??

Well nxus

Since you found this site you have been all over it like a rash hardly able to contain yourself with your comments about everything.

I have read a few of your posts, not with interest but alarm, they are a serialisation of 'The World According to nxus' with some George Orwell 1984 style sub plots thrown in to add some drama.

I suppose you came to FLWG because you realised there was a wide audience and to set up your own site would cost dollars and not get many readers.

I just wonder how much you pay (or should pay) this site for hosting your mini blogs?

Of course anyone that continually craps on about CSA are generally not renowned for digging in their own pockets and want most things for free.

1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets