Monday, 23 January 2017

The Rights to Ask for Help and The Duty of Serving

So, I am here struggling with the fact that the own authorities for law and order not only never listened to me properly, but never learned their lesson properly: That the laws must be complied with at any expense unless what we do could be supported by a honest court of law. 

Apparently, people like Koji Tanaka, who came out of the blue to Australia in 2000, as a reaction to the developments of my struggle with Graham Priest and his ways, would defend that I had to do whatever Priest wanted me to do in my academic life, and that is why I deserve crime or being treated as less than a human being, that is, not having my human rights respected, basic ones, such as privacy, freedom, and property.

I have read a bit about Japan and Japanese culture and I know that there the women had to, for instance, wear shoes that were smaller than their shoe size to please men, so that they would walk in the way we see the geishas walk in the movies: Small steps, one leg glue to the other, etc. The levels of oppression over women were then highest. 

It is apparently assumed that Graham Priest was doing a great favor to me when allowing me to have contact with his theories and studies, since he had about 100 papers listed with the Philosophers' Index in 2000. I however assure you that I would have more than 800 in 2010 if never attacked, being therefore a greater star than him if never attacked criminally. Women, however, are attacked criminally all over the world not to shine higher than men at work, and sometimes even in life.

As we know, and are tired of saying, every action generates a reaction of same strength and opposite direction. There had to be at least one place on earth where Anti-Islam were the rule, since that would be the reaction of women to Islam. It is my idea to have the Anti-Islam, in principle, but, given that we all agree with the principle from Physics, that of the reaction, it can only be that I am the only one who could express this idea, just expressing, not making it be a reality, this since 570 or circa AC. The levels of crime against women all over the world and throughout human history can be better measured by studying Inquisition, I reckon. 

Well, basically, I never ever wanted to be a disciple of Graham Priest, believe it or not. I came to Australia to learn how to do professional research instead. In 2000, I was interested in spending my second semester with either Hyde or Brown, perhaps all of them, perhaps even with Priest included in the bunch, since I was interested in working on my Sorites Paradox solution. I was paying for my course, so that things cannot be more outrageous than they are. I pay, I choose, but, to make it worse, I only came because of the promise of the University of Queensland, which was that I could do whatever I wanted in my postgraduate course, like finally, and that was precisely what I was after in Brazil for long but did not find. Everyone who knows me, who I trusted enough to converse about my aspirations, knew of my search and wishes in those regards (postgraduate courses). I do understand that Priest needed a disciple, thought I was a good opportunity for him, and I even understand that what he does is considered very valuable by plenty, but I also see myself as a superbly valuable person, woman, and professional, and I don't see why what I did or do would be less than what he did or does, apart from crime. I had the rights to refuse to be supervised by him in the second semester, and I did exercise those rights, but I was violated to an extreme and forced to him in the second semester. As a consequence, I am treated as a marginal since back then. I must say that men are served everywhere on earth since the catastrophe that the death of Jesus Christ was: First of all, I don't believe his life was anything they say it was. Since he could never write about it himself and I literally was not there to testify on those reports being accurate, but it is clear that they are contradictory in a few pieces, and therefore very unlikely to be true, I have to cope with what men from the Catholic Church did to those. Before Jesus Christ, men and women were equal, as it should always have been. Couples were couples, as it should always have been. Either both are served or nobody is and we live in a society that is simply reasonable, where people must have inner value, and therefore deserve the love, company, and sex of others to get those, we live in a society where our nos are well heard and respected to an extreme, way more than our yeses, since hard is respecting a no, not a yes. 

He may have dedicated his life to all that, but I have the rights to think it is all sh.. basically, and I have the rights to prefer spending my time and resources in general with Brown or Hyde back then or even with the three of them instead of him. What men do not seem to accept is the dislike option of Facebook, quite sincerely, but I cannot blame them if the pivot of all I endure that gave me no fighting chance is actually women, like Lea Ricci Pinheiro could someday accept that I hate her: Obviously not. She could someday accept I did not want her in my life ever: Obviously not. I am attacked even before I arrive in Australia by her, so that she could get me not to stay here, etc. Men and women do not accept our basic right of rejecting them, of getting rid of them, of not having them in our personal space, it seems. In fact, not even in our professional lives. Anyway, I am here stuck with all hostility, violence, crime, and aggression one can get on earth since at most 2001, when I complained about harassment of Priest, Agnella Ricci Terra, Joao Carlos Ricci Terra, Bradley Paul Neal, and a few other people over me. I do understand that I was a likeable, relatively sexy, attractive person, but I also know that not even Tom Cruise has ever been forced to pay for inspiring passion, love, obsession, etc. on others. That is what we are supposed to do, us icons. Some will find in that reasons to live, as I found myself since 2007: Tom Cruise seemed to be helping me with something important, he seemed to be trying to save me from the crimes I endure, he also seemed to be interested in my person, so that I found in that inspiration to keep on going. Of course, that also produced alienation from reality and therefore less capability of fighting, so that there was a negative side, non negligible one. I go through a very weird situation since end of 2001, so that writing about it is very complicated. In a normal situation, however, muses were always told to help us, to inspire us, to increase our achievement and happiness levels, not to be harmful. Graham Priest was not my muse: I was my own muse. 

The fact that things were designed to oppress women, especially those born in Brazil, does not mean that I do not know my value and what I should be doing or getting already by college time. My mother was the greatest psychologist ever alive: Her mind was all on earth that mattered. Mine was shaped from hers, and I therefore inherited her clarity of reasoning and perspective: I knew very well how much I was worth ALSO compared to Priest, who, for me, was simply a drug addict, a harasser, an incompetent, negligent person, bad father, horrible husband, and at most a good HOD when the problem was not with himself. In my opinion, he was also a person to practice treason against the nation of Australia, since exhibiting the communist flag in premises of the Australian government can only be treason. Adding to that, he was oppressing all of us, students of Philosophy, together with his public partner, Patricia Petersen, when he was supposed to teach us the ways of free thinking, and therefore also free living: If it is free, I cannot be forced to be promiscuous, non-romantic, atheist or whatever else. Philosophy is and should be about freedom, opening ways, never closing. He may be a top researcher for everyone else, but I saw his work from close, and I do insist: No bad teacher will ever be a good researcher or presenter or anything else. No drug addict will ever be reliable enough to be OK as a professor, HOD, chancellor or anything else that involves responsibility over the destiny of others. In Brazil, I attended the finest educational environments because my parents adored education and invested all they had in it. I never ever had not even contact with a drug addict that would be leading any group of students in Brazil, believe it or not, during my courses. I came for the finest, for something better than there, but I ended up mixing with people who were doing drugs at my face during a supposed party for philosophers. As the police said very well since a few years ago in Australia, perhaps it all being my own idea, drugs and alcohol mean voluntary impairment of our mental faculties. We cannot accept people who are supposed to use their mental faculties to the highest levels voluntarily impairing their mental faculties, can we? Imagine doing that as a habit? How can those instruct others to use their mental faculties to maximum? Wouldn't that be the wish of society for those who attend universities however, regardless of position and topic? Only that one is absurd enough. 

Anyway, I do understand how they see things, but I am sure the democratic principles, the laws, the rules, the decisions of the thinkers on earth throughout human history, etc. point at the direction of me having my rights to privacy, freedom, and property respected to an extreme in places like Australia, not the opposite. These are 16 ys+ of maximum violation of human rights, and the job in Academia would have given me a chance of defending my person, my rights, at least a chance. The argument to exclude me seems to have been that I could not refuse to follow Priest if he wanted me to do that. Is that really acceptable? That the man was obsessed with having my person following him? That was my only life, head, and body and it was absolutely perfect before I am attacked in worse ways, what started in the end of 2001. Is it acceptable that the own government violates us in democracy? Zero second of this is what is acceptable, trivially. Is it acceptable that I am attacked by some Brazilians in Australia? How could this ever happen is my best question here. Is it acceptable that First World people and academics exclude me from life, from my own body, from my own person, violate me in all ways that is possible to violate a person for more than 16 years instead of using all they have to stop violation of human rights against me? Once more, we have Islam because nobody cares about the rights of women, including the own women who could do something. It sufficed we wanted and that atrocity would be over next day. Women are born without human rights in Islam every day. What is the actual excuse to let their religion exist anywhere on earth? I know people let the other one, of the voluntary mutilation, keep on going for a while. Could they have done that, though? Also, when you examine how long that lasted for, not even twenty years. Islam is out there for hundreds of years. It is obviously the case that it is still out there only because it is against women, nothing else. Even though women play their role as humans and defend men and women all the time, men only defend the own men if they ever bother. The whole trouble is the disloyalty involved. Men are bitches, naturally bitches, when it comes to what women did for them. 

Anyway, things are not what they look like almost all the time, I now know. Pretty sad is how men have the courage of acting with maximum disloyalty against us, women, all the time everywhere on earth.

You know, in Brazil, a white woman freed the slaves, and they were black, men, and women. I want to see the day men will finish with oppression against women and where on earth they will do that. 

Just the knowledge on how to kill without a trace would have saved my life per se. This is knowledge they will never give to any woman. Not even where to get the drugs, from whom to learn, etc. What is legendary is their disloyalty not their merit or value at work, I am afraid. I still cannot make sense of why I think therefore I am would be more important than if there is lettuce then there is tomato, like nonsense for nonsense. Yet, I saw this damn sentence everywhere on earth all the time. You know why? Because who said that was a man, nothing else. Women say things that matter at least sometimes, women like my mother, grandmother, and myself. Yet, I will bet that what they say will never be repeated not even half of the times they repeat I think therefore I am. Because society lets that happen, we are all brainwashed with the value and merit of men, and we all consider every woman to be something worse. Yet, if they are made of chocolate or marketing, something is very wrong in all we have. That something may translate into my martyrdom, which now lasts for more than 16 years.

From the women I heard that I was obliged to support them during my martyrdom, still suffering the atrocities, with them being responsible, for them to support me or my fights. I am sorry, but is that really acceptable? I had an entire life of treating everyone else with maximum equality and providing best services in all senses to everyone else before I am attacked. I don't have to show any of that during my martyrdom: During my martyrdom I am supposed to have help that is best, what includes whatever makes me feel better. If that is Hamish, that it be Hamish. If it is Tom Cruise, that it be Tom Cruise. You are supposed to save me at any expense from any crime, especially atrocity. If there is anything stopping you from saving me, then you do whatever you can to make me feel better and cope better with all, obviously and trivially. I don't have to serve you better because I am in slavery, suffering maximum violation of human rights: You should save me immediately instead. If not able, then you do all you can for me to feel and cope better with all, nothing else. It is all inverted all the time in the head of everyone else, I am afraid, and that is the only reason why a case like mine, my mother's, my grandma's, etc., was ever possible. 

May God have pity on us and put it all back to end of 2001, quite sincerely: The life and destiny He originally planned for us in this world and time. 

Then comes the other part: If women are supposed to never ask for help and need others to interfere with their work or personal relationships, why is it that police originated from precisely those needs, and needs of men? What about the courts? One must remember that none of those was actually created because of women, but because of men. If they say women are not strong enough because they appeal to those, then they should obviously go back in time and study human history, especially the origin of those institutions and services.




No comments:

Post a Comment