Archive for June 30th, 2019

Helen I’m-not-Christian Ang has outlined Mujahid Yusof’s views on Xinjiang, above, which she, in turn, has exploited for (yet) another Anglophile hit piece. Unlike BBC or Anglophiles before her, this time she used Mujahid’s visit to the province then varnished his remarks with the BBC, western trope of Chinese suppression of Uighurs, brutal internment and so on — all this as opposed to Ang’s saintliness.

So what else is new in her hate-the-Chinese piece?

Nothing. We Chinese have gotten used to it.

But that which she has invoked, the old and trite, we shall deal with them because those are matters of empirical fact.

Before that, there are two planks in Ang’s diatribe:

  • One, it is seen through her Malaysian apartheid lenses in which Xinjiang is ‘Uighur homeland’, exactly in the same way the old-day reporters like her (mis)represent Tanah Melayu as Malay homeland; and,
  • Two, being homeland, therefore, Uighurs have rights that supersede all other rights, both moral and legal. For example, the right to life and the right of a Chinese to settle anywhere within China is inferior and subservient to Uighur demands. That is, Ang does not see in Uighur ethnic-wide, ISIS-inspired butchering of the non-Muslim, infidel population as a legal issue of terrorist crime but as her Anglophile, liberal morality bias. Rule of law does not apply in Xinjiang. For this, she relies on the BBC.

The basis for her spreading that hatred is this piece of population distribution statistics in Xinjiang, below (click to enlarge):

Let’s assume stats are true. The demographics and dates are to suggest the following that Ang does not say but it is identical to the way Umno spread hatred of Chinese in Malaysia:

Uighurs were in Xinjiang before the Chinese, and in greater numbers, therefore they are the bumis. It is exactly the way Ang would argue that since her great grandfather had arrived in Penang before Mahathir, and since there are more Chinese than Malays in Penang, she is more entitled to Penang than Malays elsewhere in Malaysia.

Look at the statistics again. What’s wrong with it? Here are several:

  • One, she treats Xinjiang not as a part of China but as a separate entity because if she were to do so, what would be the share of Uighur population of total?

This is like Ang saying, since her mother’s father had arrived in Penang before Mahathir a/l Mohd Kutty, Penang people therefore owns Penang, not Malays. From this, Ang, like the West, extrapolates the claim that because Uighurs own Xinjiang, they deserve rights superior to and different from the rest of the national population, like apartheid in Malaysia. Her BBC argument is also akin to this: Since Chinese were ‘originally’ a majority in Penang, it deserves independence from a Malay government in Putrajaya.

If, like Penang, Xinjiang is not an entity separated from China, then the question is, since when? Or, to rephrase that, since when was Xinjiang a part of China as a unitary state? Since when was China a unitary state?

For the (incomplete) answer, see the map below, which shows the 1949 China boundary, in red line, compared to Qing China (colored yellow) superimposed on the present. Is Xinjiang a part of China or not? See how much of land China gave up because the British, French and Turks had occupied as colonial powers swathes of property around China? These lands include present day Sikkim (which Indians still call ‘land of Chinese faces’) and Kazakhstan where the Chinese poet Li Bai was born.

Image result for qing dynasty map

  • Two, why did Ang start with 1949 to press the Uighur bumi status? Since she calls Xinjiang Uighur homeland, therefore, Chinese are what? Pendatangs? There is no country called China before 1949?

Malaysia can claim Parameswara as a ruler of ‘Malaya’ but that’s just talk. Where is the evidence that Malacca much less Malaya even existed as a state?  Malaysia’s history began formally in 1957, the US in 1776.

China is a 5,000 year-old civilization, and its governing states, recorded as organized with an army, with a fixed boundary, including immigration, is also a history written down and traceable in writing and in archaeological digs. You could date it from 3,500 years ago (Zhou dynasty, c.1050–256 BCE). If you don’t accept the PRC, and before that Qing, as the arbiter of what borders China today, how far back shall we go? To the eras preceding Zhou? How about Shang and Xia? Or, if you think that the Zhou is not a legitimate state, let’s look at political regions along the Great Wall that began building more than 2,000 years ago (map below).

Mounds of desert dirt are still visible today up to Lop Nur, the desert region in Xinjiang and north of Urumqi the provincial capital. Would it be fair to say, therefore, China existed whole before 1949, before Qing and before Ang separated Xinjiang from China? Would it be fair to also say, China has been a state, long before there was even a white man empire called the Commonwealth to which Ang is acculturated as Anglophile and now its lapdog?

On the other hand, where is the Uighur proof they own Xinjiang — and since when and where to where?

Related image

  • The third piece of Ang mythological fiction that Xinjiang is Uighur ‘homeland’ (borrowed from the BBC) follows from the second point. See again the map above: Why did the Great Wall went that far west? If Xinjiang is not China’s, what was the Great Wall for? From what were the Chinese protecting itself?

Ang (again borrowing from the BBC) says Xinjiang was originally ‘East Turkestan’, which is also the name Uighurs want as an independent state. To demand for that, they, between 1999 and 2006, held ordinary Chinese hostage: “You don’t give us East Turkestan, we kill more Chinese.”

Between 1999 and 2006, there were more than 3,000 documented ethnic-inspired killings of Chinese, by Uighurs, singly and in groups. Like Malaysian editors hiding the May 13 genocide of Malaysian Chinese, Ang also hides the 1999 slaughter of Chinese in Urumqi as ‘race riots’ as if these started as an un-calculated, spontaneous fight between two ethnic groups, although it is plainly clear that Uighurs were the only ones doing the killing, at random and on the streets and in entering people’s homes. Uighurs came back for the kill, again and again, and the 2014 Kunming train station slaughter was one of the most serious.

What were the Chinese to do in the days that followed because Ang reduces Uighur attempts at genocide to just several days, then blames the Chinese by calling the follow-up deaths as ‘reprisal killings’. The Chinese should just sit on their hands and watch their daughters dragged out of the door and be bludgeoned to death?

  • Fourth: Where did this Uighur, ‘East Turkestan’ people come from before 1949? They dropped in from the sky? Timbuktu? What were their origins before the Qing or the Ming, 700 years ago? What is East Turkestan doing more than 5,000 km away from Turkey’s present borders? Why were the earliest Uighur pendatangs even allowed to settle down within Chinese legal jurisdiction? What does that show of the Chinese, if not our tolerance? Why did the Chinese government even allowed Chinese to be converted by them, so becoming Huis? (For comparison, try converting Malays to Christianity? Or Allah forbid, Hinduism?)

Do Huis go around slaughtering other Chinese? Mongolians today constitute the largest ethnic minority. Do you see them demanding independence and butchering Chinese to press their claim? How about the other 50 odd minorities? Do they go around Yunnan and Inner Mongolia chopping heads and slicing throats? All of them even get special treatment (one-child policy inapplicable, special university admission quotas and so on) that we Han Chinese don’t mind. But look at how Uighurs pay us back?

It is one thing that a person like Ang, stupid as Anglophiles are, suck the dicks of white people. It’s another thing altogether when you ask her, What’s her beef?

As it turns out, it is this: Her local racial politics! Says she:

Does Mujahid mean that the Xinjiang “vocational and training institution” model should be considered as a framework for Malaysia too? Imagine Dapster adults being held in a training centre for an extended period to be reeducated – taught sewing, flower arrangement, to sing Inilah Barisan Kita and how to become more Malaysian by learning to speak bahasa Melayu properly.

What Mujahid says, we China have no control. Nothing we do is ever right, anyway, especially not among Chinese Anglophiles like Ang — or Yeo Bee Yin who also found it convenient to beat up China for the Malay vote and for Taiwan’s Tsai Ing-wen.

Replacing Malaysian Chinese as a bogeyman, political target group, Malaysia and its politicians and editors have today turned China into fodder for local racial hate politics and to promote Malaysia’s international standing in the West. Malaysia thinks we’ll just sit by idly? That, like local Chinese, we can’t fight back?

We Chinese had been nice — very, very, very nice — to the Uighurs and they took it as a sign of weakness so that when you give them an inch, they want a yard. Give them provincial autonomy, Uighurs want Xinjiang entirely to themselves, exclusively. This attitude is like the US while talking trade with us. Malaysia thinks likewise as if we’ll drop to our knees, and that we are begging them to say nice things about Xinjiang. That is, we’ll lick Mujahid’s arse, and Rais Hussin too, for some propaganda victory (against what?).

We know how to differentiate friends from enemies, and enemies pretending to be friends and vice-versa. We have lasted 5,000 years as a nation-state, that’s before even the idea existed, and ten of millions of our ancestors have paid with their blood to pass the country intact — and independent — to this present generation. Does Malaysia and people like Ang and Rais believe they can willy-nilly malign us to break up our country and so we’ll back off while they get away with their fomenting and not pay a personal price?

We’ll see about that…, a lesson which Uighurs find it too late to go back: Big mistake to ask for the one yard, bigger even to hold ordinary Chinese lives as ransom.

Ang hates DAP’s Hannah Yeoh so much she would drag into her hatred a remark by Mujahid, bundled it with her racism and Uighurs (because they are Muslims), in order to beat up the DAP overall. Once again, China is made a bogeyman. Truth or falsehood doesn’t matter to her, decency much less.

What a piece of cunt..

In Malaysia, racist motherfuckers like her are a dime a dozen.

Helen’s Notoriety. Ang’s Angst

Some years ago, after the photo above and Ang as hack reporter unemployed, Perkasa’s Ibrahim Ali lodged a police report against her for angering Muslims, and police hauled her in for interrogation.

Staggering out of the police station, legs wobbling like bamboo sticks in a storm, she has been the opposite of herself since: from pro-DAP to pro-Umno, from pro-Mahathir to anti-Mahathir, singing Malay like a canary, fomenting hatred of Chinese by stoking Muslim feelings instead of the other way around. In other words, like Hannah Yeoh, she can be bought and bullied so that, in time, she becomes the mirror image of her hatred: A self-loathing Helen Aku Cina Ang is a form of racism. But, first feed her dedak.

All of which also points to a fact of Malaysian western-style ‘journalism’ (whatever that is): No matter how much the like of her, Kadir Jasin and Steven Gan cry independence, objectivity and truths, the mass media and the reporter’s job and life are wielded like a political stick. It bends and twists, and it depends on how much in salaries they are paid, who is boss, and who has the power.


Read Full Post »

Listen carefully below: Vladimir Putin understands the West more than its liberal elites.


If what Putin says is true — liberalism is obsolete — then the days of copycat liberals (i.e. Anglophiles) in Malaysia, in Singapore and Hong Kong are numbered.

The gist of Putin’s thought is fundamentally this: for thousands of years, people have lived and let lived but, suddenly, out of the West comes this liberal regime demanding for people to live within a set of abstract values that never existed before. The ideology becomes the goal, thus, today made enforceable on the point of a gun (colonialism, America’s wars), and therefore made more important than common sense and traditional values, indeed wiping them off.

How are we to continue to tolerate this state of affairs?

For example, who is the White man or its imitation White Rais Hussin, who on the one hand overlook mass murders on the streets, then turns around to tell the Chinese how we should conduct our affairs when we don’t instruct Malays how they should treat the Orang Asli or the local Chinese?

On what authority is Anglophile Rais acting? On what authority are liberals Joshua Wong, Claudia Bowing and Alan Leong acting to sow chaos in Hong Kong?




In the clip, Putin might as well be addressing the same problems imported from the West into Malaysia and into China’s Xinjiang and Hong Kong. Why? Because there were never such problems before! In another way of saying, western liberals, Anglophiles and their political agendas sow the seeds of chaos and problems (wars, conquest, instability, destruction of lives, poverty) rather than exist as solutions to problems that weren’t there before.

Liberalism since the decade to the 1980s generated (via World Bank/IMF in particular) the present-day problems, political, social and economic. This is causal fact, never acknowledged by the western academia and its US-stooge media: they won’t accept responsibility, much less change their methods, why after 60, 70 years of IMF-type free market, political liberal prescriptions, Africa and Asia remain mired in poverty and civil wars. China proved the necessity to break away from the western stranglehold in Tsai Ing-wen/Rais Hussin copycat liberalism. (In contrast to these western stooges, listen to Prof. Palamagamba Kabudi, Tanzania’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and East African Cooperation, clip below.)

There would be no Islamic terrorism if there was no Allah; there would be no need for freedom or independence if there were no colonialism; no inequality if there were no free markets; no extradition if there were no political divisions; no conquest and suppression if there were no exports of liberal ideology; no need for peace if there were no wars; no genocide if there were no White people ketuanan

  • In Hong Kong, liberal Anglophiles are practiced in frothing from both sides of their mouths for the pursuit of other, political goals, that is, seize power. This duplicity (rule of law but not extradition) is stretched to the absurdity of protecting common killers, even a boy who killed his pregnant girlfriend in Taiwan. The liberal western agenda of seizing power (without the vote) supersedes common decency. In Taiwan, meanwhile the Anglophile Tsai Ing-wen refuses to accept the boy for trial even though she hates Chinese and because she can make domestic political-electoral capital out of the Hong Kong riots.
  • In Xinjiang, Uighurs can kill with impunity whereas the government is not suppose to safeguard the lives of the majority native population (the Chinese) on grounds of the liberal protection of religious freedom aka Islamic terrorism and minority status. Hence, you see tons of hypocrisy and contradictions in liberal policies, for example, Rais Hussin and Mahathir Mohamad won’t extradite terrorism-instigator Zakir Naik back to India but happy to free the 10 Uighur wanted suspects who had escaped from a Thailand jail, and then send back a Thai liberal-fugitive wanted for insulting the king.
  • In Malaysia, Pakatan Harapan, in bed with Tsai Ing-wen, is a copycat version of European and American politics that shout promises of some grand, ‘New’ liberal era, win the elections, but can’t solve practical day-to-day problems, except to fix their enemies, which is easiest of course. (They have the police and MACC on their side.) But their ineptitude exposes their hollowness, having nothing, can’t govern but good only at sloganeering backed by Anglophone Malaysiakini, BBC, NYT-style propaganda.



Osaka G20 Formalizes the Global Exit of US

Enter China-Russia

(Hey, Karen Shakhnazarov! We don’t want the crown. You Russians can have it. But, imagine the mess Uncle Sam left behind for you: Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Ukraine, immigration, terrorism, IMF, trade… So, for us Chinese, no thank you.)

Above: alot of Russian talk on Confucius

In the old days, (Chinese) people get an education to improve their nature. Today, it is to make an impression. …

Never discuss China in straight lines. This is the best way to make a mistake. Confucius will touch his beard and say, “Hello?”


Read Full Post »