Archive for the ‘Culture & Politics’ Category


The Duck in Sumi

Attention men! Would you pick her for a mate? Your answer…


Why Sumisha Bitches about Other Women’s Beauty

Extrapolated from the interview, below, is an attempt at a scientific, Darwinian answer as to why so often it is dark skin Indian women (think Sumisha Naidu, above) who mostly bitch and whine about the beauty in other women and in these women preferring fairer skins.

It is an evolutionary thing: Dark skin Sumisha will be out-competed. That is, she worries she can’t find a mate, someone for a fuck, someone to father the children. Her solution: Put down other women, the fairer and the prettier ones, so she’d get a leg up, her legs.

How so? What’s the evolutionary mechanism in eliminating the competition by her method? Answer: It has to do with the aesthetics in procreation. Deploying the western ideological weapons of race and sexism, she fights the competition for mates with things she doesn’t have: beauty and a fair skin. In short, she played dirty, like baboon males will play dirty and kill babies. (See the interview.) And playing dirty, she exposes the filth and ugliness in her inner self, an internal component in the armory of aesthetics. Even the ducks knew about this component and uses it to their advantage and not disadvantage, unlike Sumi.

Sumi, you see, is fighting Nature. She resembles a baboon, not only in her appearance, but especially in her conduct.

To be fucked, yes, Sumi, but do you know anything about aesthetics? Read on


The curly thing is the penis.


The Evolution of Beauty

…and its uses in procreation and survival. Lessons from the ducks.

SPIEGEL: Professor Prum, among all the wonders of nature you were most inspired by the sex of ducks. Why?

Prum: For a long time, I have been fascinated by the sex life of birds. But there is probably no other species where the deep sexual conflict between male and female sex is as blatant as in ducks.

SPIEGEL: And so you started studying their genitalia?

Prum: No, it was actually even more simple than that. I had a prospective post-doctoral student who was looking for something to do, and she was interested in studying genitalia. I said to myself: Well, I have never worked on that end of the bird before. As a result, we studied duck sex intensively for six, seven years.

SPIEGEL: What surprised you most?

Prum: Oh, there were many surprises. Not the least that we had all these descriptions of duck genitalia, and when we looked ourselves, we said: There is almost nothing to see. How could this be? That is how we discovered that the genitalia of ducks regress and regrow each year, so that a 10- or 15-centimeter penis in the summer will reduce to less than 1 centimeter in the winter and then grow back the next year.

SPIEGEL: This is part of the sexual conflict you mentioned before?

Prum: Yes, indeed. Mate choice occurs first. In winter the males do these elaborate displays, and the females choose the one they like most. Because, parallel to the evolution of the males’ display behavior, the females have evolved preferences for these displays. We call this “coevolution.”

SPIEGEL: So far, this sounds quite harmonious.

Prum: Yes, it is. The pairs stay together until the clutch is laid and the females incubate. The conflict part comes next. Because now some of the males pursue an alternative mating strategy, which is to violently enforce copulation. For this they make use of their penis, which is regrown by now. This penis is a very bizarre structure. It is counterclockwise coiled, and erection takes place in less than half a second. Erection, penetration and ejaculation in ducks is one and the same event, and it happens very, very rapidly.

SPIEGEL: How do the females react?

Prum: It’s very interesting. Of course, in the short run, females struggle to escape from forced copulations. But in the long run, female ducks coevolve vaginal morphologies for the purpose of preventing forced intromission (or insertion of the penis) — sort of dead end cul-de-sacs and a series of clockwise spirals that have a chiral (or non-superimposable) mismatch with the shape of the penis. These are literally anti-screw devices.

SPIEGEL: Why all this effort? Wouldn’t it be easier to just give in to the aggressor’s assault?

Prum: To understand this, you have to consider the evolutionary mechanisms involved: If the female gets the mate she likes, then her offspring will inherit the green head and the quack-quack-quack, all those displays that she likes so much. And since all other females have coevolved to prefer those same traits, her sons will be very successful and she will have lots of grandchildren from him. But if she’s fertilized by force, then some random male will father her kids, which means that her offspring are less likely to inherit the attractive traits that she and other females like. That means fewer grandkids. Therefore, evolution will favor any mutation that allows her to get her own choice — for example by protecting her vagina against forced sex.

SPIEGEL: Are you saying that nature works to protect female rights?

Prum: You can put it like that. Sexual autonomy matters to animals. It’s not just a political idea invented by feminists, but an evolved feature of social species.

SPIEGEL: In other words, nature created a sex that is focused on autonomy and another that is focused on violence — a good and an evil sex?

Prum: You are right: In our world, we do associate violations of autonomy with abuses of power. But this doesn’t mean, of course, that there are ethical standards among ducks as there are among humans. Females are not the inherently more ethical sex, but it is just that there is something about female reproduction that limits the potential for the sexual abuse of power.

SPIEGEL: Somehow birds seem to be particularly successful in achieving their sexual autonomy. Among them, female mate choice is more common than among other animals. Why?

Prum: For a very simple reason: Unlike ducks, 97 percent of birds cannot be forcibly fertilized, because the males don’t have a penis. Copulation in most birds is achieved by a cloacal kiss, just an apposition (or touching) of orifices. So, to be fertilized, the female has to actively take up the sperm, which means that she retains full control of her sexual choice. By the way, I think this is the essential reason why birds are so beautiful. Since they have the freedom of choice, females exhibit aesthetic preferences. And, as a result of these preferences, males developed amazingly elaborate ornaments.

SPIEGEL: Does that mean beauty arises wherever there is female mate choice?

Prum: Wherever you have mate choice, period — not necessarily because the females are choosing. There are examples of male mate choice, or mutual mate choice as well. Take puffins for example. They court each other with elaborate displays, and therefore both sexes look the same. They both have the same colorful beaks and the same preferences for these beaks.

SPIEGEL: How about humans? Does our conception of beauty also stem from mate choice?

Prum: I’m convinced it does. Socrates was interested in Eros as the source of art and beauty, but it is important to be aware that our sense of aesthetics was reinvented over the course of human evolution. Because looking at the lives of chimpanzees and gorillas, our nearest relatives, we don’t see much evidence for sexual choice. In chimpanzees, males will pursue every sexual opportunity they get and females will acquiesce to every sexual request made to them.

SPIEGEL: And because chimps are sexually indiscriminate they don’t have any sense of beauty?

Prum: Yes, I think their lives are basically devoid of the aesthetic.

SPIEGEL: How did this transformation happen — when did beauty enter our world as humans?

Prum: This question is very difficult to answer. But just posing it already represents substantial progress. If you look in any current textbook of human evolutionary biology you will find that mate choice as a topic is almost entirely absent.

SPIEGEL: Do you think it was more likely to have been the males or the females that introduced mate choice into human evolution?

Prum: Initially, it was the females, for sure. Males didn’t need to become choosy until they were actively engaging in the upbringing of their offspring. And that happened much, much later.

SPIEGEL: What do you think were the criteria for female choice then?

Prum: Well, we don’t know for sure, of course. But I propose that the main male ornament females were selecting for was social personality itself.

SPIEGEL: Which essentially just boils down to the question: Do I like him?

Prum: You name it. And this leads us to aspects of personality that we usually don’t imagine as sexual ornaments like humor, empathy or the ability to conceive of someone else’s mind.

SPIEGEL: You think it was intrinsic values rather than outward appearances that mattered?

Prum: Let me say one thing about outward appearance. One feature that I think was transformed by female mate choice is the reduction of male canines. It is very notable that the males of other primate species have deadly weapons in their faces that humans lack. And the question is: Under what conditions do males give up their weapons? Well, believe me, in the United States we know how difficult it is to solve this question. But evolutionarily, there is a simple answer: when wearing weapons becomes unsexy.

SPIEGEL: You are suggesting that women were attracted to small teeth?

Prum: Yeah, and I even think that this is where our smile comes from. It is a sexual symbol advertising one’s state of de-weaponization.

SPIEGEL: Do you think that our ability to fall in love was another innovation of human evolution?

Prum: Yes, I do think that sexual love has evolved distinctly in humans and doesn’t exist in other apes. But we probably share with them the emotion of maternal love for our offspring, and very similar hormonal mechanisms might be engaged there.

SPIEGEL: How about birds? Some pairs seem to engage in very deep, lifelong bonds.

Prum: Well, I can’t say for sure. But I find it not unjustified to speculate that some long-term bonds among birds might be similar to what we experience as love. This is the problem with all current attempts to biologically describe love: In evolutionary biology textbooks, you’ll see pair bonding analyzed in terms of game theory. Who’s got most of the resources, who’s cheating whom, what’s the right strategy to maximize your benefit, and so on. Which means that, instead of falling in love, we should all go to a lawyer’s office and draw up prenuptial agreements. But human mating isn’t anything like that. What’s missing from that analysis of human reproduction is the aesthetic. And it’s clear that if love is anything, it’s a deeply emotional and deeply aesthetic experience.

SPIEGEL: But are you sure that the aesthetic experience of birds and the aesthetic experience of humans are the same phenomenon? After all, a peacock hen’s sense of beauty is exclusively directed towards the appeal of a peacock tail, whereas we find beauty not only in our partner but also in flowers or landscapes or art.

Prum: I agree, the richness of human aesthetic experience is unparalleled. But still it is amazing how complex and diverse the aesthetic interests of birds can be. Take bowerbirds, for example, which build seduction theaters where they present objects for females. (He pulls a photo out of a pile on his desk.) Here, on this photograph, you can see one of those arenas. Look, what he has exposed: Those are red flowers, that is a bunch of black charcoal. A pile of blueberries is over here and shiny black beetles over there. That green stuff is a rotten log permeated with a spongy green fungus. And you’re are telling me that his sense of beauty is limited?

SPIEGEL: But this is an exception.

Prum: I’ll give you another example: Many birds learn their song, and some birds even mimic the songs of other birds. There’s one species in South America, the Lawrence’s thrush, of which there are individuals with repertoires of over 170 species of birds. And they don’t imitate the sound of water, they don’t imitate insects. They imitate other birds, because their songs are of aesthetic value to them. Or here is another one: A researcher in Sweden discovered a marsh warbler singing a song of a bird from its wintering grounds in Uganda. This warbler introduced aesthetic content from another continent into the acoustic environment of Europe. I can’t imagine anything that humans could do that is aesthetically as fascinating as that. And who knows, may be the female that listens to that song will experience nostalgia, remembering the winter holiday in Uganda?

SPIEGEL: From an evolutionary perspective, how essential was the sense of beauty to modern humans? Is it the driving force that made us humans?

Prum: I wouldn’t go that far. But I am convinced that the development of aesthetic preferences was an important prerequisite for human evolution, because it was sexual selection that transformed our aggressive, weaponized maleness into a socially tractable form. Don’t forget: The average male primate is an infanticidal psychopath waiting for his moment. Whenever a male baboon wins control over a group of females, the first thing he will do is to murder all the dependent, breast-feeding babies because that gives him a sexual opportunity. Otherwise he would waste a lot of time while she’s nursing the babies of another male.

SPIEGEL: And females made them give up this bad habit by choosing more good-natured males?

Prum: Yes. Solving the infanticide problem was the biggest hurdle in human evolution. Infanticide is the single largest source of infant mortality in gorillas and chimpanzees. Approximately 30 percent of all infant deaths are the result of infanticide by males. On the other hand, everything that is special about human biology requires greater investment in longer childhoods — whether it’s complex cognition, language, culture or technology. None of that could possibly have evolved if a large portion of babies are being murdered by sexual violence.

SPIEGEL: How did females solve this problem?

Prum: Just as in ducks. Among the many varieties of new preferences that might arise among females, evolution favored those that enhanced female sexual autonomy and reduced male sexual control. And that is how male weapons were gradually chipped away and male dominance behavior was weakened.

SPIEGEL: And from that point onwards there were no more impediments for conquering the planet?

Prum: One thing is sure: Solving the infanticide problem is one of the main reasons humans have grown to dominate the planet while gorillas and chimpanzees are going extinct in the jungles in Africa.

SPIEGEL: Professor Prum, we thank you for this interview.

Richard Prum, 55, is a curator at the Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale University in Connecticut. He has spent decades researching the courtship behavior of birds. He found an inexhaustible variety of methods with which males solicit the pleasure of their female mates. In his new book, “The Evolution of Beauty,” the ornithologist seeks to find out how this opulence came about.

Isn’t she pretty, Sumi. Fair skin also, and she sings well, aesthetically well. Go ahead, Sumi, listen to her sing and watch. Beautiful in so many respects. She’s going to do well — in her evolution. You?

You look like a fucking duck, your nose too big, face too dark, and even inside yourself you’re ugly — truly a bitch.

Read Full Post »


Hannah ‘Chameleon‘ Yeoh: yesterday Bangsa, next day Chinese, tomorrow Islamic, but always Anglophile.


Opportunist, Hypocrite, Racist…

and Stupid — like Umno men


Malaysiakini‘s DAP promotion piece — ‘Anak Malaysia’ mum vindicated as BN sees the light in ‘Bangsa Malaysia’ — has no author name. It was published as news but, let’s see….

First, the supposed news: the ‘vindication’ from BN. Says ‘The News & Views That Matter (TNVTM):

It was a vindication of sorts for Subang Jaya state assemblyperson Hannah Yeoh, who was chastised for trying to register her daughter’s race as ‘Anak Malaysia’.

Vindication? Of sort? What fucking sort? Vindication from what, by what and by who?

Later, Malaysiakini suggested it was kids — that is, kids! Not BN — who are vindicating a matter of national policy, a vindication provided via Khairy Jamaluddin who was again quoted to say “young Malaysians (from a TN50 ‘feedback’) prefer to be known as ‘Bangsa Malaysia’ in the next 30 years.

‘Prefer to be known’, when they were born or when they turn nine? Nine is the Sahabudin-age ripe for marriage. And these kids want to be known as such only in the next 30 years? Not after that?

Now, you are beginning to see how it is Malaysiakini and reporters begin to fabricate news…

So, what exactly was it that Khairy said about the ‘feedback‘? Kids wanted all their birth certificates rewritten as ‘Bangsa Malaysia’ in the space marked for ethnic origin and not as Chinese or Malays or Indian?

Another supposed news faked by TNVTM:

Hannah Yeoh had wanted to define the identity of her first born, Shay Adora, as Bangsa Malaysia

It is a matter of documented fact that Hannah wanted Shay Adora registered as ‘Anak Malaysia’. Shay was born of a Chinese mother and her Indian husband, Ramachandran Muniandy. To register her baby, Hannah had three choices, Chinese, Indian and Chinese/Indian. Instead, after failing to register her as ‘Anak Malaysia’, she wrote on the application Chinese — not Chinese/Indian, a matter of fact; or Indian which ought to have been the natural choice in Asian patriarchy systems.

So the reason for choosing Chinese over other categories…? Smell the odor of her armpits reeking of racism?

In the same application Hannah again demonstrated how she was so ashamed of the offspring’s half Indian origin (must be the dark skin), she used only Ram to register the name of the infant’s father — not Ramachandran. She won’t even give her daughter a genuine Malaysian or Chinese/Indian identity because Shay and Adora are names derived from western sources of interpreting old Jewish places. In other words, Orang Putih.

Regardless, Hannah’s registry of her child remains scandalous not only because of her shamelessness and her racism (the racism of the anti-racist) but especially because, in conflating Anak and Bangsa Malaysia, she completely ignored:

  • (a) that Anak Malaysia is not a physiological category-fact that provides the basis of birth registration and used as an identification tool. There is simply no such thing as Anak Malaysia for a new born and the meaningless in the term raises even more absurd questions: What Anak would be Lim Kit Siang’s father, a Malaysian but born in China? Anak Cina?
  • (b) that Bangsa Malaysia and Anak Malaysia are entirely distinct categories which can only mean different things. The first is a newly fashioned political term. The second is general, colloquial usage to mean a child of Malaysia. It gets worse: how should a child born to Malaysian permanent residents in Australia be called? ‘Anak’ or ‘Bangsa’?

In advocating the politics of DAP/Hannah’s Bangsa politics, Malaysiakini made sure it lied that Hannah was right all along. Yet there was nothing to be right about. After which it again lied that Khairy ever said BN wanted such a sort of politics or if it even sanctioned that kind of usage.

That is, Malaysiakini editors embellished their fraudulent conduct under such terms as ‘see the light‘. Those liberal assholes were simply making things up:

  • (1) that there is ‘vindication’ in the choice of Hannah’s term during Shay’s birth registration because mummy Yeoh used Anak not Bangsa Malaysia.
  • (2) that Hannah is a good, politically far-sighted mother. What she had instead done was to abuse her 6-day old daughter, laundering her for the world to see solely for promoting her own political message — regardless of the veracity of her claims. As mother, that fatty Anglophile has no shame and had proven to be completely irresponsible.

There is an even more insidious message in Hannah’s political laundering: as a nationalist slogan Bangsa Malaysia reminds of Germany’s use of its term Reichsadler during the Hilter’s reign of the Third Reich. “We are Malaysian nationalists,” is what Hannah is implying, whose stupidity couldn’t tell a biological fact from fascist propaganda. Her political ignorance couldn’t tell her there is no such thing as a Malaysian race, just as there is no American race. Nor could she tell the difference between nationality (that is, Malaysian) and Bangsa (which is ethnicity).

Just as there is no physiological fact of a thing called Australian, there is also no such thing as the Melayu race. Malay is a political designation not a race, a designation that is as plain as a stone or a tree standing outside your house.

An illustrative case in point is Zakir Naik, who upon obtaining his citizenship, will almost certainly be classed as Malay when clearly he is of Indian origin. Or, take Ridhuan Tee, whose children would have been categorized as Malay on account of neither biology nor physical birth place but purely because the kids comply with the three-legs of the constitutional definition, of which Islam had been made the overriding condition, far, far more than language and custom today. Going by custom, Hadi Awang would not be Melayu, Ridhuan or Zakir much less.

All that is also to say, Hannah is playing the same Umno game she criticizes for its racism, overlaying her western, Christian liberal values onto her politics in order to paint a picture that she is a good Bangsa woman whereas anybody who refuses the term Bangsa are ‘evil’ and ‘racist’ (her terms). Complicit in spreading those lies and deceptions is, of course, Steven Gan’s Malaysiakini, those Anglophiles from Bangsar.

Hannah, if it isn’t obvious to you by now, was driving square pegs into round holes, wanting to fit her political prejudices into factual reality. She is exactly like the Umno Malays she hates, a hypocrite, adopting the same stratagem in order to win votes and get elected, playing footsie with people’s future and their identities, even her own daughter’s, then talking about unity.

Hannah’s actions have dangerous consequences because all Umno has to respond is simply this: ‘We know what is bangsa. But, tell us, what is it to be Malaysian?

Their answer: ‘See the word Malay in the name Malaysia?

That is, in case that stupid Hannah still doesn’t get it: She will have to masuk Melayu in order to qualify as a Bangsa Malaysia. She has to be fucked by a Malaiyoo.

That being so, isn’t it better therefore to retain segregation and keep to being Chinese? Malaiyoo keep their side, they keep their Islam, their jihad, while we keep ours and stay out of Islam. Isn’t that freedom and a human right?

If, however, Hannah still insists on being Bangsa Malaysia, then by all means. She is even welcomed to slice off a piece off Muniandy’s brown prick and after that her son’s as well. At that rate, she might even turn her entire family Muslim because, if she gets away with her hypocrisy, what’s there to halt her opportunism and racism in order to go after the Malay votes when the Bangsa types run out? That’s Ridhuan Tee bullshit all over again.



The beautiful girl I am, waiting

Why have you not come yet?

Read Full Post »

For the answer, look backwards.


Ninety-nine out 100 commentaries and reports about China in the Western media and their local apologists (including Malaysiakini), when not maligning they were either wrong or completely misjudged. China rarely offers a rebuttal: White people say what they want, we don’t care.

Take the Malaysia-North Korea spat, Najib Razak stupidly fighting over a rotting body that’s not even a PAS member. (So what if the name is Kim Jong-nam?) Among dozens of instant, amateurish commentaries, numerous of them asked that Malaysia turn to China as an intermediary. Dennis Ignatius, the virulent anti-Chinese Anglophile and Catholic insider for the Vatican, suggested outright Malaysia ally itself with China. Then, in his characteristic, contradictory piece of illogic, he asked that Malaysia stay out of big power play in East Asia.

As events turned out, none of that happened. It was instead pure barter: nine Malaysian lives exchanged for a dead body and two live Koreans. To what end? Yet, all the while, China reduced its comments to just one line: let peace prevail.

Below, lifted from Lit Hub, is a long view of China from a historical perspective. That is, China’s perspective, not liberals’, not gweilo‘s, not the Wall Street Journal, and certainly not The New York Times. To know what China is likely to be in the future, and what its relationship will be like with the East Asian neighbors, look at China’s past, as far back as 2,000 years. Howard French doesn’t answer those questions just posed. Rather, he just talked history so that, in the main, he is correct. His essay is worth reproducing in full.

Going through it, you might wonder: did Parameswara and his so-called ‘Malacca/Malay empire’ emerged only because of Ming assistance?


All Under Heaven

What Will China Become?

There was once a country at the very center of the world, whose position was recognized as such by peoples both far and wide. Today, we call that country China.

Using the very word “country” is actually deceptive. The nation that we now instantly identify on the map as China hasn’t existed long. Throughout most of its history this dynastically ruled land would not even have recognized itself as a country, let alone seen its neighbors as such. It was an empire, and a largely borderless one, both in its geographical form and in what it considered to be the relevance or applicability—what the French would call the rayonnement—of its ideas. One could argue that there has never been a more universal conception of rule. Practically speaking, for the emperors of the Central Kingdom, this place we call China, the world could be roughly divided into two broad and simple categories, civilization and non-civilization, meaning the peoples who accepted the supremacy of its ruler, the Son of Heaven, and the principle of his celestial virtue, and those who didn’t—those who were beyond the pale.

For the better part of two millennia, the norm for China, from its own perspective, was a natural dominion over everything under heaven, a concept known in the Chinese language as tian xia. It is not a term to be taken too literally. From very early times, China had an awareness of faraway places, including other great empires, like Rome, but contact with such distant regions of the world was tenuous at best and hence both economically and politically marginal.

In the geopolitics of Chinese empire, what was most vital to the Central Kingdom under tian xia, sometimes interpreted as the “known world” in this context, was a vast and familiar swath of geography that consisted of nearby Central Asia, Southeast Asia and East Asia. Among these regions, Central Asia constituted a near-constant challenge to Chinese power, and quite often an outright threat. The dimensions of the Central Kingdom ebbed and flowed, mostly as a function of the shifting balance of power between Han (Chinese) and the peoples to the west and northwest, be they Turkic, Mongol, Manchurian, Tibetan or others. (China itself would come to be ruled by invaders from two of these cultures, the Mongols, from 1271 to 1368, and the Manchus, from 1644 to 1912, at the very end of the dynastic era.)

In geographical terms, we usually think of oceans as barriers that effectively separate countries, regions and continents, and in the faraway past nearly sealed them off from one another. But the littoral of East Asia, which runs in a gently articulated crescent from the Korean Peninsula south to the Strait of Malacca, has more typically served as a transmission belt for Chinese culture and prestige, Chinese commerce, and ultimately for Chinese power, although only occasionally hard power. From at least the Tang dynasty (618-907) nearly to the chaotic end of dynastic rule in China in 1912, to one extent or another, the peoples of this sea-bound region often found ways to defer to China, acknowledging its centrality and loosely following its lead.

Functioning in this way, Chinese power came to underpin one of the most remarkable international systems that human civilization has ever seen—a unique form of what has sometimes been described as an extremely loose and distant brand of indirect rule by China over a very considerable slice of humanity. This description is inadequate in part because there were important variations in China’s relations with its eastern neighbors, including degrees of intensity of both contact and obeisance. But at the foundation of this remarkably resilient Pax Sinica lay a basic proposition that was reasonably consistent: Accept our superiority and we will confer upon you political legitimacy, develop a trade partnership and provide a range of what are known in the language of modern international affairs as public goods. These included policing the maritime commons, mediating disputes and granting access to China’s would-be universal system of learning, broadly based on Confucianism. In the core states of this region—Korea, Vietnam and, albeit with growing ambivalence, Japan—Chinese values, Chinese culture, the Chinese language, Chinese philosophy and Chinese religion were all regarded for long stretches of history as essential references, and even universal standards.

The “system” referred to here has long been known in the West (and yet never among Chinese themselves) as China’s tribute system. Throughout this period, beginning as far back as the Han dynasty (206 BCE-220 CE), peoples in China’s imperial orbit regularly dispatched “embassies” to perform ritual submission before the Chinese emperor. The granting of trade rights by the imperial court by way of reward represented a tremendous boon that served as a powerful lubricant in bilateral relations. When the Chinese spoke of this system, their language was often full of euphemism and self-regard, frequently referring to the task of what would today be called in foreign policy “barbarian management.”

“To control the barbarians the sage rulers punished and resisted them when they came [to invade China], and prepared and guarded against them when they left,” reads one 19th-century account. “If attracted by China’s civilization, they came to offer tribute, they would be treated with courtesy, and kept under loose rein without severing the relationship, so that the blame of being crooked would always be on them.”

Within this system, foreign leaders often owed their very titles to the grant of recognition via patents of appointment bestowed by the Chinese emperor. Even as they sat on their thrones, new rulers in compliant tributary states had to content themselves with the title of heir apparent until they could receive their letters of investiture from the Celestial Emperor, for fear of infringing protocol.

Just how seriously this business was taken is vividly conveyed by a story from second-century BCE Vietnam, when a local king got it into his head to proclaim himself emperor in his own land. The response of the Han dynasty emperor Wen-Di was swift and unequivocal. “When two emperors appear simultaneously, one must be destroyed . . . struggling and not yielding is not the way of a person endowed with humanity,” he wrote to scold the Vietnamese ruler, whose response can only be described as one of abject submission. “I hear that two heroes cannot appear together, that two sages cannot exist in the same generation,” he stated in a public proclamation. “The Han emperor is the sagacious Son of Heaven. Henceforth, I shall suppress my own imperial edicts.” This pushback from China operated at two levels. Most explicitly, it was a direct statement that in its home region, the Han emperor would not countenance any would-be peers. Beyond that, China was signaling its determination to intervene anywhere in the world where it felt its central role or its vital interests might be challenged. In 1979, more than two thousand years later, as we shall see, China would mount an invasion of Vietnam aimed at making these precise points.

In fact, China would invade Vietnam numerous times during the succeeding centuries, which still resonates powerfully in their relationship today. But using violence to get its way was far from the ideal. As the Japanese scholar Takeshi Hamashita has written, “Like any hegemonic order [the tribute system] was backed by military force, but when the system functioned well, principles of reciprocity involving politics and economics permitted long periods of peaceful interaction.”

It has often been argued that the tribute system cost China more in trade concessions and in the constant hosting of visiting foreign delegations than any economic benefit it might have derived from commerce with an assortment of much smaller neighboring societies. But this is to ignore the domestic political value of the system for China’s emperors. As important as it was for neighboring rulers to enjoy the recognition of the Central Kingdom, it was equally important for the authority of a succession of Chinese emperors to have symbolically obeisant foreigners bowing regularly to their moral prestige and power.

In other words, the willing subservience of others to prostrate themselves before the emperor provided domestic proof of his unassailable moral authority, of his possession of, in the well-worn phrase, the mandate of heaven. This was as true near the end of China’s imperial era as it was during early dynasties, such as the Han. When Britain, approaching the apogee of its global power in the late 18th century, sent a mission to China to try to establish relations on an equal footing with the Qing dynasty, Emperor Qianlong exceptionally granted permission for the envoy of King George III to visit Beijing, on the basis that it would “contribute to the Emperor’s glory.” Finally arriving in China after a nine-month sea voyage, the British were disconcerted to find that all along the route to the capital were hung banners written in large characters proclaiming that the European delegation was led by an “envoy paying tribute to the Great Emperor.” Indeed, Qianlong’s court had informed the public that the head of the foreign delegation, the Irishman George Macartney, was a member of the British royal family who had traversed the oceans in order to “contemplate Civilization.”

“Most dynasties collapsed under the twin blows of ‘inside disorder and outside calamity’ (nei-luan wai-huan), that is, domestic rebellion and foreign invasion,” wrote John King Fairbank, the eminent Harvard scholar of the tribute system. “Every regime was therefore under pressure to make the facts of its foreign relations fit the theory and so confirm its claim to rule China.”

The essence of this thought survives even in contemporary Chinese political thought. As Wang Jisi, dean of the School of International Studies at Peking University, wrote in 2015, “Ever since the founding of ‘New China’ in 1949, China’s foreign and domestic policies have both served the same goal: to maintain internal political stability under the leadership of the Communist Party.”

It is scarcely appreciated in the West today that the “international system” we so readily take for granted is actually a recent creation. It took shape between the middle of the 19th and the middle of the 20th centuries, and started to be cobbled together at the precise moment that China was being subjugated by others and the world order it had sustained, and that had in turn sustained it for so long, was being replaced.

As our modern world was being born, China was plummeting toward a historical nadir in its relative regional power and influence. The norm for it had long been an unshakable conviction in the enduring universality of its values and ethics, its own culture, and its unquestioned centrality. The new, Western form of global universality was based not on a presumed natural hierarchy in the world, with China at the apex, but rather on the presumed equality (at least legally and theoretically) of clearly defined nations, on a raft of Judeo-Christian ideas and institutions, on spreading principles of electoral democracy, on open trade instead of managed tributary exchanges, and finally on a fast-emerging regime of international law. Underwriting all of these fine-sounding notions was, of course, Western and, in the 20th century above all, American power.

China’s experience of its own successful and long-lasting international system, and of its long and mostly unchallenged status as the standard-setter of civilization itself by right, would have necessarily made a shift to almost anything new a difficult downgrade. 

But to an extent that is underappreciated in the West, the brutal circumstances of the transition to what is our now familiar world, coming at a moment of unprecedented Chinese weakness, feeds an unusually deep-seated ambivalence toward contemporary norms, which is becoming more and more apparent with each passing year of increasing Chinese power.

Fairbank wrote with considerable understatement nearly 50 years ago, when China was ruled in largely autarkic fashion by Mao Zedong in near-permanent, revolutionary tension with the postwar system,“Modern China’s difficulty of adjustment to the international order of nation-states in the 19th and 20th centuries has come partly from the great tradition of the Chinese world order. This tradition is of more than historical interest and bears upon Chinese thinking today.”

In its most familiar form, the narrative of the demise of the Chinese world order is the story of rampaging Western imperialism’s triumphant march into East Asia. In its textbooks and in its nationalist propaganda, China itself has styled the one-hundred-year period during which the modern world was built as its Century of Humiliation, with Britain’s Opium Wars and the sack of Beijing by both Britain and France accorded pride of place. Although the aggressive expansion of Western powers into the China-centered world of East Asia was a critical fact of that period, it seems more likely that what the West achieved was in reality the early transformation of the old Chinese world that would soon lead to even more dramatic changes. Principally these would be wrought not by Westerners but rather by historically subsidiary nations in East Asia, as the yawning discrepancy between China’s self-image and geopolitical reality became unsustainable.

Although there were many actors in Asia seeking their own separate accommodations with the nascent international order, the main driver of the change that definitively closed the curtains on the two-millennia-old Sinocentric order in the region was without doubt imperial Japan. It defeated its much larger neighbor in 1895 in the Sino-Japanese War, and thereafter surged ahead of it according to almost every measure of national power over the next half century, only to be driven out of China and defeated in World War II, mostly as a result of reckless military overreach. But even in the decades following its ultimate defeat by the United States, Japan has remained well ahead of China in numerous ways, most obviously in per capita wealth and quality of life, but also, even if the lead here is shrinking, in things like technological advancement and global cultural influence. If nothing else, Japan’s grab for great power, coming very largely at China’s expense, proved the enduring relevance of the previously quoted maxim “When two emperors appear simultaneously, one must be destroyed.” Indeed, up until the present day, East Asia has never proven large enough for two great powers to coexist peacefully, and the question of whether this will be possible in the future looms darkly over the region.

Seen from this angle, the lingering place of the tribute system in the Chinese psyche takes on a new importance. It was one thing for China to be humiliated by the West; Chinese thinkers have taken comfort in the idea that barbarians from afar could never have been expected to accept the Central Kingdom’s virtue and cultural superiority. But the defeats administered beginning in the late 19th century by an upstart Japan, for the Chinese an intrinsically inferior nation whose very origins lay in immense cultural debt to China in everything from writing systems and literature to religion and governance, were a different matter, and the energies unleashed by this history are still profoundly at work in the world today. The towering early-20th-century Chinese intellectual and seminal figure in the birth of the country’s modern nationalism, Liang Qichao, wrote that China’s loss in the Sino-Japanese War “awakened my country from the long dream of four thousand years.”

During most of the second half of the 20th century, including most of the Maoist era, Beijing took a relatively relaxed attitude toward Japan, eagerly absorbing its technology and increasingly massive investments and studying its successes once China’s so-called reform and opening period got under way in the early 1980s. As it did so, Beijing mostly deemphasized the divisive past. China similarly took a largely accepting view of American military primacy in East Asia in the post-Mao era. In hindsight, with both of these positions recently having changed dramatically in the space of less than a decade marked by sharp national ascent, one is tempted to say that China simply made a pragmatic calculation that it was too weak to do anything about either of these situations and should therefore concentrate on quietly building its strength.

This it has certainly done, and today, as China’s self-regard has swollen, along with its newfound power, Japan has returned to the center of the Chinese gaze in the form of a bull’s-eye; the focus of Beijing’s approach to the country (and indeed to the entire sea-bound region that once defined the tribute system, and especially Vietnam and the Philippines) is to restore what from the perspective of the Central Kingdom is considered the natural order. This, it must be said, is not merely the preoccupation of the Chinese state, though. It has also increasingly become a consuming obsession of rising populist nationalism. Success or failure in this grand pursuit, therefore, will go far in determining the legitimacy of China’s leaders, from the assertive incumbent president, Xi Jinping, onward, and indeed could well decide the survival or failure of the Chinese Communist Party.

China’s ultimate goal, however, is not merely to restore a semblance of the region’s old order, an updated kind of tributary system in which the nations of Southeast Asia or even a wealthy and customarily diffident Japan will have no choice but to hitch their fortunes to it and bow to Beijing’s authority. A larger, more ambitious goal is already edging into view. This ambition, evident from behavior even if still not fully avowed, involves supplanting American power and influence in the region as an irreplaceable stepping-stone along the way to becoming a true global power in the 21st century. Shi Yinhong, one of China’s most prominent foreign policy realist thinkers, has written that Xi’s goal is “to give [China] a dominant role in Asia and the Western Pacific—at the cost of the US’s ascendancy.” In a conversation with me, he added, “The West shouldn’t think so much about integrating China into the Western liberal order, but rather try to accommodate China.” This, he said, would ultimately mean having the United States accept military parity with China in the Pacific, the ceding of what he called a “narrow but substantial span of strategic space” for China in the nearby seas, and a loosening of America’s alliance structure in the region.

Even though he is a respected insider, Shi’s vision is provisional and anything but official. It points us nonetheless toward perhaps the most important question there is in this era’s realm of international relations: What kind of power is China likely to become?


Read Full Post »



(The above, an ancient idiom-in-poem, was found on Twitter. Free translation…)

Heavens are not in halves
Earth and land are never apart
The Wise knows silence
Parents know their names
A teacher isn’t you at shoulder
Why then think this is about you?



Something isn’t quite right with this voter registration poster…

it presumes all votes have a moral content, they are equal and the man’s vote equal yours.


Impossibility theorem at work.


Imagine a moment:

Malaysia without God, without standards


Kenneth Arrow has recently died (read here about the person and his work), the man who designed the ‘Impossibility Theorem’ around the idea that people typically make lousy choices and if they were given a second chance to correct the mistake first made they will again pick lousy ones. An infinite number of choices deliver an infinite number of bad judgments so, one can’t be the result of the other.

Hence, when liberals beat us with the cliche — you deserve the government you voted in — those moronic Anglophiles don’t know what it is they are babbling about. There is simply no ideal situation delivering an ideal set of information for making an ideal choice. In economics, that means no perfect markets; in politics no perfect system for an outcome entirely fair and just.

Change the conditions of a circumstance, or even change the settings during a decision, preferences change. This isn’t fickle-mindedness exerted by some invisible hand. Rather, conditions are never what you’d hope for, which goes to show that imperfection serves itself and so, too, imperfect markets. Or, in another way of saying the same thing, something imperfect is its own perfection. And if some lonely woman, say, Annie of the Valley, were to shop around for a perfect man according to a set list of criteria then she’d be drawing out a list every year instead of shopping. Poor woman. And if we think everything around us as unsatisfactory — Malaysians have shiploads of dissatisfaction — then that’s a view perfect only to ourselves. But we’ll never know if the perfection is true because, how can we?

(Why will one never know? Answer: depends on who you ask. According to the Great Moron of Manchester, ‘There are no truths because all views are subjective.‘ If, indeed, there are no objective truths out there then, by the same token, that statement couldn’t be true either. If not T then F. And if F, the Moron’s statement is nonsense. This is what happens when English La Salle and Victorian little old boys try to sell snake oil philosophy outside a Manchester nasi lemak restaurant.)


Arrow’s theorem was great economic work from the use of vigorous mathematics that defeated earlier, commonplace economic and political assumptions which have no basis in mathematical probabilities. By commonplace, it means whining, an Ariff Sabri whine, so much yada, yada out of a Raub durian farm.

(Imagine this ludicrous statement from that DAP bleeding heart: ‘The defining characteristic of a Malay is poverty,’ a race-equal-poor definition plucked from before the 1950s when nine-tenths of the world was poor, including Lim Goh Tong. But never mind that, spare a thought instead for the Orang Asli today, poor, poorer, poorest, still poor, not Malay, without Umno and — thank god — without kampung heads like Ariff’s to struggle on their behalf.)

Arrow’s theorem had profound implications: it meant that material or social progress should not — and couldn’t be, anyway — be set to a single standard. In economics, such a standard, say, a perfect market is simply an artifice of invention which the Great Syed Akbar Ali calls the ‘Laws of Economics’. That man just discovered those laws at work in Malaysia 250 years after Adam Smith.

In Malaysian politics, standard setting is the desire of PAS, of some Umno ministers and numerous government-appointed muftis. Standards create, so they say, an ‘Islamic’ environment, supposedly so that the Malays could live out their Muslim lives fully, ‘holistically’, the Islamic way. RU355 is an example of the standard setting — the ‘Laws of Allah’, says the towel head Hadi Awang — giving form to a supposed Islamic environment. Of course, expect no God of heaven to thunder out and verify his commands that are being shepherded around by Hadi and that other Pahang towel head mufti.

Enter Bersatu and PKR, while Ariff’s DAP sit on its village hands. Also enter Mahathir Mohamad and Bro. Anwar Ibrahim, the latter in the person of Azmin Ali because Bro. Anwar, so happens, is indisposed. Both Mahathir and Anwar are continuing where they left off in the 1980s, currying favor with Islamist political groups — even after, and this what really gets to you — seeing the disastrous results of their early efforts. The decision by Bersatu and PKR to stick with PAS was purely electoral, One-to-One, but all know that the inevitable consequence in their maneuvers will simply hand over the country to those towel heads to dictate other people lives and fix other people’s standards.

Would Mahathir care? No. His hatred for Najib Razak is deeper than his desire to Save Malaysia from himself, from PAS and Islamism. That is, a Malaysia of humanly sane Malays unmolested by the impossibility of arbitrary standards.

In the old days, Mahathir’s excuse for collaborating with Islamist groups (in the person of Anwar) was to craft a set of Muslim standards for Malays while, in return, the latter would support Umno. In this horse trading, the presumptions were many, for example, a Saudi-type religious environment (No external interference in domestic affairs? That’s a load of Malay chauvinist shit.) was necessary for Malays to be good and what’s good for Malays has to be good for Malaysia.

But — and this is the key — they didn’t presume this: Anwar’s Islamic environment agenda was nothing more than standard setting. Instead they took the standard setting for granted, obligatory even. Why? Their answer, because it is a Muslim duty. Says who? Says Allah, never mind if those standards were never verifiable nor proven because, if that was true, Najib Razak who has since devoted so much time and money in the perfect kingdom of Mecca would be the model of sainthood.

All of which arrives at this other conclusion: Other than removing Najib, are Mahathir’s excuses for collaborating with Hadi any different from those during the Anwar days? The answer, if it isn’t self-evident by now, goes to show, once again, Mahathir is dangerous to everybody. He presumes he knows what is good for Malays (and everybody else) but his decisions are as arbitrary as Arrow’s Theorem — supposedly rational one day but would be idiotic the next. And, in between, causing innumerable damage to the fabric of society.

Mahathir is little different from PAS in their approach to politics and treatment of people and society. While he was fixated to the idea — then demanded — that an entire country be modeled after a prescribed standard (Malays! Get rich!), PAS would go about the kampung with its own prescription. Mahathir’s sycophants, namely Kadir Jasin and Firdaus Abdullah, would then call that stupid man a ‘visionary’.

The result: the simple, straightforward idea of merely administrating well and governing fairly is completely lost to these propaganda assholes.

But, here’s the even bigger problem visiting the country: both Bersatu (actually Umno by another name) and PAS are still standard setting because, so their argument goes, the first set had failed: more sex, more hair saloons, more girls on bikes, more unwed mothers. Like Pentecostal Christians — another bunch of assholes — the Hadis and the Berjaya ulamas have convinced themselves their set of moralities are greater than everybody else. So, must be followed — or else we’ll whip you.

Mahathir’s presumed moral world was, on the other hand, utterly infantile when not materialistic: feed full the Malay stomach, his intellectual powers will therefore grow; he will be smarter, become doctors, and all injustices will vanish. The PAS world of morality was, of course, primarily about sausages, haircuts, sex and women. Their morality was never — not even remotely — about Hermes bags or condominiums in England. (This absurdity is why in Saudi Arabia’s women-oppressed world, perfumes by Victoria Secret and clothes by Chanel sell so well even though their women will only get to use those things at home.)

Predictably, as a result, PAS has little to say about Najib’s 1MDB nor all the handbags accumulated by all the Umno wives. Corruption simply isn’t the PAS kind of Saudi morality standard they had been driving around the country since Day One, starting with the veil, Friday holidays, Melayu fetus tossed onto KTM rail tracks, leading to RU355 today — never mind if the Saudis flaunted their morality by booking a whole kafir island for a holiday.

If, ultimately, the PAS version of Saudi morality has nothing to do with money, or Najib in particular, then Umno is still the better of the two choices between it and Bersatu. All that Mahathir wants from PAS, through this 1-to-1 seat contest (which — and don’t laugh — Azmin calls a ‘principle’) is for the latter to deliver Najib’s head to them.

But Najib is the least of the problems confronting Malays and Malaysia. (Among 27 million only one man agrees with this conclusion — S. Thayaparan.) Najib as a national problem is a short-term one. More damaging, more lasting, and more insidious than the man himself is that Najib has gotten on board the Islam agenda which, to be precise, is a Wahhabist agenda fronted by and being fashioned out of PAS.

Yet this is the same Saudi front that Mahathir wants to work with, ignoring the dilapidating consequences from his decades of bringing into Malaysian mainstream the PAS in Anwar and PAS outright. (Remember the Islamic state?) And all that for what? For consolidating his power, what has it gotten Malays and Malaysia? So, for Najib’s head, Mahathir is again willing to throw an entire Malay society to the Arab dogs of Kelantan? Just like he did in his hey-days against political opponents.

That reason alone, Mahathir’s egoism — trading off the entire future of a nation, the greater good of the Malays, for the one man he hates — is  sufficient to reject Bersatu and, regretfully, all of Pakatan as well. We rather stick with Najib and Umno and Barisan: if money can buy Hermes bags, surely it can buy any God.


Women Without Men


Now, girls why would you need Hermes (below) if you had God (above)? The PAS answer, Because it is the woman’s “true function”. Handbags are god created exclusively for women just as women belong in a house, also exclusively.

From the wise assholes at PAS is this standard they have set for the Malay women:

The PAS Ulama council has called for women to be allowed to fulfil their true function as homemakers, even as the world celebrates Women’s Day today.

PAS Ulama information chief Datuk Dr Mohd Khairuddin Aman Razali At-Takiri said households in Malaysia were increasingly broken, citing the rising number of divorces as evidence that the institution of the family was growing weaker.

“As such, it is appropriate that the institution of the family be restored, including providing room and conducive space for each couple, especially wives so that they may perform their true function at home as wives and mothers,” he said in a statement.

Malays have lost so much ground already in spite of Malaysia, such as its Constitution, which had protected them from the vestiges of Islamism. While Umno talked and talked ketuanan, PAS, hiding behind that talk and hiding behind the word Allah, came to the forefront of stripping off those hard-earned rights. The next general election will see if the Malays will even lose more.

Every general election was never about how much the Chinese might or might gain in political power although this had been the handed down propaganda but, really, about how far Malays will retain their freedom and independence from an Arab religion. So far the Chinese have stood in between them and the desert force: Imagine then if the Chinese stop voting.

(Also see bottom of this post, the feature clip about women, Saudi society and its elections.)


Even the recovery of those handbags from Johor had nothing to do with the morality standard of Allah set by PAS that they had copied from Arab camel herders. Only Anglophiles and Christians, associating money with evil, therefore moralizing the two, think it otherwise. Those handbags were about fixing up an Umno chieftain.


Men Without God

Something is terribly wrong in the deputy minister’s answer, 355 won’t solve all of society’s ills. Who says it is suppose to? But, more to the point, since 355 comes from God (so says Hadi) then the Timbalan is also saying one of two things: (a) Allah is imperfect, or (b) 355 isn’t from Allah.

Regardless, the Timbalan in the above clip is evidence of Arrow’s Theorem at work in Malaysia: people change their decisions all the time and nothing in them, in any of those choices, will be fair and perfect.

The inference?

Malays (and Malaysians) are safer with Umno than with Mahathir (or Bersatu) who, like PAS, set humanly impossible standards then blame everybody else for failing to comply — but not themselves for proclaiming those standards. After which, and in order to rectify earlier failures, theirs, they go about making up even more standards that they then say had come from God, a god with an Impossibility syndrome. (picture at the bottom).

That being so, why even bother to start with? But those Kelantan Malay coconut heads will, in turn, answer (clip below): ‘This is the way we are, the way with our society; we follow Allah.’

That answer — ‘That’s the way with Malays‘ — is the Mother of all Lies, a self-contradictory and self-defeating answer because, in Kadir Jasin’s perverse, contradictory reasoning, it would mean that a once riverine, padi society would have had to originate from and had grew up in a desert 8000 miles away.



Maria Without Opposition

Over an article critical of the Opposition, Maria Chin was told to fire her Bersih colleague Mandeep Karpall Singh, which she refused to do. Because, she said, “I don’t know why so many people are jumping up and down about it.

So, if she knew why people are ‘jumping up and down’, Maria would sack Mandeep? She was being disingenuous, of course. She knows why people are ‘jumping up and down’: The Opposition people — DAP motherfuckers in particular — are convinced they are morally superior to Barisan and so are beyond reproach. You cross them, they fix you.

Imagine them in the seat of power. In his days, Mahathir was like that. The Opposition (picture below) today is the most illiberal bunch, the largest ever pile of bigot shit gathered under a single kampung roof.

Here is the ought-to answer for Maria’s question about ‘don’t know why’: Fuck Mahathir, fuck Lim Kit Siang and fuck the Opposition — your Opposition, Maria.


Impossibility syndrome found in the man above: Dulu Umno Melayu ketuanan bigot, sekarang DAP Melayu bleeding heart bigot. All the same a bigot; on top of that, a village idiot.

Read Full Post »


The End of Malaysia



Oouch! Ini tangan Melayu! Saya Malaiyoooo!

Umno protects the Malays from Islam: Give them more Islam.


Asri Zainal Abidin (above) was right about the political nature of Malaysia: it is a Westphalian state.

But Asri didn’t expand on that notion: Westphalian sovereignty is a state, a country, answerable to only itself, independent of outsiders, Allah included, and not beholden to any Islamic, political or religious doctrine, given by Allah or not.

This Westphalian quality is the bedrock principle of Malaysia’s independence. Take that away, the Malay ceases to be Malay by ceasing to be the padi and coconut farmer and riverine, kampung dweller that originally defined the Malay. The Malay becomes instead the mirror image of a camel herder and desert tribal lunatic, seconded into an Arab identity, and losing altogether his own. Malaysia loses that fundamental part of its character that first made it up.


[Syed Akbar Ali had uploaded the above video on his site. Thanks for it, asshole. You asked: How much do I know about hudud? Answer: enough to spit on it.]


RU355 and Hudud are

neither Malay nor Malaysian Laws


Before Mahathir Mohamad, the qualifications of being Malay were never pivoted on a piece of paper. The Malay was a loose term and in some ways open-ended. Since, though, Mahathir declared Malaysia an Islamic state, the inverse of the process to bring in Islam into the Malay consciousness and existential being became unstoppable, aided by that piece of paper called the Constitution.

Because the Malay is today so narrowly defined, primarily and singularly by Islam, Najib Razak has little problem in sequestering Hadi Awang’s parliamentary bill RU355 on behalf of Malays, of Umno and the Barisan Nasional. Doing that, Najib hammers in the last nail to entomb then to exterminate the surviving quality of the Malay — his tropical existence — and forever made irreversible that which had originally defined the Malay.

The two remaining legs of the Malays existence, custom and language, would have to be subverted to Islam. Then they fade, disappear and rendered obsolete. In their places would be the Arab language and Arab customary laws.

The Malay ceases to exist altogether. Malaysia becomes Melayustan.

It would be the price Najib pays to stay out of jail, so concluding the process, started by Mahathir and Anwar Ibrahim, in exterminating the Malay identity and thereby kill the fundamental idea into what had constituted Malaysia. That is, its Westphalian political quality which, in turn, rests on its multi-ethnic and multi-cultural foundations.

Doing that, Umno and PAS, and Hadi and Najib, commit the ultimate treason: the ending of Malaysia as it was conceived.

Standing between this final end and Najib’s self-serving politics are the Chinese (including the populations which had moderated politics in Sarawak and Sabah). Should we, the Chinese, let the Malays kill themselves?


But if we do then Malay self-extermination will be followed by Malaysia’s destruction; it, in turn, to be replaced by a sort of Pakistan — and we know what sort of lunatic country that is.

1MDB will not kill Malaysia; at worse the Malays will eat cow grass and that’s halal anyway. So, the ‘Save Malaysia’ campaign is grossly misdirected and gets only little traction because the 50 billion ringgit theft does not fracture the structures of statehood. (True, the police, Bank Negara, and the AG Chambers were compromised to protect Najib, but such institutions were not dismantled; they are still there.)

RU355 will instead do more lasting, fundamental and irreversible damage to the structures of the national foundations.

Should other Barisan components, including Sarawak, quit their alliances with Umno then Najib (along with Hadi) will have complete reign to insert then to hasten full Syaria laws into Malay life, that is, in the extermination of the Malay identity. Sarawak, if it sticks to its guts, will be further repelled from staying in the Federation. With Umno and PAS on one side of Parliament’s aisle, the rest of Malaysia, or what’s left of it, on the other side, the end of Malaysia is complete.

This has been the dream of racist bigots and Islamo fascists. Other than Hadi and Najib, it has been talked about by Umno’s motherfucker mouthpieces such as Helen Aku Cina Ang, Kadir Jasin, Ismail Sabri, and the Pahang mufti. These morons: Do they know the consequences of what they had wished for?

Perhaps the Chinese should grant them their wish: Support RU355.

The MCA is right with its decision. Let Umno self-immolate because, with the Malay dead, United Malays National Organization would have to undergo its own ‘transformation‘, changing its name included. Najib, over to you….

If Mahathir truly wants to Save Malaysia, and if Lim Kit Siang also wishes to do likewise, they should jointly and openly campaign against the Bill. But they dare not.

That being so, why the hell should the Chinese give a shit for Saving Malaysia? It ain’t our agama, bangsa dan negara.


Read Full Post »

Chinese Chauvinism & Malay Pig


Anglo Chauvinist or Chinese?

Both politicians and the media have painted the above picture as something of the Great Merger, the coming together of a Malay and a Chinese political heavyweight. Bullshit. The only plausibility that they stand together is because both are Anglophiles, sharing an identical, imported western culture with a common worldview.

Their coming together was a political strategy to pull back Malay fears (first instilled by Mahathir Mohamad) of Chinese chauvinism in the DAP and then to re-bridge the popular Malay perception that Pakatan is Chinese driven, a perception that has tainted and worked against the political fortunes of PKR and Amanah, and so to reverse that. Amanah, PKR and Bersatu especially need Zaid to be in DAP more than the DAP needs Zaid. In the DAP, Zaid is superflous — redundant. Now, Pakatan Malays and Bersatu don’t have to explain why they are with Chinese chauvinists who have been considered for ages as anti-Malay and anti-Islam, thanks to Mahathir who started it.


The Chinese Chauvinist


Still saddled with Umno’s bigotry, still haven’t shaken off Mahathirism from his guts, Syed Akbar Ali has this to say on the significance of Zaid Ibrahim in the DAP:

It is an opportunity to show that ‘No we are not Chinese chauvinists‘.

From the annals of Umno bigotry, Chinese chauvinism was made into a bad thing, the ultimate badge of the unpatriotic and the disloyal. In racist Mahathirism, it means the Chinese are unwilling to ‘integrate’ (whatever that is) or, worse, assimilate. Either of which Malays like Kadir Jasin and, of course, Mahathir Mohamad mean to ‘masuk Melayu‘. Before Najib Razak, these Malaiyoos would have preferred Ridhuan Tee to, say, Lim Kit Siang.

What then is Chinese chauvinism? Or, what defines a Chinese chauvinist?

Looking under the sheets for an answer, the term chauvinist isn’t reliable. Framed within the western lexicon-thought, there is no Chinese equivalent because there isn’t an identical concept. Without a word for it, chauvinism had to be made up: 沙文主义 shāwén zhǔyì which reads ridiculous in literal terms, sand/culture/master/righteousness.

The western idea says chauvinism is ‘exaggerated patriotism or nationalism’, that is, the belligerent belief in a national superiority and glory. You could fit a Malaiyoo, say, Kadir into that category and so called him a Malay chauvinist — although strangely nobody, the media especially, do it. Why? Because chauvinism is derogatory. The Chinese is fair game though.

Kadir is Malay chauvinist because that’s what he himself has professed: only Malays are the rightful heirs of Malaysia, others are pendatangs, and that the Malays are in possession of a great (but fictitious) culture and civilization (imported from Arabia).

Apply that frame of Malay chauvinism to a Chinese and it doesn’t make sense in any nationalist way. On the contrary, the Chinese chauvinist is considered to be the embodiment of  disloyalty. Hence, the term becomes a convenient Umno and Malay tool to beat up on the Chinese, so justifying half a century of discrimination in Malaysia.

In the justification, the NEP is considered, falsely, ‘reverse affirmation action‘ (a term every motherfucking English language reporter uses) when, in point of fact, it was and remains an apartheid policy today set in stone. (In the US, affirmative action arose as a result of a long history of minority discrimination — education, jobs, even getting a bus seat — without making the majority worse off. In Malaysia, the opposite, bizarre thing happens where Mahathir’s NEP discriminates against the minority as punishment and as if the Chinese were collectively responsible for Malay poverty.)

In China where one would expect to find numerous Chinese chauvinists, the term is a contradiction in terms since everyone in every ethnic group is by state policy Chinese, policy as opposed to the legal definition (in Malaysia). One would be hardpressed to find a chauvinist out of 1.3 billion. Here’s Mao Zedong in 1956:

“…on the relationship between the Han nationality and the minority nationalities…. we put the emphasis on opposing Han chauvinism.”

In that Mao line ethnocentrism is the closest rendering to any semblance of western chauvinism. Han chauvinism is rendered in pinyin as da hanzu zhuyi 大汉族主义. Mao ordered any expression of that zhuyi 主义 eradicated on the grounds that China is a civilizational state not a legal contraption (like is America or France or Malaysia) where laws were made up, sometimes implicitly, often explicitly (the Malaysian Constitution), to give legal existence to multiple ethnicities. The civilization that defines China has long been well established, indeed since the Han dynasty 2000 years ago wherein there was then just one emperor and all are equally his subjects. The People’s Republic follows that tradition, a single unitary state from which is created in whose name all its nationalities (actually ethnicities, 56 in total).

If Chinese chauvinism cannot be framed in (western) political terms what then is its intrinsic meaning? Asked in this way then there seem to be no other point of reference in Malaysia other than this: A Chinese chauvinist is someone who is steeped in Chinese culture, learning and in its traditions.

Who would be the perfect example of such a Chinese chauvinist? Helen ‘Aku Cina‘ Ang? How about Lim Kit Siang? (Care to nominate anyone of them, you are a stupid clown.)

Not even among the contributors at shuzheng could you properly fit that label because such a chauvinist would have to, by its internal logic, embody all that’s intrinsic in Chinese-ness. These characteristic qualities of Chinese-ness wouldn’t be something you can fake, as a Malaiyoo can be faked — the Malay has no determined roots nor any fixed indigenous past. Nor fake to be a Muslim or Christian wherein all one needs to do is to open your mouth and wag your tongue’s allegiance to some God. Ridhuan Tee would claim he is Malay and who is to say he can’t?

The Chinese does not exist by a declaration.

Since the eradication of Han ethnic-centricity, Chinese-ness, by taking in a history of traditions, has acquired a metaphysical dimension. Tang ren 唐人 or Tang people, from an era around 1,000 AD, is often treated as synonym to being true Chinese. In another form the Chinese is also called huaren 华人 or flower people, any of which underlies the traditional notion the Chinese is defined by a set of certain character qualities — and perpetually cultivating them.

Cultivation begins with learning, which comes from the idea that the qualitative being of a person changes from moment to moment — we are different in the way we react to a girl friend or as a son. A person never ceases to change; no person is fully form not even in death so that the cultivation of individual character is itself the goal of humanity.

This, the ceaseless drive to cultivate the self, is the essence of what’s to be Chinese so that, contained within the idea, is the English phrase, ‘let people be’. The Chinese invented liberalism centuries before the word came into vogue in modern political discourse.

To be steeped in Chinese culture and learning, one could try imitating but there’s a 3,000 year long history to start. When? Which starting point? Confucius is still your best bet because he was, by historical consensus today, one of the three persons who best defined what’s to be Chinese; the others being Qin Shihuang, first Qin emperor of a unified China, and Sima Qian 司马迁 (145 or 135 – 86 BC), a court scribe who wrote the first Chinese history (3,000+ pages) during Emperor Wu in the Han dynasty era. (Without him, many nationalities such as Mongolians and Manchus would have no existence in name today; they would be unclassifiable as an ethnicity.)

Question thus: What is it to be a Confucian? Some aspects are taken for granted and which are today text-written in Chinese books and others passed on by word of mouth in the homes, from mother/father to son and so on. An example: filial piety. Another, the Rule of the Golden Mean.

Confucius was the world’s first ‘liberal’ and ‘democrat’ and ‘humanitarian’ nobody in the West could well imagine, except that they don’t know and don’t read widely and can’t.

Now, wouldn’t it be nice if, in Malaysia, all Malays were Chinese chauvinists as well?

In the circumstance, one would have hoped that all 7 million Chinese in Malaysia would be chauvinists. But, alas, Mahathir, like Zaid Ibrahim today, preferred Anglophiles and still haven’t learned nor have they gotten rid of the confusion in their minds the difference between the two.


See a Malay Pig slouched in his chair contemplating Chinese chauvinism?


A Malay Pig Arm Stretched Out to the Chinese

That man with an arm over the shoulders of a Chinese chauvinist is Kadir Jasin, one of Mahathir’s henchmen. In Mahathir’s days, his Umno government slapped a toll gate in the middle of Cheras where Tan Kok Wai was, and still is, the MP (he has been since 1995). The suburb is near 100 percent Chinese, and this was the days of Mahathir’s privitization.

To milk the Chinese of what they had, Mahathir got Samy Vellu to add two to the existing four lanes of a 3 km portion of the Cheras Road into KL. After which the stretch was labelled a ‘highway’. Two years on and the toll drawing only a meagre income, JKR cut off the only other but congested access out of Cheras, forcing everyone to pay an extortionate rate to the concession holder, an Umno company owned by an Anwar Ibrahim crony. Because of this extortion, Tan launched a series of protest. Police broke into Tan’s house late one night, threw him into jail for inciting riots, and Kadir Jasin used the New Straits Times to promote the Mahathir line that Tan was an anti-national element, a gangster and especially a Chinese chauvinist.

Numerous Chinese, both the ordinary and the politicians, have suffered greatly under Umno hands, under Mahathir, and maligned by Kadir. Now these same motherfuckers — these insufferable assholes — are pleading to Save Malaysia.

Tan or 陈国伟 Chen Guowei in pinyin speaks bad English and Malay but his Mandarin is perfect. He has a bad eye and isn’t the sort of Khairy J poster boy so admired by that Lady of the Valley bitch named Annie. (Kit Siang would be nowhere today without the like of Tan, slogging behind.) Like many DAP politicians, though, Tan has worked quietly and tirelessly for a fairer and just administration, no matter who ruled. Is that too much to ask? (Photo below was taken ten years ago, December 2006.) Kadir, among numerous Umno racists, twisted fairer and just to mean Chinese chauvinism. But fairer and just had to be applied to be Chinese, and not Malays, because millions of them (and Indians) were at the receiving end of a huge truncheon wielded by Umno and Mahathir.

Only in the Chinese chauvinists could they have endured Mahathirism and oppression with such fortitude and forbearance and not permit everything to descend into chaos and civil war, as did in Sri Lanka and Syria. The most drastic step the Chinese chauvinists took in protest was to emigrate. More than a million did, twice the number of Syrians who fled to Europe.

I did, too, and I don’t give a fuck for Saving Malaysia. So, Kadir, take your filthy Malaiyoo hands off our shoulders. It’s payback time and may Najib turn you into minced pork then toss off your shrivelled prick to the dogs.



The Malay Pig



Another day, another Malay Oppression of the Chinese

Malaiyoo! Take your filthy hands off our things!

These Malaiyoos don’t know how to be sensitive. For centuries, the Chinese have been selling (to Chinese!) and using these brushes in schools and at homes. Now, suddenly out of the blue, on some frivolous pretext, and because of their Umno and PAS, because of some Allah and Jakim Allah-keepers, they find those brushes illegal. The Malays are truly insufferable: how have we been bothering them? By selling custom-made Chinese things to Malays?

Without hudud they do this; imagine then during hudud. It isn’t enough for Malay authorities to go after their girls and boys on bikes, now they want to tell the Chinese how to do their business — among the Chinese themselves.

Fuck off, Malaiyoo! We will remember your oppression, and you will pay. That we promise.


Chinese Chauvinism is a Pig Bristle Brush

At some point in his work, the Muslim man above would have had to use pig bristle brushes. He, you see, lives in China. Hear him complain that Allah told him the brushes are haram.

These insufferable Malaiyoo pigs, endlessly inventing grievances, a cake before now a brush!


Read Full Post »


annaleeAbove, Annabelle Lee: Even in imitation as a western copy then crowning herself with an English name, she is progressive. Contained in a single word, it had to be four syllables long with four vowels. What an Anglophile witch….



DAP’s Chinese Politics

& a Progressive Malaysian


Annabelle Lee (above) considers herself as something of a ‘Progressive’, more precisely a ‘Malaysian Progressive’. Although the word progressive is unexplained but she probably means to say she is way ahead of everybody in the way she thinks of the world and of the societies around her.

Progressives desire to shape the world after their fashion, the way one becomes a Christian to shake off the past, traditions, customs, culture and so on, and to don new clothes, acquire a new language, even a new name. As some ‘masuk Melayu‘, others ‘masuk Olang Putih‘. To Christians, ‘born-again‘ ones in particular, their inherited culture is ‘low class’, and literally a ‘yoke’ to be cast off.  Hence, here’s Annabelle, and the above named organization is something of a church that’s to be emblematic of her arrival and to gather the flock wherein she can announce the answers to the problems of the world, usually political ones, in Malaysia especially. It’s also her pulpit platform from which to stand bellowing and to holler.

Anna needs it.

Progressives like Anna talk a lot, shout the loudest often heavily laced with biblical quotations. An Anna favorite is (predictably) 2 Timothy 1:7: For the Spirit God gave us does not make us timid, but gives us power, love and self-discipline. In that order of priorities, power is first. Shouting is power, and yelling at Malaysians from Melbourne is power. Bantah Trump is especially a demonstration of that power.

Love? She loves herself more than her mother, which explains why she loves listening to herself bellowing and the comeuppance smirking selfie in her Twitter photo. Self-discipline? If she had that, she would be yelling less.

Progressivism has had a long history. Consider the following lines from Theogony in the pre-Christian Greek era:

Verily first of all did Chaos come into being, and then broad-bosomed Gaia (Earth), a firm seat of all things forever,… Out of Chaos, Erebos and black Night came into being; and from black Night, again, came Aither and Day, whom she conceived and bore after mingling in love with Erebos. …

Now, check out another biblical mythology in the opening passage of the Genesis:

And God said, ‘Let there be light’, and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light ‘day’, and the darkness he called ‘night’. And there was evening and there was morning — the first day. …

This present era of faking news, ‘Good News’ is how the Bible is often termed, didn’t begin in Malaysia nor did it begin with Reuters or Malaysiakini. Progressivism is the western conception of linearity, not Daoist cyclical change that the Chinese accept is the very nature of the world. Hence, in both Theogony and the Genesis is the progression from nothingness to something, from chaos to order, from light to day.

Although people like Anna would say progressivism’s applicability is universal, that is, across all cultures and societies and religions, its birth is clearly the West wherein is the messianic idea that if the barbaric, chaotic non-White societies, Asian or African, were to emulate Europe, the conditions in your life would improve: subscribe to their God as one subscribes to Twitter and MPOZ, acquire their English language, eat their fish and chips, and buy into their democracy politics.

From Wiki:

Sociologist Robert Nisbet defines five “crucial premises” of the Idea of Progress as being: value of the past; nobility of Western civilization; worth of economic/technological growth; scientific/scholarly knowledge obtained through reason over faith; the intrinsic importance and worth of life on Earth. … The contemporary common political conception of progressivism in the culture of the Western world emerged from the vast social changes brought about by industrialization in the Western world in the late 19th century, particularly out of the view that progress was being stifled by vast economic inequality between the rich and the poor; minimally regulated laissez-faire capitalism with monopolistic corporations…, claiming that measures were needed to address these problems.

In Progressivism thus is a short-hand for left-wing politics: If only the barbaric societies that needed ‘saving’ (remember Save Malaysia?) were to adopt the western progress model, chaos would turn into order. One often hears the same derision from DAP’s Hannah Yeoh and Liew Chin Tong: Other people, Malays in particular, are so ‘low class’.

Progressives are, in their origins, birthed by Christiandom. A person such as Anna is therefore Anglophile first, Christian next, then Progressive — in that order. Take that formula and you’d find it filling the ranks of the DAP and PKR: Hannah Yeoh, Elizabeth Wong, Anthony Loke, Liew Chin Tong, Howard Lee, Charles Santiago…, the same types who grew up in the La Salle and going to the same school in Australia, feeding on toast and marmalade for breakfast.

They would exploit the disenchantment of the Chinese electorate in Malaysia, milk it for all that it’s worth, and once they get to Parliament continue their shouting, not on the basis of the vote received but that they have been endowed and blessed by God instead; one hears this peppered in the speeches of Howard Lee (a Hannah protege) and Charles Santiago. Other than the subscription to another name of a God, are they any different from a PAS MP? Is it any surprise they write and speak primarily in English — it would be, they claim, their mother tongue — and that they would claim Chinese second? (Of course, they won’t say that when they go hustling for votes.)

PKR’s Saifuddin Abdullah lies when he say that Pakatan and Bersatu were protesting against the inhumanity in Donald Trump’s barring of seven Muslim nationals from the US. How could Saifuddin advocate for the same thing as did PAS bigots, protesting in front of the same embassy a day earlier? How could Christianity or Islam, either of which promise you fire and brimstone if you refused their God, has any sense of humanity?

Progressives and Anglophiles, Malay or Chinese, can’t and won’t tolerate another human different from them, different from Annabelle.

Yee Weejie misses the point when he denounced this Malaysian hypocrisy. The like of Saifuddin and Annabelle act not out of hypocrisy but because their progressive politics feed off from the same cultural and value systems they import from the West and which are lodged in Umno racism and enshrined in the Malaysian Constitution, with the Orwellian line such as, ‘All are created equal but some are more equal than others‘.

  • Hence, Lim Kit Siang has no problems sleeping with Mahathir Mohamad who wants to specifically ban Chinese from China entering Malaysia for whatever purpose, business in particular: power first, you see. Hence, the DAP complains about Trump’s discriminatory policies while does nothing to stop Mahathir’s or Bersatu’s discrimination in replicating Umno politics.
  • Human rights is for those with the power. Hence, Kit Siang complains about hudud laws but does nothing to protest Bersatu and PKR from dealing with PAS and from distinguishing Pakatan away from emulating Umno in baiting the Malay votes.

There is an Annabelle in all the DAP and PKR Anglophile motherfuckers, imitation Progressives conniving in their blindness to their own racism, looking down on others who see the world different from them.


Read Full Post »

Older Posts »