Archive for the ‘Philosophy’ Category

Tommy Thomas ‘free speech’ answer to a political question.


From the clip, Question: Was public disclosure from MACC’s secret wire-taped conversation on the 1MDB affair political interference in an ongoing corruption trial of Najib Razak?

Answer (truncated): I believe in free speech. Anybody is entitled to say anything they want. Criterion of free speech: anything the other person don’t like to hear. Criterion for free speech: this is a free country. Principle of sub-judice doesn’t exists. Why? Because there is no jury trial. Judges are sufficiently qualified (knowledgeable? clever? independent?) not to be influenced by what they read and hear (from free speech). Free speech will produce errors and mistakes, it doesn’t matter.

After saying so much, the Attorney-General Tommy Thomas still hasn’t answered the question: Is it political interference? The question was loud, plain and clear enough. Unless Thomas doesn’t understand English, though he does, then he was curbing his freedom to speak freely — hence, answer — on a matter of ‘political interference’ in an ongoing judicial matter.

The question has to do with separation of powers that Malaysia brags that exists as a matter of course in democracy. He was not asked about a political right, that of free speech. Suppose it were, is this gargling on free speech, even free speech?

More on that later. But, for the moment, since Thomas was gagging himself from answering the question then he had shackled his own freedom, that is, his entitlement “to say anything he wants” — even as AG.

However, what is it that he wants not to say? The answer circles back to the question: He wants not to say if the prime minister Mahathir Mohamad is interfering in the Najib Razak trial.


  • One. Falsely equating free speech to a political right that exceeds possible criminal conduct by an officer of the law, namely Latheefa Koya. That is, Thomas interferes in the trial through a red-herring argument: he was allowing Latheefa to interfere in the trial by justifying her disclosure as free speech. But,
    • (a) what has her disclosure to do with her freedom, personal freedom in particular. Or, to restate, if she doesn’t disclose, how is her freedom violated? It clearly wasn’t. If Latheefa isn’t MACC chief, therefore without access to the evidence, her freedom is especially not violated because there’s nothing to violate.
    • (b) her freedom not violated, her free speech having nothing to do with her person, and the free speech principle still available to her, what, in effect, has her free speech to do with disclosing the freedom of others in speaking among themselves (although carried out in secret, although secretly taped)?
    • (c) who is actually doing the violation of free speech because Latheefa has given notice — which Thomas has endorsed: Please speak freely, I will tape, and subsequently use your free speech to freely fuck you.
  • Two. Latheefa’s disclosure of evidence that will possibly influence the verdict on Najib is worse than ‘sub-judice’ because her disclosure manifest her intent. That intent, provided by her, contained in the disclosure, is to influence the trial’s outcome. This would be the conclusion of any reasonable mind. If this isn’t her intent, what would be the purpose of the disclosure? To serve free speech and that to what end? If free speech is not intended to persuade and, therefore, influence perceptions, outcomes, thoughts, presuppositions, etc, — a trial! — what would be free speech for?
  • Three. Sub-judice is least of the problem in Latheefa’s disclosure. It is far worse. The trial of Najib is compromised. His moral (fairness), legal (extrajudicial use of evidence) and constitutional rights (all are equal before the law) have all been taken away. And the nation’s top officer named Tommy Thomas, in cahoots with a chief top law enforcer, say the violation is okay — because of free speech!
  • Four. Being compromised, Najib is done in. Mahathir wants to fix him, key evidences to convict Najib have been shoddy at best, and this wire-tape comes up. Yet, against this background that tells the story of abuse of authority, of evidence tampering, of conspiratorial plotting, of overt criminality, the denial of rights and so on — all carried at the highest levels of government, Thomas, Latheefa, and others like Mahathir, et al — lawyers, politicians, and their media hacks go around with the song and dance that Malaysia is still a ‘free country’, democratic and abides by ‘the rule of law’.


A final note on free speech.

In Thomas’s definition, a speech is free when delivered without hindrance, in particular by the listener who ‘doesn’t like’ the speech.

  • What is speech? Words spoken.
  • What is free? Without hindrance.
  • What is free speech? Words spoken without hindrance.

Is free speech therefore a good thing to have? Thomas says, yes. It is an entitlement.

Why or how is it an entitlement? His answer is tautological: Free speech is an entitlement because Malaysia is a free country. That answer is not an argument (whether of constitution, of law, of logic, or of philosophical first principles). It is what we say in logic a dead duck: A dead duck is dead; A bachelor is an unmarried man. That is, it is a nonsensical gargling of words producing no meaning, no direction and no conclusion.

Anglophone lawyers types, such as in Malaysia, are only good at that. In media, it’s called ‘spinning’.

The newspaper types used to hoist up Thomas, his law firm, and many others, as being ‘top legal minds’. Yet they cannot satisfactorily resolve a simply question, what is free speech?

If you accept his definition, then the law of sub-judice is a hindrance to free speech. The MACC act of secret recording is a violation of free speech. Even Thomas breaks the principle because he is not freely saying — that is, he not answering — what he has been asked to say, freely, if Latheefa’s disclosure is ‘political interference’.

All defamation laws violate free speech, it being the highest principle of the land. Highest because Thomas said so. It is an entitlement, like a birth right.

Entitlement or no entitlement, so what? If Apandi is AG tomorrow, it won’t be an entitlement.

The notion of free speech is purely an invented form. When useful, it becomes a political whacking tool; it can be a crime today, a freedom tomorrow. We all live with this charade of a non-existent reality. But what sticks in the craw are the presence of idiots, ‘influencers’ people called them who not only endorse the fiction but actually write this crap in the spirit of free speech: ‘Kudos to AG on Free Speech‘.

It manifests the result of what free speech can do to mamak, Malaiyoo and Anglophile brains.

Still want to be entitled to free speech? Influenced by, imbibed in, and bending to Anglo-Saxon political culture, morons like Thomas treat speech as an either/or situation. That is, either it is free or it is not free even though Thomas cannot possibly choose since he cannot possibly know the choices. Speaking is a morality much like the act of killing or not to kill, and not some right, political or whatever, but free speech is not even that.

Thomas does not conclude that speech has nothing to do with freedom, real freedom, because the two are separate, distinct concepts like water and oil, between which speech is an act whereas freedom is purely a thought made up. That way of thinking is Hegelian Chinese to which Anglophiles had never experienced.

Instead, he automatically repeats the fiction of free speech passed on to him in law classrooms. Not realizing it, Thomas was squaring the circle. A person such as OSTB, Thomas as well, can never think outside the box because he is the box, boxed in, lines drawn, boundaries created even before he came out into the Anglophile world.

Analogously, all that is what it means to offer flowers to a monkey. The idea of a flower offered in hands stretched out is a human creation, not a monkey’s. The flower itself is not the thing; what’s key is the idea which combines the flower and the act of offering. Monkeys may know how to share food, but not offer flowers. See the difference? So, like the flower idea is to a monkey, freedom is to Tommy Thomas.

But Thomas is instead held up as a beacon of the clever. Can you then see why Malaysia is so fucked up? And why words like freedom and democracy continue to fuck up everybody, all the way to Washington and London, then washed back ashore onto the Straits of Malacca. And they don’t even know it.


Read Full Post »

This matter of cogito, ergo sum — I think, therefore I am — must be settled here. Anglophiles throw around the English translation to impress, as if, in impressing, they would be looked up to. And being looked up to, they would gain recognition of sort, and so be looked upon as smart. Cocks crow, the donkey neighs, Malaiyoos whine alot and Anglophiles shout cogito.

A word of caution beforehand: The passages immediately below are philosophical discussions which, by their nature, are logically vigorous, ideas are patterned, organized, and therefore exceedingly difficult. Such a sort of discussion would be simplified (as best as it can be done), but it doesn’t lend easily to Anglophone advertising language or Anglophile one-liners or Malaysiakini American newspeak that are more effective as propaganda.

First thing to note about Rene Descartes, to whom cogito, ergo sum is attributed, is that he is a French native although his two most notable books Meditations of First Philosophy (1641) and The Discourse of Method (1644) were written while in the Netherlands where he was a soldier in his teenage years. Those weren’t the only periods Europeans were busy killing each other, conquering and reconquering.

An academic type, contemporary of Pierre de Fermat (noted for the mathematical Fermat Theorem) and Baruch Spinoza (Ethics), Descartes lived in European medievalism, an era, which up to DH Lawrence’s Britain, is not unlike Malaiyoos in Malaysia today. It is a dangerous period: if you say Allah is dead, or Jesus is a bastard child, or the earth went round the sun you go to jail.

Here then is the starting problem: in such circumstances, how do you do philosophy that wants to lift up the stone to see what’s underneath, even if it’s a worm there? (In contrast, Chinese doing philosophy for thousands of year never had to face such life-threatening dangers; so free are we, even from the beginning of time.)

There is the other problem: Analytical philosophy requires the stone to be turned over. Why? Because there is no other way to think about science or mathematics, such as answering the question, ‘Why must there be a god?’ Or, ‘Why must 2 and 2 equal 4?’ Or, ‘why must the earth spin around the sun and not the other way round’. Or, what is it to be ‘good’? (BTW, we Chinese have resolved those questions 2,000 years earlier. Stupid White people.)

In Spinoza, Descartes contemporary and actually the better of the two thinkers, questions like the above laid the western foundations of logicism or logical thinking in answering ethical questions; hence he wrote the book called ‘Ethics‘ (1665).

Descartes, along with Fermat, began, on the other hand, with geometry, that is, the study of a point on a plane, such as a paper, then expanded to two points on the same plane. Essentially, Descartes is attempting to look at first principles in the same analytical, philosophical method as was Spinoza. In Descartes are questions such as, ‘What is it to have a point on a plane? What is a point on a plane? How does it come into being’?

This method or way of philosophical inquiry is called metaphysics — namely why is there something rather than nothing. You can therefore see why Descartes book which contained the ‘cogito, ergo sum‘ term is called Discourse of Method.  Recall that Descartes is French so the Latin term was actually from the French ‘je pense, donc je suis’ (Google translation).

Below is the translated English passage that contains the term (Gutenberg translation):

While we thus reject all of which we can entertain the smallest doubt, and even imagine that it is false, we easily indeed suppose that there is neither God, nor sky, nor bodies, and that we ourselves even have neither hands nor feet, nor, finally, a body; but we cannot in the same way suppose that we are not while we doubt of the truth of these things; for there is a repugnance in conceiving that what thinks does not exist at the very time when it thinks. Accordingly, the knowledge, I think, therefore I am, is the first and most certain that occurs to one who philosophizes orderly.

In Descartes earlier work Meditations, the term had already appeared, saying and meaning the same idea:

But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I, too, do not exist? No. If I convinced myself of something [or thought anything at all], then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who deliberately and constantly deceives me. In that case, I, too, undoubtedly exist, if he deceives me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing, so long as I think that I am something. So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind.

What is that idea Descartes was trying to make out? The philosopher Krauth (1872) suggests this: “That cannot doubt which does not think, and that cannot think which does not exist. I doubt, I think, I exist.”

To say, (in the Discourse) ‘therefore I am‘ is actually to mean and to say the same thing (in the Meditations) ‘I exist‘. But this is still not satisfactory.

Let’s try thinking it in this other way, without losing Descartes idea: the term ‘I’, existing as both subject and predicate, is used to advance his central plank that all knowledge (epistemology) begins from the only source possible: that is, I — the Being. Or, restating that, I think, therefore I am is not the conclusion in Descartes train of his epistemological argument but the opening shot which some decades later was roundly broken into a thousand pieces by other rationalist philosophers starting with Hegel, Kierkegaard, then Russell and Wittgenstein.

As the countervailing argument goes: You think, therefore you are? But, Senor Descartes, you are nothing! Nothing begins with you. You are not unlike a dog which can only respond to the smell of a bone or a cow to grass. You are but a worm!

Descartes wouldn’t know where to put his face.

Today, 400 years after Descartes, along comes a Malaiyoo named Kadir Jasin, resident in a mosquito swamp called Tanah Melayu. Copying from a defunct argument, he proclaims his Aha! moment as if he had arrived at a Eureka discovery: ‘I’m Malay therefore I’m Jawi‘.

The world has never heard a more stupid Cogito.

Look up a coconut tree, Kadir: See yourself, the ‘I’, up there? It’s one and the same. Darwin has proved it.

We’ll leave it at that, and so refrain from torturing you further about Monyet bin Kadir Jasin. That would be a waste of time, like feeding flowers to a monkey dangling at the end an epistemological coconut rope. Here, thus, for your entertainment, I present you the Monyet’s Aha moment, or a fragment of it. (Mkini’s Stevie Wonder Gan is so impressed he has labeled that Monyet Moment ‘News‘. Well, well…)


Kadir’s monyet moment


WE are shaped and guided by our life experiences. (Oh! Really?) The more that we go through them, the richer our lives becomes. We will be less easily agitated and provoked.

That’s one of the reasons why I do not say much about the Jawi or any other communally-motivated issue, and the agitations that follow.

To me Jawi is part of my existence. Like the shirt I wear or the food I eat. I learned to write and read Jawi the way Malays of my generation would; through the Quranic class and formal schooling at the Sekolah Melayu – the Malay School – in the 1950’s and 60’s.

Jawi is derived from the Arabic script with a few additional letters and was widely used for Malay language writing before the Rumi (Roman) alphabets became popular.

The Arabic script used in Malaysia, Brunei and some parts of Sumatera is known as Jawi. In Aceh it is called Jawoe and Pattani Yawi.

To many people, Jawi is more than just a form of writing. In our part of the world, it is synonymous with the Malays and Muslims. In many instances, Jawi is used as a synonym to the Malay race.



Read Full Post »


Image result for herd morality

If I cannot have something, no one can have anything.






This is what is most terrible of all — the concept of the good man signifies one side that is weak, sick, failure, suffering of itself — and the principle of selection is crossed. An ideal is fabricated from the contradiction against the proud and well turned-out human being who says, ‘Yes’, who is sure of his future, who guarantees the future, and yet he is now called Evil. — Ecce Homo


The ideas of the herd should rule (only) in the herd and not reach out beyond it. — The Will to Power


There exist a plethora of individuals who desire to persecute and bring down those who rise above the mediocre mass, masking their envy with calls for equality. — Beyond Good and Evil


When some men fail to accomplish what they desire to do they exclaim angrily, ‘May the whole world perish! If I cannot have something, no one can have anything.‘ — The Dawn


Image result for joshua wong german

Behold the Man

Like he were some Jew Savior, the Christian Anglophile Joshua Wong (left) is over-rated in large part because western reporters and editors adore the idea that here, at last, is a Chinese admirer and copy of their racism and religion — their culture — and they could announce all that at home.

So they wrap the Chinaman’s neck in garlands and throw flowers at his feet. They lift him onto the pedestal, and they call in the Press to hail him as the new Savior. But, in true European style, he proceeds instead to kill the White man’s God, fulfilling the Nietzsche’s prophesy of the charlatan who believes himself to be Deliverer and, hence, Master of the Chinese race. A lunatic in a herd.

In its stupidity and its Chinese humanitarian outlook, the Hong Kong government have been overly kind to him, to let him live and stand trial for insurrection. But, kill him tomorrow, his name will be forgotten the next day.

And there’s not a fucking thing in the world the German fascist Heiko Maas (right) can do to save his Chinaman King of Jews.




Image result for what doesn't kill me hong kong


Why Joshie Wong met the German Fascists


The image above perfectly illustrates the racist and fascist character of the riots that have been deliberately hidden from view by Reuters, BBC, CNN, Stevie ‘Wonder’ Gan, et al. Even the Hong Kong government pretends no fascism exists by explaining the riots as acts of wayward kids and that there exist legitimate concerns and so the kids must be listened to.

In one riot video clip, I spotted a hand-written message board that looks much like the poster above. It reads, “What doesn’t kill me makes me stronger.

That line is from Frederich Nietzsche in his book of aphorisms Twilight of the the Idols (1888). Nietzsche expanded on that idea in Ecce Homo (1908), the Latin phrase for ‘Behold the Man‘, words used by Pontius Pilate, a local Roman governor, when he presented Jesus Christ to a mob during a trial (Mihály Munkácsy’s 1896 painting below).

The original line in Nietzsche’s German language (Google’s translation: ‘Was mich nicht umbringt macht mich stärker) was used in propaganda training in Nazi youth camps.

Now, to extend the logic further: Since they are the mob and, by corollary extension, we are Jesus Christ and since they are fascists and they want us banished from Chinese territory then it is fair and just they should be treated likewise. That is, we Chinese shall cease to treat them in any Confucian-Chinese humanitarian way for this only makes them more fascistic — stronger racists.

By extension of the argument, we Chinese therefore have all the justifications to kill them, if only to save ourselves and not become their slaves and they our masters. Kill them we must.


Image result for what doesn't kill me hong kong


And why not? If God is not sacrosanct, if Jesus can be killed, why not a bunch of slavish mental Hongkee Jewish pygmies? Why are their lives so prized above 1.4 billion others, above a 18-year-old St Stephen’s college girl, above mine and my Love?


In this post (to be uploaded soon), ‘Stopping the Hong Kong Riots‘, we have condensed, in order to highlight, four suggestions for consideration by the central Beijing and local Hong Kong governments. Those are long term goals, but they are fundamental in a collection of anti-dotes to the pervasive cultural appropriation that has poisoned Hong Kong Chinese society:

  • remove all vestiges of Anglo-Americanism, in particular removing English as an official language; Hong Kong doesn’t need English to prosper; the Koreans didn’t nor did Japan; all legal documents and all notices and all speeches must be in Chinese and Chinese only (Cantonese included);
  • change the educational system in its entirety, especially in its curricula from front page to back, first and foremost by removing the system from its Christian voodoo foundations and moving it into a secular one; this is easily accomplished by drawing on the experiences of the Han, Tang and Ming dynasties;
  • integrate the local economy with China’s, first by breaking off the HK$ and US$ peg, by adopting the RMB as the only legitimate currency, by removing all bureaucratic impediments into the free flow of city and mainland trade of goods and services, of people and of travel; and,
  • bring the legal system into a separate Confucianist model that gives more power to individual officials than to statutes and law enactments. This follows Korea and Japan (Taiwan to a certain extent) where legislation is kept to a minimum for acts of government and administration. Instead of the tyranny of law, there is rule by humans who, in spite of all our follies, is far more humanitarian especially if the authorities and bureaucrats are educated and tested in the Chinese tradition for their positions. This has been the model China used for more than 2,000 years, up until today. Communist Party rule is a misnomer that Western media propaganda uses to discredit China’s standing.

Why are the above measures necessary? The answer in our proposal paper is this: Ostensibly, the Hong Kong crisis appears legalistic, political, economic, social, and is related to American imperialism in particular. All are true, but America and Jimmy Lai cannot get far without the students.

Hence, dig deeper. One finds at the root of the crisis all the existential ingredients you care to name and which matters to student modernity: morality, religious values, social relations. This explains why the bigotry of the Church, the propaganda of the western Media, the journalist associations and White man racism have joined forces with the Mob. This is also why no amount of backtracking and appeasement by Carrie Lam will stop the riots.

The students don’t even care — minimally, for justice — for one of their own killed in Taiwan, her corpse dumped on the street like household garbage. (Their callousness is also contributed by the fact the dead girl is a heathen Chinese and not a Christian.) She was barely 18, like them, a student in one of HK’s top Anglophile Christian schools, the St. Stephen’s Girls College in the island.

If the students don’t care, why should the rest of Hong Kong care when they are shot dead on the streets? Death would be their freedom. So, we free them.


For non-philosophy students and readers, the above clip An Introduction to Nietzschean Thought is important — and necessary — to follow the rest of this article.



All is fair in love and war.

It is easy to make a rational, a moral and a legal case to kill those Anglophile mobs.

But the long-term problem facing Chinese society is not them — nor Joshua Wong — but the self-immolation, nihilist ideas they have inherited from German Nazism and the racist Anglo-American political theology. Fascism will not die with the Joshuas and the Wongs. But killing them makes killing their White gods the first step, therefore, easier and more purposeful.

We Chinese have preceded Nietzsche’s re-evaluation of standard Christian morality by more than 3,000 years.

We were the first to suggest that one can be good without God. Such a person designs his own morality.

He is who Nietzsche called ubermensch, the super-man. In Chinese society the ubermensch appeared as early as the yijing 易經 was written and before that during the Zhou era of bamboo stripe-books. We call such a man junzi 君子, the superior person who knew how to create his own ethics that not only brought personal tranquility but also familial and social harmony, and especially a high level of governance in state craft. The junzi is the precursor to the philosopher-king who understood the difference and, therefore, knew how to separate reality from illusions, truth from falsity.

The White man’s singular belief in the absolutism of democracy and God were never grounded in reality. On the contrary, they constitute the opiate of the masses, giving them the illusion they have control of their lives that they never could, or had, in the first place. One has only to follow modern EU, British and American politics to see what that means and entails.

The junzi idea removes this dualism conflict that is at the core of western angst and ruining its social fabric today that Nietzsche complained about: Apollo vs Dionysus, Christ vs anti-Christ, good vs evil, black vs white, truth vs falsehood, reality vs illusion, democracy vs tyranny.

There is no human ex-nihilo. That would be un-natural.

All that you know was never yours to begin with. Consequently, there are no universal truths in universal morality and Nietzsche repeatedly demonstrated that as empirically true. You always learn something or have to pick them up from somewhere and someone so that persons like Joshua Wong and his deranged rioters delude themselves to believe they are in charge, if only they had democracy and freedom. More than a century of American political culture prove that to be an impossibility and yet the Joshuas and Wongs parade this flag of absurdity around as if American values were some deity they’d bow to. They become permanent slaves to the White man morality and to the White man’s God that Nietzsche denounced in book after book.

How could slaves to a set of values and ideology and a God be free? The Joshies, therefore, will never be free and will never be the ubermensch.

The trouble is this, they are dragging the rest of Chinese society to sink with them into this swamp of metaphysical poison. This is why it is not good enough to exterminate Joshua and his clique; we must eradicate the seeds and children of their slave morality from the roots up, wherever they are found, the schools and homes.

We must, to preserve our existence, make no apologies for what we do and for whatever it takes to kill them.

Heiko Maas says he makes no apology for standing with the Joshuas; we also make no apologies for crushing them. Maas’s values and his dead White God are not universal.

If Maas could kill his God, why must we be sorry to kill the seeds of his Satanism he is sowing in our backyard? Indeed, we will crush the White man’s voodoo God every time Heiko Maas brings them into our nation and into our lives. We kill them in whatever form or shape, human or non-human.

Like American foreign policy makers, like John Bolton, Heiko Maas is a fraud and is evil writ large. We will kill him too if he turns up in China. It’s our human, democratic rights to protect ourselves. Maas’s morality is our immorality, his life is our death, his existence is our survival at stake. We have no Church so we have no Church vs State. If Maas’s God is dead then we are free to do anything we want with god’s believers.

White people hung Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem; we will be right to hang, legs dangling, Heiko Maas of Germany from the lintel of our doorsteps. Joshua Wong would be bonus; they can have his corpse, too, for burial in their Martyr’s Tomb.

When we kill Joshua Wong, we kill not a Chinese. Rather, we killed an imitation copy of Heiko Maas and of Adolf Eichmann. We merely reaffirm the death of the White God that the Joshuas and Heiko had killed.

Besides, we Chinese are a true, genuine race, far, far superior to the White copycat Anglophiles and to the German Aryans enslaved as they are to some desert voodoo deity. We are the ubermensch Nietzsche prophesied, godless and therefore shackled to none, freed of all those faked White man morality. We are the only, true free people in the world!

There is no law of nature that says all men are equal — or, must be. On the contrary. And we have the answers to the inequality.

It’s not in our culture and in our ethics: Therefore, neither the China mainland nor Hong Kong, neither today nor in the 5,000 years of Chinese history, do we treat people as Germany had when it ran the Auschwitz concentration camps. But, if Germany, the US and the West treat us as if we are like Nazis then, rest assure, the first persons we throw into the gas chambers will be the Heiko Maas of the filthy German nation.

After which we will return to our homes and join our families to feast on roasted ducks.

We Chinese are our own masters. Inferior White people will never, never, never, never, never enslave us again like it did the rest of the world with their voodoo White god.


Chinese, the Superior Man


The HK Worms Who Became Herd

Mediocre, weak, sickly degenerating, pitiable, an excess of failures… — Nietzsche in ‘Ecce Homo’, ‘Beyond Good and Evil’.

Also in the clip: the Chinese as the Higher (or Superior) Man, according to Nietzsche.

In the higher man, his good is only his own good. He does not preach it:

“This (morality) is my good, this I love, it pleases me wholly, thus alone do I will the good. I do not will it the law of (any) god, I do not will it as human statute and need.” — Thus Spoke Zarathustra




All under Heaven



Don’t cry, my Love. What needs done will be done…


Read Full Post »

Imagine, if on the other hand, that was done by the Chinese police…. In the modern-day world, manipulated and massaged by the like of Annie with a blog or Reuters or BBC or Malaysiakini, objective, independent truth is defined and conveyed by control of the media.

In arguing about the morality, nobleness and piety of their riots, the Kids say there’s a justifiable ‘social cost’ that must be borne — much like the voodoo Christian doctrine of paying the wages of sin. Strange, it isn’t their mothers or fathers or brothers or sisters who pay.

But then, their families are irrelevant. They have Jesus, who alone matters.



When the Hong Kong kids throw bricks and firebombs, attack dozens of police stations, block roads, rail and airports, while screaming, ‘Support Freedom’, ‘Support Democracy’, the point isn’t to understand what they mean by those words because, in their contradictions, how could they know? You’d get nowhere anywhere, so it’s pointless even to ask because you know their answers already: there isn’t any. It would be like arguing about the existence of god with an imam or a preacher kneeling before two pieces of sticks he calls Jesus.

And, you would have heard and seen those same methods before: in Ukraine, Libya, Iraq, Venezuela…. Each time America bombs a country out of existence, they always shout beforehand, ‘freedom,’ ‘democracy,’ ‘fight against corruption’. In place of using bombs, the kids paralyzed an entire city of 7 million and left the local government crippled unable even to protect other citizens from being dragged out of cars and vans and beaten half dead, or to simply board a plane or a train.

In either sense, by both the Americans and kids, their purpose is coup d’etat.

In any ‘free’ country you care to name, the kids would have been shot, after which all of us can argue the merits of violence, that is, whose violence is legitimate. Only in a society as tolerant and as humane as the Chinese could we have overlooked the folly of the kids — just as Chinese authorities put up with Tiananmen, everyday for more than two months. We Chinese call this Confucian value renqing, 仁清.

When the Anglophile Annie ‘Cunt of the Valley’ says she support the Hong Kong kids in their demands, it is also pointless to ask her what does she means by the word, ‘freedom’? Or ‘democracy’? What does a stupid cunt hole know — anything, anyway? Freedom is a mere word, seven letters she types out on the screen with her tits. If she knew, she’d be careful to use the word because, in the all the clips above, Annie’s freedom ends where my nose begins. (That cunt hole doesn’t even know it.)

All of which brings us to the crux of the matter raised at the start: As the Yankees say, what’s your beef, Annie?

What Annie knows, what she can understand, had never belonged to her to begin with. If none of that is hers, from where and how had she understood about the concept (as opposed to the act) of freedom. The answer in a word, Anglophile.

Freedom is an insoluble existential problem with no definitive, objective, independent answers, unlike talking about, say, a tree or a rock. Hence, the power of sloganeering and BBC media propaganda.

In your ‘Prayers for Hong Kong,’ Annie, pray hard, pray over time, very hard, please. When your Allah answers your prayers, let us know.

If Allah doesn’t … well then he doesn’t. Allah being Allah, he never speaks, unlike you, always ready for an eager dick, anything actually.

And when we shoot the motherfuckers, why don’t you come over and stand between the kids and the bullets — let’s see you put your money where your cunt hole is.

You see, when you pray to Allah for Hong Kong, you pray for infidels. You’d be like fucking your infidel mother. What do you use? Bananas? Cucumbers? Jesus sticks?




Been waiting for eternity for Annie, being so holy that she is, to stick her nose in. At last….


Ah! We Have Hate Mail

From Sterpterin90 of Loveland, Colorado: Latitude 40.3532. Longitude 105.1316

The Wonders of Cartesian Geometry

(but invented by the Chinese — of course — in our village farms.)

Blue circle is where Sterpterin90 resides…

…and he lives in a trailer!

What a pathetic-looking whitey, fancying himself as some European medieval, Don Quixote white knight on a donkey that bleeps in Spanish.


Sterpterin90 (above) is the sort of the whitey KKK motherfucker who would take a M16 rifle into a classroom of kids or into half-bankrupt Wal-Mart and then shoot everyone inside. The like of Sterpterin are a dime a dozen among Anglo-Americans: in Gilroy, California; El Paso, Texas; Dayton, Ohio and even as far away as Christchurch, New Zealand.


Fire away, Sterpterin boy: Merrily, merrily, the Anglo Sterpterins kill and kill and kill.

Please continue what you Yankees are doing. Don’t let the us stop you.


In response to Julie Eadeh, the White American troll Sterpterin90 (@Sterpterin90) has something to say and kindly send us mail, which is received with thanks. (BTW, the Twitter account is fake.) Sterpterin says, inter alia:

Your country is a communist shit hole while Hong Kong is thriving, looks like the white man was good for Hong Kong.

Reading it (Oh! My poor, poor Motherland!), you can tell right off: Sterpterin is stupid, uneducated, and ignorant.

And, as is normal, stupid Yankee lives alone — in a trailer! — in Fox Drive, Loveland, Colorado, 74 km north of Denver. Sterpterin types are typical in Anglophile society: no mother, no uncles, no brothers, no sisters, moronic, trapped in Colorado, alone and frustrated, jerking off nightly when he isn’t drunk. Yankee nut cases are plentiful.


Other Sterpterin details are below (which is provided in the American public — and free — service for the KKK-FBI).

IP address:
hostname: 80-165-19-72.skybeam.com
ISP: JAB Wireless
City: Loveland
Region: Colorado
Country: United States (US) flag
Postal code: 80537
Area code: 970
Metro code: 751
latitude: 40.3532
longitude: -105.1316

Any Yankee takers to kill him before he kills your mama in Wal-Mart?



When the Day Comes

It’s a sunny morning
Whistle and reveille sound.
But the world isn’t fine
Troubles are everywhere…

Are you ready
My soldier Brother,
When the day comes…

At ease my Motherland,
At ease my Dear, my Love
I’ll win us our victory.




Read Full Post »

In the end, beliefs are just that, beliefs, no matter how holy they say. — The Confucian Kamarozov.



Shouting loudly, insolent and arrogant, cloaked in Western Christian pretensions,

the An Lushan Rebellion of 21st Century HK

Image result for hong kong protests

Bearing Anglo-American flags, Hong Kong has become a Fifth Column for the demolition of China, exactly the way the immigrants An Lushan and Shi Shiming came into the Han Chinese society then destroy it from the inside.

No other civilizations destroyed ever came back to life. We Chinese are the only survivors. We must not permit history to be unkind to ourselves.

The way of lives of our people, our ethics and the existential meanings attached them by our ancestors are eternally more important than all the human rights abstractions of George Soros, Washington, BBC, the Tim Hamletts and the Rais Hussins.

To trade, therefore, 1 million Anglophiles for 1,000 million Chinese is worth the exchange and which we gladly do!

We demand Carrie Lam act or we ourselves will do it!

We don’t need police batons, guns nor the PLA. Let it be kids versus kids.

People are welcome to oppose, says Joko Widodo, but they have no right to burn down the country. Carrie Lam ought to know what to do, therefore. Enough with your pseudo pious yada, yada. Nobody buys it, not even by those who believe her.


Most ideas are evil or delusive or both. — Felipe Fernández-Armesto on European ideas.


The Tyranny Christianity birthed, Liberalism saved


Christianity: There is only One god and thou shall worship no other gods.

Liberalism: This is the best Way and thou shall take no other.



Related image

Above, the Western world when Englishmen were living in caves, eating dog meat, and busy killing each other. It was Middle Eastern civilizations, now all extinct, that civilized and taught them culture.



Below, the world’s first world wide web — and technology. And none of it is in English!

The World’s First World Wide Web

Central Asia, today the 5 Stans, had two great linguistic and cultural functions:

  • (a) it made up the primary transmission route for language, science and arts, Greco-Roman art in particular, between the Caucasian civilizations and southern Europe, from Afghanistan to the Caucasus mountains of the Black Sea, and
  • (b) it is the meeting place of Mongoloids, primarily Han Chinese, the Aryans of south Russia, the Persians and the Caucasians (early white people). And note the ‘Asian’ word inserted into ‘Caucasus’.


 A Mamak & the English Language


On the origins in the ideas of science, mathematics, IT and so on, consider the following:

  • Chinese invented the paper on which modern European ideas were recorded and made to last.
  • Geometry, the division of 3-D space, were applied on Chinese farm land 2,500 years before Descartes thought about the space between two points on two axes. And he is French.
  • Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz wrote the theories of calculus in German so as to supply a common workable language to Newton who couldn’t prove gravitational laws in the clumsiness of the English language because precise numerical language is not English and cannot be written in English. The number line, 0 1 2 3 4 5… is not English and did not originate in England.
  • Modern monetary economics — the use of money as medium of exchange, with value contained in a physical commodity stored in a ‘bank’ — were practised during the Han dynasty, used also as foreign exchange along the Silk Road among Persian emissaries to China, by camel couriers and silk, porcelain traders, monks and the artists of Dunhuang.
  • IT and AI are but charged electrical particles from digitizing a logical syntax that’s the basis of all IT applications, they in turn derived from an inductive method of philosophical discourse written in ancient Greek, popularized by Aristotle, first learned from Persians and the Asian Minoans and Phoenicians of Central Asia (see map above and clip), preserved in Arabic using paper from China, and reintroduced into Europe via Spain during the era of the Ottomans but called the ‘Renaissance’.

But, where is the English language ‘pioneering’ (sic!) in all that science and mathematics?

Yet Anglophiles, motivated by their Anglo-racist bigotry, continue to lie to everybody and to insist that English is all that is necessary and sufficient — a world language, they say — to catapult the children into the modern era, making easy millions.

So, here we are in the 21st Century, 10,000 miles later, with some quick-fix Panadol thambi, schooled in some goreng pisang university, today incredulously saying this (below), subsequently spread by the same brain-dead Anglophiles birthed from the same mosquito swamps in the same far off Allah-forsaken, fucked-up jungle land called Malaysia.

Stupid Mahathir Continued…

…in Parliament, 70 years later in his life, still preaching to a stupid Malaysian Anglophile, Malay population.

Hooray! Small wonder Malaysia is so fucked up.

But, please, carry on, Doctor. Don’t let anyone stop you.

May your great wisdom last a thousand years!


Ethiopia’s First Space Satellite

And it doesn’t transmit in English!



Read Full Post »

Wherever white people went, Anglo-Saxons in particular, there has only been systematic extermination of other nations. White racism and genocide never, never, never stops. Clip below.


Canada’s Genocide by Rule of Law


  • Forcible removal of children from Indigenous parents.
  • Family who refused are jailed.
  • Native children are turned into white people.
  • Held up in schools by tens of thousands, most children never return home.
  • After which, thousands upon thousands are missing, dead when found, murdered.

Those events are systematically created, instigated by law, conducted only by white people, spread over generations, affecting only the indigenous girls who disappeared then found dead as recent as 2016.


Listen to the platitudes of Justin Trudeau, above, calling the genocide shameful. But…

  • Name one person who is going to be prosecuted? None.
  • Name date for the prosecution of Canadian government officials in the International Criminal Court? None.


Perversely the genocide report becomes a whitewash, making Canada look good and caring in the eyes of the world. In another word, propaganda.

But there will be no drumming in white media, no daily worldwide Press conferences, no bellicose headlines, no self-righteous condemnation, no talk of Axis of Evil, no talk of justice and human rights, no chest beating, no naming, much less shaming and prosecution. The Anglophile Steven Gan of the American-backed Malaysiakini will say: Report? What report?

Like white racism and like Malaiyoo racism, Muslim Uighurs also consider infidel Chinese as inferior. So concerned at creating a world alliance to let out anti-Chinese, murderous Uighur racism into Chinese streets, Rais Hussin will have this to say about Canada: Tak tahu.

There will be just silence.

The report will gather dust in some archives, flipped open occasionally to help instruct the Canadian government to strengthen their rule of law and find less overt ways to commit May 13 genocide again so that there won’t be another such report.

Lesson learned,” concludes Justin Trudeau (in the clip). Thank you very much.


The only way safe in facing white people is to remove them from sight and return them to where they came from — as it is being done in South Africa. We Chinese were right about Canada and Anglo-Americans all along. Why should we trust Meng Wanzhou in white hands? Why shouldn’t we exchange life for life? Why should anyone trust the rule of white law? They made up the law, after all.


Taliban-Uighur-Muslim Racism


White Dollar Supremacism


Read Full Post »

You don’t have to go through a torturous 10 minutes of the entire clip above because it’s textbook American propaganda but the first two minutes will give you a sense of their message necessary to follow the essay below.

If, on the other hand, you love white racist bigots like those Yankees above, here is their YouTube channel.




Anglo-Americans and their Anglophile underlings, from Australia to Singapore and India, dominate the Internet outside of China. Google algorithm search functions centered on the English and the permissiveness of western propaganda very probably contribute to this phenomenon. For example, many readers arrive at shuzheng through Google search. Linked-In, another fraudulent ‘social’ platform, is packed with the Anglophile unskilled and the unemployable looking for jobs, typically appearing as copywriters, chatterboxes and trolls, people like Phar Kim Beng. In contrast Chinese in China who knows no English — about 800 million in the workforce — don’t find work through Google and don’t need to.

Consequently in this Google world, western imbeciles and bigots are a dime a dozen — tonnes of them fill the Internet — and you quickly spot them in the headline title, written in the English, or in their channel name. But that’s precisely the problem: they are so commonplace, so banal that Anglo-American stupidity is an Internet sensation, a western normality. We think nothing of this because, erroneously, people think a word, a statement is merely an opinion, a right of freedom. (Opinion? Freedom? Let’s not go into them; we don’t have all day.)

There is a bigger reason why Google and the Web have enabled their presence, like worms wriggling over a dead body. It is this uncontrollable western penchant to show they have the best of life, their superiority, and that they must have the last word.

Return to the clip.

Lenses are glasses people wear. Metaphorically, lens mean something else, so it is not precise what that is. It could mean — and this is most commonly thought of —

  • (a) a way of seeing and perceiving. It could also mean,
  • (b) culture (incl. customary conduct) through which a certain habit of thought is cultivated.

Most likely, the two Americans mean both (a) and (b) because they have argued that there is such a thing as ‘western lens’, western being the adjectival word to describe a formative experience usually delivered in a certain societal environment, particularly when young. If there are western lens then there must exist American lens, British lens, Malaiyoo lens, Anglophile lens and so on. Even the term western is problematic. What do those Yankees mean because western lens, if not American only, can also mean Christian lens, Nazi lens, fascist lens. How about Lithuanian? Or European Marxists? Or, all the above.

You begin to see the drift … about Anglo-American stupidity and bigotry?

Because the metaphorical usage of ‘lens’ is taken to mean culture, education, learning and growing up, then these in combination produces ways of perceiving and thinking. Unlike the real lenses in eye glasses, the metaphorical lens is not a physical thing you pick up at the optometry shop.

If not tangible, then how do those two Yankees acquire ‘western lens’ that produced the video above? If not through western lens, how else do they see China? That the Yankees can walk into a Chinese shop, order then put on Chinese lenses? Even if they are able to put on Chinese lenses available on demand, the Yankees will therefore see things differently, their habits of thought will change — in an instant?

So, what exactly are the two motherfuckers talking about?

And the way to break into the answer is to listen to their dialogue. Here is a specific example. It concerns a (Vietnamese) child on a motorcycle wearing no helmet. That omission, the Yankee says — through his ‘western’ lens — is wrong, ethically. Through Chinese lenses, the same omission is considered ‘okay’, although the child is Vietnamese and the video scenes were in Vietnam.

Rightfully, therefore, they should be talking about looking at Vietnam through western lens, but he talks about China instead. (There is a reason for that which we will come to.)

Be that as it may, further suppose that Chinese parents in all Chinese cases, in all motorbike rides in China, never put on helmets for their kids. Question: Is this act of omission the result of a Chinese viewpoint held by Chinese parents who will, because of their Chinese lenses, therefore endanger the safety of their kids?

You don’t have to visit China to see that many Chinese parents do put on helmets on their kids. But that’s not even the point. Rather it is this: what has lenses or habits of thought or culture, whether American or Chinese it doesn’t matter, got to do with kid safety?

This is asked because wearing helmets is a matter of public safety, hence, traffic law. Some Vietnamese (or Chinese) mothers will put on helmets on their kids, even without the law. What then does this say about Chinese or Vietnamese lenses and their mothers? Chinese traffic law requires helmets when riding on certain public roads, such as the national highway. Is there Chinese lens in that law?

Helmet legal requirement was not national law in America until around the 1980s. So, before that, American parents by omission wore Chinese lenses?

American cops will write you a ticket for riding a bike without a helmet to your neighbor’s house 50 meters away. If in China (where I live) and you were riding through a village road out for groceries half a kilometer away no cop will stop you.

All this is also to say, Chinese culture or ‘lenses’ don’t enslave people to law. No, instead, laws are meant to serve people, not for people to serve laws. American lens work the opposite: the slavish use of law that Anglophiles and Canadian rulers proudly declare as ‘rule of law’. By slavish use, law tyrannizes ordinary people, regardless of circumstances, regardless of context. Or, to put that differently, American lens are utterly insane when not inhumane.

Can you see why I earlier call these men, motherfuckers: They go around the world instructing their bigotry.

Never mind if they are stupid — after all, the Internet has tons of that. Rather it is this unending, ceaseless urge in their dicks to spray all over town their American propaganda, such as lens worn by the two men, cultivated by their media and, in numerous cases, instigated and paid for by the CIA:

  • (a) deliberately misrepresent law and safety as a matter of perception and culture (lenses) and, after which,
  • (b) to spin the misrepresentation into an issue of morality, that is, something ethically right or wrong.

In another phrasing, these motherfuckers are imputing that the Chinese (and Vietnamese) are callous and evil whereas westerners are good and saintly.

American lens, according to the two men, is in the business of judging because notice the clip’s rhetoric: ‘Should we judge China through Western lens‘ because that could easily be, ‘Should we judge America through Chinese lens

Notice the Anglo-American bigotry in their biblical language — to ‘judge’ — and the racial antecedent ‘Western’? (And we have defined what is so-called ‘western’.)

You might disagree with them because they are logically wrong, stupid or irrational or all three. Still the Yankees will dismiss your argument on account of — and of course! — ‘we are entitled to it‘, like ISIS jihadists are entitled to call for the Christian heads to be chopped off, starting with those two motherfuckers.

The conclusions above say something about seeing other people through American lens and which the two Yankees have made clear: ‘If I don’t like what you are doing and you are not doing things the way I do, I will hammer you, even if you don’t agree.

Identical to American foreign policy?

Identical to the American penchant to spread individualism, freedom, democracy, and righteousness?

Even the arguments throughout the clip is textbook Anglo-American propaganda you’d find in Reuters and the Wall Street Journal, replicated in Malaysiakini.

American propaganda lens says their lenses are the world’s best and most superior so that though you may not agree, our lenses are good for you:

‘Take it! You must. We are Americans with God-given, Bible-reflected lens so that Afghans, Iraqis and the rest of the world better listen and obey, or else we’ll pulverize you.’

And, of course, this came to pass. That is, Americans won’t blink an eye to kill you if you don’t buy their western lens version of freedom and democracy.

There is more to say about the Yankee’s yada, yada about the wonders of American lenses exporting individualism and freedom. Let’s not go into these: why change their lenses? Let the Americans continue; don’t let the evil Chinese stop you from wearing those lenses.

There is this question, though: do the motherfuckers even know what’s ‘individualism’ when all that they had learned growing up — their lenses! — is to obey a certified bastard named Jesus Christ in a voodoo book of religious tyranny, misogyny, war, plunder, fire and brimstone, incest, stoning, fornication, pedophilia, that white people collectively call the ‘Holy Bible’?

Is ‘individualism’ even possible? That is, their own selves can be fiercely autonomous because their lives were never before significantly touched by others, uninfected, uninfluenced, so that they individually — and they alone — know how to judge and are capable of it? Consequently, to do to other people anything they like? And by what standards do they judge if not western and biblical, never mind if Jesus Christ is just an out-of-wedlock bastard of a motherless woman called Mary.

Western stupidity is boundless.

In (western) epistemology, the lens of the two Yankees is a form of thinking and perception termed by Plato as done by ‘cave’ men. That is, all that they know, through western lenses, are shadows cast on cave walls where Yankees spent their entire lives, trapped. But, stupid as they are, they think the shadows are the real thing.

Those motherfuckers have dark age, cave intellect and don’t even know it.

As an addendum, a word on Anglophiles: they are non-whites who wear western lenses and, as a result, have internalize white man’s ways of thinking, habits of thought, indeed the entire Anglo-American culture. And what has Malaysia gotten as a result from Anglophiles?

You can forgive their stupidities but American lenses, because of their self-gratuitous, narcissistic, evangelical qualities, have consequences. You see those consequences when worn by the DAP, by Lim Guan Eng, by Rais Hussin, by Hannah Yeoh and Tony Pua, and by that tyrant named Mahathir Mohamad.

Hey Anglophile! Want more American lenses? How about changing to the cheaper African lenses? We Chinese sell African lenses, want to buy any?


After Yankee, Now for Made-in-Malaysia …

Terror thru Mahathir’s Lens


An Islamic State ‘wolf pack’ cell arrested earlier this month abused the name of the late firefighter Muhammad Adib Mohd Kassim to justify their planned acts of terror (on Indian Hindu temples). — Malaysiakini, 2019 May 16.



But who repeatedly justified the Islamists? Who repeatedly put those lenses on the jihadists?

For Adib’s May 13 fifty years ago, who repeated over and over and over again the same theme? That the infidel Chinese are godless, evil, cheats, greedy, thieves and corrupt? Who?



And who justified the justifier?

The victim! The jihadist himself!

The government should not bow to pressure to deport Islamic preacher Dr Zakir Naik as it has considered various factors including the laws, said Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. He said you had to look at the reasons before responding to any pressure or else someone will become a victim. –– Malaysiakini, 2018 July.

In classic Malaysiakini/Mahathir news-speak: War is peace, murderer is victim, death is life, cruelty is mercy, hate is love, that is, love preached from the word of Allah, the Merciful, and Jesus the fucking Savior.


White Man’s Freedom, Rule of Law

Yankee, you like?

Next time you come to China, don’t leave home without it — your western lens. But be careful: we are evil, and we have no qualms nailing your motherfucking arse.

And there isn’t a damn thing Yanks and Jesus Christ can do to stop us. Not believable? Find out from the Canadians.

Who will stand up to Yankee bullying? China will!


Read Full Post »

Annie‘s America and the Anglophone Media that you never knew…

Media as State Instrument


Judiciary/Legal as State Instrument


Propaganda as Democracy


Top Ten things that WikiLeaks exposed


Read Full Post »

Harapan’s justice is white man, revenge justice. This is our kind of justice, and it’s superior…


Read Full Post »

All that you know does not belong to you. They are false!



China’s way to reform US, Europe

An Introduction: Thinking outside the West


In the Confucius Institute: Thinking inside the Chinese


Confucian ethics for the Chinese business world vs the West



Read Full Post »

Older Posts »