Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Philosophy’ Category

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.

*

THROUGH YANK LENS

*

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.

*

True.

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!

***

Advertisements

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!

REFORMING THE WEST

*

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 »

This is the US-led world…

Can you see and hear the same lies provided on US behalf by the US-sponsored Malaysiakini?

Consequence: Malaysia is a US client state like the banana republics of Latin America.

Similar to the way Christians, Muslims and the MSM chattering class pulled and dragged Malaysia into the Middle East wars the past decades — the sort of ‘you-are-with-us or against-us’ relationship — the US-backed Harapan government and Mkini have today trapped Malaysia, irreversibly, into a US-led world conflagration, none of which is either in its interest nor is it any of its business.

Exacerbating, thus, the local economic decline is an interventionist, busybody Anglophile foreign policy on US behalf that other countries don’t like — and will no longer tolerate. That, in their turn, have consequences for Malaysia’s relations with Iran, Yemen, Venezuela, Syria, Russia, China, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore…. Once any of these countries collectively stand up to challenge US meddling and break out of the US-controlled economies through the US dollar, Malaysia will be the first to go. How? Because, as a US client, it is the first vulnerability like it were a hair on an oxen’s back.

Disastrous days are ahead for, once in the US orbit, Americans will never let you cross over, even to be independent.

While you still can, quit the country: let the Anglophiles and Harapan sink it, the same way they are sinking the local economy. This is a sick country, leave it, Zaid Ibrahim said, and he was right though he had to pay the price, imposed by the DAP, for saying so. (Nazri Aziz as double-dealer is in the pay of the DAP and all know it.)

For the BN to retake government will be meaningless because, after five years of Harapan, there will be nothing left in the country: no money, no infrastructure, no business, no education, no culture, no ethics, no life, no future, no nothing; even promises are worth nothing. A filthy country is not noticeable in black shoes.

*

America’s Racial Economics Persists but Globally

***

Politics & Patriotism: The Chinese-led World

*

If a man cannot change the world, change himself. — Kongzi

China as Confucius for the World

An Introduction

*

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Streitende-Reiche2.jpg

Order out of chaos

The land, mountains, rivers and seas, and the culture and traditions contained therein, were bequeath to us by our ancestors from the time of Zhou and Shang. It is our duty therefore to safeguard our inheritance. This begins with Master Kong. From the annals of the Spring & Autumn and from Sima Qian, 2500 years ago…

*

Politics and Confucianism

***

Read Full Post »

My Motherland and I

北京師範大學版快閃

Flashmob at Beijing Normal University

*

***


The Coming Apocalypse

The West is a Flop, How & Why

*

China is the Solution: the Chinese Way

For reforms in Malaysia and saving it, forget liberalism, neo or classical, forget Harapan, forget the mamak named Mahathir, forget Lim Kit Siang, these stupid Anglophile copycats.

Reforming the Reforms

The Chinese from Our Roots Up

China: the Third Way

***


The World’s Most Important Message

to Malaysia is two-fold.

*

Prosperity & Security

*

I. From China: You are alone, or you fry with America, sucking up to it, or you join a community of nations to prosper.

*

II. From Russia: America’s bullying is at an end. It is neither the top economic power nor militarily. Get use to it, Anglophiles. Your Anglo-American master is kaput.

Putin: It’s an axiom that a state exists only if it is sovereign and independent. Some are states but they are neither sovereign nor independent. Not Russia.

Putin: America violates whatever it can, look for excuses and point fingers…. We’ll target not just the territories from which missiles threaten us directly but also from where decisions are made and are ultimately responsible for the missile systems.

The US fucks with Europe, Middle East, Latin America, Africa. But, above, is Putin’s National Assembly speech a year earlier: Don’t mess with us.

***

Read Full Post »

Politics & the Moralism of Margaret Atwood

Image result for bonsai

A proposition of logic (that) appears substantial are always false. One could e.g. believe that the words “true” and “false” signify two properties among other properties … (yet) by no means appears self-evident. The proposition “All roses are either yellow or red” would sound self-evident even if it were true. Indeed (such a) proposition now gets quite the character of natural science and this is a certain symptom of its being falsely understood. — Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 1921

*

[The English language] becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts… if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. … Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. — George Orwell, Politics and the English Language.

*


*

If We Lose the Free Press, We Would be Free

(title amended)

by Margaret Atwood, Dec 20, 2018, LitHub.

“How many fingers am I holding up?” says the Party torturer, O’Brian, to the hapless Winston Smith in George Orwell’s 1984. The right answer isn’t “four” or “five.” The right answer is whatever number O’Brian says it is. That is how totalitarians and warlords and authoritarians of all kinds have behaved throughout the ages. Truth is what these folks say it is, not what the facts proclaim. And if you persist in naming a factual number of fingers, then into prison with you, or off with your head. That’s if the totalitarian has already seized power: if he is only in the larval stage, you may simply be accused of spouting fake news.

We find ourselves living in a new age of O’Brians. How many journalists and truth-tellers around the world have been murdered, executed after a quasi-legal process, imprisoned, or exiled? When will we build a memorial wall to them, with all of their names inscribed?

And why do they matter? Because knowing what the power-holders are doing—in our name if it’s a democracy, or in the name of some abstract concept—fatherland, blood, soil, gods, virtue, kingship—is the only way the citizens of any society can begin to hold those power-holders to account. If a society has any pretense to being other than a serfdom, a free and independent press whose journalists have the right to dig into the factual subsoil of a story is the primary defense against encroaching winner-takes-all powercreep.

We’re living in the midst of a war being waged against this kind of journalism: the evidence-based, truth-telling kind. In the United States, the president has admitted that he spews out non-truths to keep the journos spinning. His aim is to confuse the public, so that the citizens—not knowing what to believe—will ultimately believe nothing. In a country with no ideals left, high-level lawbreakers and corruption will have free rein. Who can even object to those who sell out their country if there isn’t much of a country left?

The signals sent to the rest of the world by the United States have not been lost on authoritarians elsewhere. When it comes to pesky journalists who wash dirty political laundry in public, anything goes. But now there is at least some push-back. As its 2018 “Person of the Year,” TIME Magazine has named four journalists and one news organization who have suffered for speaking truth. Foremost among them is the murdered Jamal Al-Khashoggi, lately of the Washington Post. Maria Ressa has been charged and threatened with imprisonment in the Philippines for writing against that country’s president’s shoot-whoever-I-say policies. Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo were just doing their Reuters job, but were imprisoned for talking about a massacre of Rohingya in Myanmar. And the Capital Gazette of Annapolis, Maryland, shot up by a gunman who killed five. TIME said of them in its essay, “They are representative of a broader fight by countless others around the world—as of December 10, at least 52 journalists have been murdered in 2018—who risk all to tell the story of our time.”

The suppression of writing and writers is naturally of central concern to writers themselves. Budding totalitarians always go after artists and writers early on, for two reasons: they are relatively undefended—there isn’t a huge armed posse of fellow writers acting as their bodyguards—and they have an unpleasant habit of not shutting up. I am among their number, so I have long taken an interest in attempts to censor writers’ work and deprive them of liberty and life.

My active involvement began in the 1970s, during the time of the Argentinian junta and the régime of Pinochet in Chile. Many journalists, writers and artists were killed at that time, including the major Chilean poet Pablo Neruda. In the 80s I helped found PEN Canada (English), which I headed during its first two years. I have watched as PEN America has expanded its scope, placing the defense of journalists and the free press at the center of its activities.

Gone are the days when all we had to defend was the right of novelists to say the F word in print. Now it appears that it is the right of independent-minded journalists to exist at all that is at issue. Democracies ignore this crisis at their peril: if we lose the free press, we will cease to be democracies.

*


*

Image result for atwood

Margaret Atwood: America’s handmaiden and the one-Canadian grandma hate group.

*

Atwood’s Christian Moralism

in Anglo-American Global Tyranny

…knowing what the power-holders are doing—in our name if it’s a democracy, or in the name of some abstract concept—fatherland, blood, soil, gods, virtue, kingship—is the only way the citizens of any society can begin to hold those power-holders to account. If a society has any pretense to being other than a serfdom, a free and independent press whose journalists have the right to dig into the factual subsoil of a story is the primary defense against encroaching winner-takes-all powercreep. — Margaret Atwood, 2018 December

*

The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice, have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. … It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of régime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. … Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality. — George Orwell, Politics and the English Language.

*

[P]olitical speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India … can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. — George Orwell, Politics and the English Language, 1946

***

A Reply to Margaret Atwood

George W Bush predates Margaret Atwood. Above is Atwood’s diatribes, below are Bush’s. Only the words between them are spelled differently but, otherwise, their intent are identical, the meanings in their moral scope and self-righteousness are the same:

I appreciate societies in which people can express their opinion. That society — free speech stands in stark contrast to Iraq. … One of the things we love in America is freedom. If I may, I’d like to remind you what I said at the State of the Union: liberty is not America’s gift to the world, it is God’s gift to each and every person. I believe that when we see totalitarianism, that we must deal with it.

Bush made the speech on March 6, 2003 in the East Room of the White House. Two weeks later, it was underway — the destruction of that ‘totalitarianism’ to bring ‘God’s gift’ and ‘liberty’ to Iraq.

Within three years of that ‘liberty’, 2003-to-2006, God’s gift and liberty delivered 130,000 formally recorded deaths, omitting those those with stomach blown open, hands and legs cut off, and others traumatize. Add the rough ratio of 3 injured for every one dead, casualty count rises to more than half a million.

In a population 35 million, the above liberty’s statistics translate to 142 casualties per 10,000 compared to 40 per 10,000 in New York hospital recorded violent-inflicted injuries, including those ending in homicide. US incarceration rates, the highest in the world, is 65 per 10,000.

  • By 2006, it was clear the mistake for creating a free society had turned into an invasion to create a dead society.
  • By 2009 when Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, she retained the ‘mistake’ up until the end of her tenure in 2013.
  • By 2013 the body count had risen to 620,000 by some western estimates, 1.2 million by others.

All of which raises the question, was the ‘mistake’ made deliberately because neither Clinton nor politicians, nor Atwood’s ‘truth telling’ journalists would call Iraq by its true name, that is, genocide. That was the first omission by Atwoodian ‘truth-tellers’ (sic).

Between 1945 and 2016, America had intervened by invasion and regime change in 53 countries, essentially, as Atwood say, ‘to call power-holders to account’. She lives in none of those countries that are held to account — dead — and so can be forgiven that her spittle equal in quantities to her moralism; after all, her God never speaks up to refute her.

Below is a Bush extract two years after finding no weapons for mass destruction in Iraq. It’s a speech to the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), October 2005, which, like Atwood, wants and is created for the purpose to spread democracies, no matter how many deads it steps on. Below is the Atwoodian kind of evidence-based justification for, as she might say, speaking ‘truth to power’.

Some observers also claim that America would be better off by cutting our losses and leaving Iraq now. It’s a dangerous illusion refuted with a simple question: Would the United States and other free nations be more safe or less safe with Zarqawi and bin Laden (top two persons in AL-Qaeda) in control of Iraq, its people, and its resources?

Bush’s rationale is therefore this: Terrorists will always go after free nations… therefore the US should go after the terrorists.

In comparison, Atwood’s argument is identical: Totalitarians always go after artists and writers…  Therefore the literati should go after totalitarians, presumably with their pens and keyboards weaponized and aided by the editors at LitHub. Literature in the service of God, you see — plus in the service of America, the Democrats, Republicans, war, and morality.

Next, is Bush admission for the white man’s penchant for war ever since Columbus and ever since white people set sail from Europe in 1510:

Americans have known wars. But for the past 136 years, they have been wars on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941.

It was a tacit admission to always keep going for war, so long as it isn’t on American soil. Hence, in the name the liberty (which, to Atwood, is not an abstraction) there have been: El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Chile, Vietnam, Indonesia, on and on and on, and more recently Libya, Syria. In all cases Atwood and America lead in the shouts for freedom.

Four years later in 2007 when it was clear, Clinton’s ‘pre-emptive’ (sic) war was an invasion by another name — and that’s in violation of the rule of law, meaning UN sovereignty-rule — she was demanding for more troops for Iraq (The Surge). Clinton’s tongue-twisting logicism is stunning: more troops would “create space for political reconciliation” among Iraqi rival politicians. Like Atwood’s, white people’s capacity for mental aerobics and word juggling, speaking out of the two sides of the mouth can be mind-boggling.

Thirteen years after delivering liberty — white people’s gift to the rest of the world — here is Clinton in 2016 April:

I guess my greatest regret was voting to give President Bush the authority in Iraq. It did not turn out the way I thought it would based on what he had said. And I regret that. And I’ve said that it was a mistake and obviously it’s something that, you know, I wish hadn’t turned out the way it did.

One has to wonder what happened to Atwood’s ‘free and independent journalist’ with their righteous capacity to hold ‘power-holders to account’ with their ‘evidence-based truth telling’?

Of course, it’s not the fault of those wonderful western journalists, for they are merely reporting ‘evidence-based truth telling’.

Someone slashed Khashoggi’s throat — we, the rest of the world, would say, so what? But Atwood throws a righteous fit perhaps because the man’s throat had been fed by the hand of Washington and America always stand up for their allies. You have to wonder, again, what happened to evidence-based truth telling. Who, really, is Khashoggi? Who has he been serving? What was his role in America dispensing morality gifts? Was he out to undo Saudi Arabia?

But, none of that is dug up perhaps because the man’s throat must be worth more than dead Iraqis in a totalitarian society, or worth the 3.6 million dead in undemocratic, unconverted Vietnam and those uncivilized American natives who, too, must be under the thump of some dictator.

Truth telling? Evidence-based? Can Atwood even know the difference when confronted between truth and falsity? Does she even know what evidence to look for?

Never mind even all that. When the dust from the bombs settles, truth telling becomes a Clintonian mistake — and nobody was, indeed, to held to account. One Atwoodian rule for the rest of the world, another for white people. Millions upon millions dead, limbs torn, families wrecked, kids screaming in hospitals from pain — and not one fucking farang, not one gringo, not one gweilo has to be held to account. And Atwood wants to preach to us about liberty?

But, of course, we, the rest of the world understand: God makes mistakes, so what if this great Atwoodian free, liberal, progressive paragon of American godliness makes even more. Like American bombs, Atwood is poking at an army of journalists in the service of freedom. Time magazine is elevated to the ranks of truth-tellers (to Atwood, truth is not an abstraction); it used to be Newsweek, and Foreign Affairs, and the NED. In the front line of liberty’s righteous cause, Atwood wants more troops, and so she shall have it. Today it is the turn of literature and LitHub daily, to hold (other) Myanmar, Muslims, and heathens to account

You’d be mistaken to think this critique is about calling out Atwood’s hypocrisy or America’s or about their moralism. God, gold, glory are the three givens the moment white men came ashore to our part of the world two, three hundred years ago. From Canada to Australia, they have seized our land, killed our peoples, abducted children, made conversions, sucked dry the resources and, all the while, preaching liberty. That is also to say, we’ve gotten use to white man’s ways because the human capacity to endure is astounding, weak though we are.

Besides, Atwood isn’t the first among the white literati class to flaunt white superiority. Remember Kipling? Even feminists, even the Scottish philosopher David Hume and Germany’s Immanuel Kant said only people of the ‘white race’ are capable of thought, civilization and culture.

Because black, brown, yellow are incapable of civilization, you can see that, as a consequence, Atwood spits out identical Kantian concepts, label them as abstractions, binding them to an uncultured people: ‘fatherland, blood, soil, gods, virtue, kingship’. She finds it convenient to omit as abstractions, ‘truth, liberty, power, freedom’. Does Atwood even know what is ‘evidence’? Or truth? Can she even count?

So, the purpose of the statistics given above about the foreign dead and maimed by white people’s moralism is to juxtaposed Atwood’s language to her ‘evidence-based truth telling’. As had Bush and Clinton, employing political and American military muscle to back up their words, Atwood employs her literary prestige in a way that Orwell has described, making “lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

Also note that Orwell’s world took place and was created not in Myanmar nor Iraq for, after all, we are a people incompetent (Kipling) to any of that kind of creation. After which, white people exported the products of their intellect and moralism, their racism and fascism in particular. Propaganda, journalism, public relations are creations of the west. If you read Chinese, for example, you’ll find no script for ‘propaganda’. The nearest we could make of the word propaganda is zuanchuan 宣传, a word from the imperial courts that literally translates as ‘transmit proclamation‘. Imperial court because only the courts have proclamation; we commoners know the ‘virtue’ (a word Atwood calls an abstraction) of saying nothing: out of the mouth comes disaster.

Democracy made necessary propaganda, and along with it journalism. Ever since the white man, the rest of the world has been a disaster. We, the rest of the world, the Chinese for example, discovered the paper for the purpose of disseminating knowledge (re: the Diamond Sutras of Dunhuang); the west used paper for propaganda. Our pictorial and ideogram language is used to convey the reality of nature, the west used its language to spit. Fireworks were created for celebration of nature’s cyclical progress, the west used it to kill.

All that is to say, Orwell’s 1984 world was created in the west. It is found in America today and Atwood is, as she says, herself evidence to the fraud that America is a democracy, evidence to the fact that truth is falseness, that oppression is liberty, that war is peace. White people turned everything upside down and Atwood has the audacity to preach to us about ‘factual subsoil of a story’ because the ‘factual subsoil’ in her story is her deceitful character, like Bush, like Clinton and like countless others. Does Atwood know what ‘facts’ lay beneath the soil that grows rice?

What is, therefore, central to the death and maim statistics is, that truth telling by Atwood is know how to stitch words together in order to give the appearance of truth. Her kind of empiricism requires no verification into what, indeed, is true or false. Hers is simply to say it, identical to the way the Bible adopts the principle of making lies sound truthful: In the beginning is the Word.

That is to say, simply assert and it is the truth that, the Bible says, sets you free! There are countless examples in the western Press today, but here there are, verbatim as published:

If a society has any pretense to being other than a serfdom, a free and independent press whose journalists have the right to dig into the factual subsoil of a story is the primary defense against encroaching winner-takes-all powercreep (sic).

Atwood’s claims are mind-boggling: Which society pretends? An individual can pretend, but how does a society do it collective? What society outside the west practices its kind of serfdom? ‘Right’? What is that? The airy, vacuous quality in Atwoodian fart is everywere. Take this,

As its 2018 “Person of the Year,” TIME Magazine has named four journalists and one news organization who have suffered for speaking truth.

Or this,

Gone are the days when all we had to defend was the right of novelists to say the F word in print. Now it appears that it is the right of independent-minded journalists to exist at all that is at issue. Democracies ignore this crisis at their peril: if we lose the free press, we will cease to be democracies.

Or this, her headline in LitHub,

If We Lose the Free Press, We Cease to Be a Democracy

Atwood’s ‘If we lose the free press, we cease to be democracy” is equal to Bush’s “Would the US and other free nations be more safe or less safe with al-Qaeda in control of Iraq?” These are not verifiable statements. They are just presumptive assertions, worse of an abstract kind and completely bigoted. You’d find the same in the Bible.

This Atwoodian slippery slope talks in ways that shows how Atwood is, as is Clinton, hostage to their moralism. The propagandizing effects of the free Press is the effect that Gold, God, Glory has had on the white men after they sailed off from Europe. Atwood’s employ of words like ‘society, pretense, free, independent, speaking truth, right, democracies’ becomes the paragon of fluff.

The free Press (sic) is anything but free. If the Press were independent, we would know it — even if intuitively. At her age, we would imagine grandma Atwood would be wiser. Instead, she is still the provincial, feudalistic, bigoted grandma from 200 years ago in Europe from whence her forebears took by force a country today called Canada. Today, she still has this bottomless capacity for delusion. You see, all that you know does not belong to you.

If she doesn’t even know that, how is she to see below the subsoil in Proust:

Now are the woods all black,
But still the sky is blue

Ludwig Wittgenstein:

Man is the creature who cannot escape from himself, who knows other people only in himself, and when he asserts the contrary, he is lying.

Atwood would be well advise to learn how to read and after that take to heart Orwell’s:

Modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug. The attraction of this way of writing is that it is easy. It is easier — even quicker, once you have the habit — to say In my opinion it is not an unjustifiable assumption that than to say I think.

Like Bush, like Clinton, like Obama, Atwood invokes her moralism in order to lie about moralism, invoking God in order to lie about her God.

We, the rest of the world, are sick of America, sick of the Bushes, the Clintons and the Atwoods. Leave us alone, and the world will be a peaceful, freer world.

Should you, even for a moment, think or find there is a bastard among us, fret not grandma Saint Margaret. That’s our bastard, not yours. With America and Atwood’s God on our backs for sixty years we are not even allowed to exist without your permission. We have trouble even staying alive, and you want us to worry about despots. Return the nation of America to the natives and then when you are sufficiently holy come back to preach to us.

It looks like Margaret Atwood does not like Trump. But, at the least, the man is a lot more honest than her, that deceitful grandma hiding behind her literary, liberal facade, the motherfucker of a woman talking up and selling books like some snake oil peddler in New York and Ottawa. Take your Handmaid’s Tale and stuff it up your shriveled up cunt hole.

Dust your own door mat, others will do so with theirs. Tend your own bonsai, grandma, and others will to theirs.

*

One rule for America, another rule for the rest of the world is Margaret Atwood’s ‘free, independent Press’: To hold those power-holders to account? Below, John F Kennedy’s suggestion for Press self-censorship was based purely on a supposition. Like Atwood, like liberals today, note that Kennedy does not make a single specific charge so that other people may rebut. Instead, every line, every sentence attempts “to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind”. And white ‘free, independent’ journalists clap.

***


***

***

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »