Who isn't a survivor?

Who isn’t a survivor? 

Notice the person did not say the flu virus is a good or tenacious or resourceful survivor, he just said survivor. 

Every being in this world is a survivor, otherwise it won’t be here. 

If everyone alive is a survivor, what is the point of telling others the flu virus is a survivor? 

If he said the flu virus is a resourceful survivor, it may be understandable but it is careless or haughty to think survivor means resourceful or good survivor. 

MANY HAVE BECOME HAUGHTY AND PRESUMPTUOUS, THEY THINK IT IS STYLISH AND UNDERSTOOD THAT SURVIVOR MEANS GOOD OR RESOURCEFUL SURVIVOR WHEN SURVIVOR MEANS JUST SURVIVOR AND EVERY BEING ALIVE IS A SURVIVOR. YOU ARE COURTING MADNESS IF YOU THINK SURVIVOR MEANS GOOD SURVIVOR. 

What’s this? 

 

He is expressing dislike, something has cropped up in his mind that stirred his mental force repulsively. 

Not only is it totally meaningless but it is suffering, leading to stress, restlessness and distraction and his eyes reflect he is in a daze, lost in his private world. A daze is a dangerous state to put your mind in and he is conditioning himself to become dazed. One day you will lapse into a daze from which there is no recovery. 

No one is a master of his dislike and after countless cycles of experience, he is a slave of his dislike not master as he might foolishly think. Not only that but as he ages, his dislike gets more intense easily aroused and mad, little things upset him. 

 

He is expressing like and it is often faked to please or impress others. In this case, it is more to impress others falsely that he is happy or liking something when he may not be. 

Who is abusing laws? 

Is it UMNO or PR who is abusing the laws of the land to persecute its detractors? 

Quote: What Karpal said, simply, was that the Sultans could be brought to court. And that, according to the government, is an act of sedition.

Back in the 1990s, when Umno, in particular Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, criss-crossed the length and breadth of this country to inform the rakyat that the Rulers’ immunity had been removed and that they could now be brought to court if they commit any offence, criminal or civil. And, in fact, since then, some have had to face court action and have, sometimes, even lost the court case.

 

Quote:  Article 72(1) of the Federal Constitution which says: “The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”. 

I think recently BN instigated Fed court action regarding matters of the Perak state assembly. 

Thus anyone who accuses the opposition of being unscrupulous is treading dangerous ground courting judgement. 

Courting unnecessary controversy: 

If I understand correctly, it is stated in the Perak constitution that should a MB lose support of the assembly (something not proven), he should ask the sultan to dissolve the assembly and only if the sultan refused, should he tender his resignation. He should tender his resignation, not the sultan dismissing him. Whether the sultan has the right to dismiss him, as has been done is another matter. 

IF I AM CORRECT, THE MB HAS TO RESIGN IF THE SULTAN REFUSES TO DISSOLVE THE ASSEMBLY BUT IN THIS CASE THE SULTAN DISMISSED THE MB BY HIMSELF. 

Bearing in mind the sultan’s role as a constitutional not ruling monarch and duty to be impartial, he should take the least or non invasive option in this case and that is to dissolve the assembly that does not favour any side in which both parties can take their cases to the people who will decide who shall rule. 

THE NONCONTROVERSIAL, NON INVASIVE OPTION FOR A SULTAN TO TAKE IS TO ACCEDE TO THE MB’S REQUEST (WHICH IS PRESCRIBED IN THE CONSTITUTION) TO DISSOLVE THE ASSEMBLY AND CALL FOR FRESH ELECTIONS IN WHICH THE PEOPLE WILL DECIDE WHICH PARTY IS RIGHT. 

FOR A SULTAN TO REFUSE THE MB’S REQUEST, HE IS INTERVENING INVASIVELY AND THERE MUST BE IMPORTANT REASONS IF HE IS TO DO SO. SAVING COSTS IS NOT A VALID REASON AND EVEN IF THE MB AND PR ARE SCOUNDRELS, THERE IS NO REASON TO ALLOW THE PEOPLE TO DECIDE WHO THEY WANT TO ELECT. IT IS UNLIKELY IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE THERE IS A VALID OR IMPORTANT REASON FOR ANYONE TO REFUSE THE MB’S REQUEST TO DISSOLVE THE ASSEMBLY AND IF A CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCH FOLLOWED THE CONSTITUTION AND AGREED, EVERYTHING WILL BE FINE APART FROM POSSIBLE UNRIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION BY BN SUPPORTERS. 

This Perak crisis was triggered by the defections of 3 assemblymen. There can only be three possible causes for their defections, namely defection on important matters of principles, they are mad or because of corrupt means. 

It is not possible that the three assemblymen all became mad and decided to defect at the same time nor is it possible that they defected on fanciful reasons, just for fun or anger. 

They have never stated any important matters of principles for their defection and it is unlikely that this is the case. 

Thus the most likely cause of their defections is through corrupt means or inducements. 

BEARING IN MIND THAT THE DEFECTIONS THAT TRIGGERED THIS CRISIS IS LIKELY IF NOT CERTAINLY ENGINEERED THROUGH CORRUPT MEANS AND KNOWING THE DEFECTORS REFUSED TO RESIGN EVEN THOUGH THEY SIGNED LETTERS AGREEING TO DO SO, THEN THE WISE MONARCH WHO PREACHES VIRTUE AND IMPARTIALITY SHOULD TAKE THE ONLY VIABLE COURSE TO TAKE THAT IS IN LINE WITH WHAT THE CONSTITUTION INSTRUCTS, SINCE THE MB HAS CALLED FOR A DISSOLUTION, IS TO AGREE. ONLY IF THERE IS INTIMIDATION BY BN OR ONE IS NOT AS IMPARTIAL AS AVOWED SHOULD ONE TAKE A DECISION THAT WILL FAVOR ONE SIDE (BN NEVER COMPLAINED BUT IS QUIETLY SMIRKING WITH DELIGHT, WITHOUT FIGHTING AN ELECTION THEY HAVE WON CONTROL). 

 

THIS ACTION TO DISMISS THE FORMER MB CLEARLY BENEFITS BN BECAUSE WITHOUT FEAR OF LOSS IN AN ELECTION THEY HAVE WON CONTROL OF THE ASSEMBLY WITH THE HELP OF DEFECTORS WHO REFUSED TO RESIGN AS THEY AGREED PREVIOUSLY AND WHOSE DEFECTIONS ARE LIKELY ASSOCIATED WITH FOUL MEANS. 

IF YOU CALL THIS FAIR PLAY AND BEING NONPARTISAN YOU MAY BE RIGHT OR YOU ARE A PERVERT. 

IT IS PROSCRIBED IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT SHOULD THE MB LOSE SUPPORT OF THE MAJORITY, HE SHOULD ASK FOR THE ASSEMBY TO BE DISSOLVED AND IN THIS CASE THE SIMPLEST AND IMPARTIAL THING FOR ANY SULTAN TO DO IS TO JUST AGREE AND LET THE PEOPLE BE THE JUDGE, SO WHAT IF ELECTIONS ARE COSTLY? 

Why is BN reluctant to face voters? 

Having won the defections by presumably fair means, since they are popular, they should lobby the sultan to call for fresh elections to prove their popularity. 

It is unlikely if BN is enthusiastic about fresh elections that the sultan will take action that will deprive both contestants the ‘pleasures’ of jousting each other in fresh elections. 

YOU DO NOT NEED TO BE A GENIUS TO SURMISE THE BN DOES NOT WANT FRESH ELECTIONS, THEY ARE EVEN OPPOSED TO FRESH ELECTIONS BUT WOULD RATHER GOVERN ON WITH THE SUPPORT OF DEFECTORS AND SO THE SULTAN’S ACTION THAT REQUIRES MORE INTERVENTION FROM THE SULTAN, WILL BE VERY POPULAR WITH BN.  

BY SACKING THE MB, THE SULTAN IS INTERVENING MORE, HE IS TAKING ACTIVE ACTION FOR ONE SIDE AGAINST ANOTHER THAN DISSOLVING THE ASSEMBLY AND SO HE MUST HAVE VALID REASONS FOR TAKING PERSONAL ACTION. 

BY SACKING THE MB, PR IS PERMANENTLY DISADVANTAGED IN THAT THEY WILL CERTAINLY LOSE POWER WHILST BY DISSOLVING THE ASSEMBLY, PR HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO REGAIN POWER AND SO THE SULTAN MUST HAVE VERY IMPORTANT REASONS TO SACK HIM. THE MB HAS NOT COMMITTED ANY SERIOUS CRIMES SO WHAT REASON IS THERE TO SACK HIM AND REFUSE TO DISSOLVE THE ASSEMBLY? 

DISSOLVING THE ASSEMBLY IS PROSCRIBED IN THE CONSTITUTION AND EVEN IF TO DO MAY BE POPULAR WITH PR AND UNPOPULAR WITH BN, IYT IS THE COURSE OF ACTION WITH LEAST RESISTANCE AND INTERVENTION AND ALLOWS BOTH SIDES TO TAKE THEIR CASE TO THE PEOPLE AND SINCE BN WON THE DEFECTORS BY FAIR MEANS THEY SHOULD BE SUPREMELY CONFIDENT THAT THE VOTERS WILL ALSO ENDORSE THEM AS THE DEFECTORS HAVE. 

Dissolving Assembly Is A No Brainer: 

Rather than a very difficult decision to make, it is a straightforward decision to dissolve the assembly as requested by the MB. 

If as avowed, you are fair and impartial, dissolving the assembly is the only recourse because it does not permanently favour or disadvantage one side. 

Even if the MB is a thug or criminal, by refusing to dissolve the assembly you permanently favour BN and disadvantage PR because they cannot win back government by election. Not only that, BN won control by means that are likely unfair even criminal, engineering the defections of assemblymen who have refused to resign even thought they signed agreements to do so. 

IF YOU ARE TRULY FAIR AS AVOWED THEN CALLING FOR FRESH ELECTIONS IS THE ONLY RECOURSE BECAUSE THEN EITHER SIDE CAN WIN THE MANDATE TO RULE. BY DISMISSING THE MB AND SANCTIONING DEFECTIONS THAT MAY BE CORRUPT, YOU ARE FAVORING ONE SIDE OVER ANOTHER SIDE. 

YOU MUST HAVE A PERVERTED SENSE OF FAIRNESS IF YOU PERCEIVE YOUR ACTION THAT SUMMARILY SWEEPS PR FROM GOVERNMENT AND INSTALS BN IN POWER AS FAIR, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THAT YOU SHOULD DISSOLVE THE ASSEMBLY ON THE MB’S ADVICE. 

Who is fair and criminal? 

Is it possible that PR corruptly paid its own assemblymen to defect? 

Is it possible that BN corruptly paid PR assemblymen to defect? 

Thus in this matter of defections that triggered the crisis, it is impossible that PR has done evil but it is very possible BN did evil. 

Did PR lobby for fresh elections or did it argue against elections? 

Is BN enthusiastic about fresh elections or is it reluctant even vehemently opposed, since it has thus won power without any work? 

Did BN follow procedures to call for a vote and voted no confidence in the MB or did they jump the gun and met the sultan alone without the other party? 

Is it not written in laws passed by BN that the monarchs can be sued? 

THUS IT IS RIDICULOUS, COURTING FUTURE INSANITY FOR ANYONE TO ACCUSE PR OF MISDEEDS, OF ACHIEVING ENDS BY ANY MEANS. 

Not debatable but wrong & unfair: 

Even those who are conversant with the Perak constitution talk about it being debatable or arguable the sultan did not do the right thing. 

Nothing (including the Perak constitutional crisis) is debatable or arguable but it can be objectively determined as either right or wrong, fair or unfair and it reflects their perverse logic or doubt and uncertainty that they speak thus. 

The Perak state constitution is the plan to which all must abide and whoever does not abide by the constitution is wrong. Fairness regards to decisions that are fair to two opposing sides. 

Thus it is easy to determine what is right and wrong, fair or unfair. 

Unless there are provisions that have not been mentioned, apparently the state constitution allows for the sultan to appoint a MB from elected representatives but this is in the case of the aftermath of a state election in which there is no existing MB and whether the sultan can choose to refuse to appoint the nominated MB of the victorious party, as happened in Trengganu and Kedah is not stated. Apparently the sultan has no power to dismiss a MB as was done in Perak but should the MB lose majority support, he can request for the sultan to dissolve the assembly so that fresh elections can be undertaken and if refused the MB should resign. Thus the sultan should wait for the MB to commit wrong by refusing to resign rather than commit wrong himself by sacking him without constitutional sanction. 

THUS UNLESS THERE ARE EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, TO AVOID CONTROVERSIES, THE SULTAN SHOULD JUST ACQUIESCE AND DISSOLVE THE ASSEMBY AS REQUESTED BY THE MB SO THAT FRESH ELECTIONS CAN FOLLOW. 

THE ONLY POSSIBLE REASON FOR REFUSING TO DISSOLVE THE ASSEMBLY IS TO SAVE MONEY OF HOLDING ANOTHER ELECTION, THERE CAN BE NO VALID REASONS FOR REFUSING THE MB, EVEN IF HE WAS A CROOK OR DID SOME TERRIBLE WRONG OR IS AN IDIOT OR WHATEVER, HE AND HIS PARTY WILL STILL HAVE TO FACE THE JUDGMENT OF THE ELECTORATE AND SHOULD THE ELECTORATE STILL WANT HIM, IT IS NONE OF ANYBODY’S BUSINESS TO OBJECT SINCE THIS IS DEMOCRACY. 

THE POSSIBLE REASONS FOR NOT DISSOLVING THE ASSEMBLY IS BECAUSE OF PRESSURE BY BN (NAJIB MET THE SULTAN PRIVATELY) OR BECAUSE THE SULTAN IS ON THE SIDE OF BN. 

Thus it is wrong for the sultan to dismiss the present MB, the easiest and right thing for him to do is dissolve the assembly as requested by the MB and let the people be the judge. Unless there are other statutes, the sultan has no authority to sack an existing MB, the constitution states that the MB must tender his resignation if the sultan refuses to dissolve the assembly. 

The sultan’s actions is UNFAIR in that it definitely favours BN and disadvantages PR because without winning an election and bearing in mind they could have corruptly caused the defections, they have won office with no course of redress for PR. 

BEARING IN MIND THE DEFECTORS COULD HAVE BEEN CORRUPTLY CAUSED TO DEFECT AND SO BN WOULD HAVE WON OFFICE BY ILL MEANS, THE FAIR DECISION WILL BE TO CALL FOR FRESH ELECTIONS SO THAT THE PEOPLE CAN DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES WHO THEY WANT TO BE THEIR GOVERNORS. 

Bankers without any conscience or decency: 

It is reported that bankers are reverting to the old days of fat bonuses and pay because they such important and brilliant people without which the system cannot function. 

But now these banks they run are owned by governments as a result of massive infusion of money to prop them up and so they are now ripping off shareholders and depositors but the people who are keeping their banks alive. 

If they were such brilliant bankers in the past all this would not have come to pass and it was because they were taking inordinate risks and cheating to pursue profits for which they justified rewarding themselves that the banks were ‘so spectacular’ in profits in the past. 

THERE ARE COMMENTATORS WHO ARE ARGUE THAT THE 1930 CRASH CANNOT HAPPEN TODAY BECAUSE WE ARE TOO SOPHISTICATED, OUR GOVERNMENTS HAVE LEARNT THEIR LESSONS BUT THEY ARE FOOLS BECAUSE NOW AND THEN, IT IS A MATTER OF VESTED INTERESTS THAT STAND IN THE WAY OF RATIONAL ACTION. THE INTERESTS OF BANKERS AND CAPITALISTS MAY NOT COINCIDE WITH THAT OF THE PUBLIC AND THEY WOULD RATHER KILL THE ECONOMY THAN KILL THEMSELVES AND THESE BANKERS HAVE CONNECTIONS TO POLITICIANS THAT WILL ENSURE THERE WILL BE STALEMATES, NOTHING THAT HARMS THEIR INTERESTS WILL HAPPEN AND IF THEIR INTERESTS HARMS THE ECONOMY, SO BE IT. 

THUS THEN AS NOW IT IS VESTED INTERESTS AND BLOODY MINDEDNESS BY THOSE WITH POWER THAT WILL ENSURE NOTHING OR LITTLE IS DONE AS ROME BURNS AND IT IS NOT KNOWHOW BUT THE BATTLE OF INTERESTS THAT IS AS OLD AS FOOLISH MAN THAT WILL DETERMINE IF THIS WILL BECOME ANOTHER EVEN WORSE DEPRESSION. 

Still the same: 

It is the bankers’ and politicians’ self serving interests that kept the world economy on a ‘going for broke’ course that led to disaster and it is the continued bankers’ and politicians’ selfish interests that will mean little that is meaningful is done (at the expense of the public). 

DO YOU THINK THE BANKING AND POLITICAL THIEVES WHO HAD BEEN PLUNDERING AT THE HELM WILL NOW WASH THEIR HANDS AND COME CLEAN? OBAMA MAY NOT BE AS BAD AS BUSH BUT IF YOU THINK HE IS AN ANGEL YOU MAY BE A FOOL AND HE STILL HAS VESTED INTERESTS NOT JUST IN HIS OPPONENTS BUT WITHIN HIS OWN PARTY TO CONTEND WITH AND COMPROMISE EVEN IF HE WANTED TO DO THE RIGHT THING. 

Drugs 'can help mild depression'

Antidepressants are effective in mild to moderate depression and should not just be reserved for the most severe cases, say a team of UK researchers.

WHAT IS STATE ABOVE HAS AN EVIL SELFISH MOTIVE TO ENCOURAGE MORE USAGE OF ANTIDEPRESSANTS THAT WILL RESULT IN MORE PROFITS, TO HELL WITH SIDE EFFECTS. The hint is that doctors should prescribe antidepressants more freely. 

If depression has a cause then the only cure for depression is removal of the cause. 

There is a cause of depression and it is the incessant often unconscious use of force to prolong. Sadness that leads to depression is caused by the constant use of force to prolong and thus the only cure for depression is to never use force to prolong or stretch syllables. 

 

It is not necessary for him to stare at you for so long and he is using force to prolong his gaze at you and this is the unnecessary prolonging that leads to sadness. Stop prolonging and that is the end of all sadness as I have experienced. 

Tengku Razaleigh Has Right View: 

Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin is still the Perak Mentri Besar until he resigns of his own accord, or is removed by a vote of no-confidence in a formal sitting of the State Assembly, said Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah.

“Only the answer of the assembly counts, regardless how many sworn statements, defections, press conferences and declarations, or what forms of advertisement, display, inducement or force you bring to bear on the question,” he said in a statement yesterday.

“The Constitution makes no provision for his removal by any other means, including by petitions or instructions from any other authority,” he added. 

 

Reflecting that he is a non partisan man of truth, Tengku Razaleigh spoke correctly and clearly the truth of the Perak constitutional crisis. 

Asia 'must cut export dependency'

Asian governments must cut reliance on export-driven growth and spend more to cut poverty, development bank officials say.

Comment: The main reason that Asia’s boom, including China’s & Japan’s is export led is because it lacks the consumptive power and now it turns out the America too is not as rich as it appears to be but it is having a free lunch paying with paper money that it prints that may be literally worthless. 

IT IS BECAUSE ASIA LACKS THE WEALTH TO CONSUME IN PROFLIGACY TO STIMULATE ITS ECONOMIES THAT IT HAS TO RESORT TO EXPORTS TO DRIVE ITS BOOMS. IT SOUNDS IMPRESSIVE AND PRESCRIPTIVE TO TELL ASIA TO SPEND MORE, BUT DOES IT HAVE THE WEALTH TO SPEND AND DO THE PEOPLE HAVE THE WEALTH TO SPEND? IF NOT THEN YOUR ADVICE IS EMPTY, NONSENSE. NOW IT TURNS OUT THEN EVEN AMERICA IS NOT AS WEALTHY AS IT FAKES AND CHEATS IT IS. IF THE US IS NOT AS WEALTHY AS IT SEEMS, WHAT MORE ASIA CAN ASSUME ITS ROLE AS CHIEF CONSUMER? 

IF YOU WANT TO GIVE ADVICE YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT IT IS TRUE OR EFFECTIVE OR FEASIBLE. IF ASIANS EG MALAYSIANS ARE ALREADY UP TO THEIR NECKS IN DEBTS, WHAT SPENDING ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? 

Savings in theory not practice: 

Japan, Taiwan, Singapore and China may have a lot of savings but it may be in theory not reality because the money is invested overseas and have been spent by profligate Americans who now cannot repay. 

People’s savings in banks in Malaysia may be gone because banks have recklessly lent to finance property purchases that may collapse and the intrinsic values of properties may be so low it wipes out the money banks lent that come from depositors. 

THUS THEORY THE BANKING SYSTEM HAS LOTS OF MONEY, MALAYSIANS HAVE LOTS OF SAVINGS BUT IF THE SAVINGS HAVE BEEN RECKLESSLY LENT AND NOW ARE NOT RECOVERABLE, THE SAVINGS ARE ALL GONE AND THERE IS NOTHING FOR PEOPLE AND GOVERNMENT TO SPEND EXCEPT BY PRINTING MORE MONEY OR CHEATING. 

Understanding, do you understand it is absurd? 

 

The true purpose of the picture is to present the new car to the public to inform them. 

It is never an accident that the girl happens in the picture and happens to be attractive and standing smiling with one leg bent and crossed leaning against the car. 

What is orchestrated is just for show, to impress or attract which is all about stirring mental force not reason. It is a false association between the ‘sexy’ girl and the car. 

The purpose of the girl in the picture is false, to deceive, to stir the attraction of viewers to be attracted to her that will hopefully be transferred to the car and so it is deception with karma attached for the person responsible for this arrangement. 

By stirring the viewer’s mental force attractively to the girl, it is hoped that the attractive stirring will be transferred to the car. Liking can be transferred because it is a blind rehashed activity and hence liking stirred for the girl can be transferred to the car. However it is deceit to do so and there is karma attached. 

IF YOU TRULY SEE AND UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU SEE, YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THAT THIS PICTURE IS DECEPTIVE, IT IS TRYING TO FALSELY ASSOCIATE THE GIRL WITH THE CAR, THE GIRL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CAR EXCEPT FOR THE FALSE PURPOSE OF STIRRING ATTRACTION TO HER THAT HOPEFULLY WILL BE TRANSFERRED TO THE CAR. 

IF YOU SEE NOTHING WRONG, YOU SEE IT IS MEANINGFUL, THEN YOU SEE AND UNDERSTAND FALSELY THAT IS NO DIFFERENT FROM NOT SEEING AND UNDERSTANDING. 

Ferguson: We’re just one kick from the final: 

This is a false statement designed to intimidate Arsenal. 

It is not a kick but one goal from the final and even then it is not necessarily true because it is possible Arsenal can beat Man Utd 3-1 to overturn the away goal rule and so Ferguson is speaking unnecessarily and falsely to intimidate or make nervous his opponents with deadly karma for him that is far more than whatever psychological gain he hopes to obtain. 

What is this? 

 

He is stirring his mental force to exercise his facial muscles according to a plan he has rehashed many times before. Call it sneer, displeasure, annoyance or whatever you like but it is basically dislike, his mental force is stirred repulsively and he is using his facial muscles to communicate it to others. 

The stirring of mental force is totally meaningless because force is blind, it harms the mind by progressively warping or conditioning it to force and degrading it apart from stirring stress, restlessness and distraction and no man of genuine reason, who understands what he is doing will activate his mental force to experience like, dislike, sadness, hurt, agitation or fear. 

HE AND YOU FIND HIS EXPRESSION MEANINGFUL, UNDERSTANDABLE BUT IT IS NONSENSE, MAKES NO SENSE APART FROM HARMING HIS OWN MIND WITH FORCE THAT CONDITIONS HIS MIND MORE AND MORE TO FORCE AND DEGRADES IT SO THAT IT WILL END IN A SCRAMBLED MIND, AKA MADNESS. 

AGAIN, HE IS IN A DAZE, LOST IN THOUGHT AND THEREFORE DETACHED FROM THE REALITY THAT HE SO DESIRES TO EXIST IN. PEOPLE WILL NOT GIVE UP EXISTENCE UNLIKE THE BUDDHA BUT THEY SPEND A SIZEABLE CHUNK OF THEIR EXISTENCE ISOLATED FROM REALITY OR IN A DAZE. 

Killers on motorbikes have done it again: 

The killers on motorcycles have done it again — this time, snatch thieves took two lives when they tried to rob pregnant Jamilah Selamat. 

What is said is false driven out of emotion to stir emotions in readers and that fool is himself headed for torment like the snatch thieves he assails. 

It is not an accident he chose ‘the killers on motorcycles’ to deride the thieves and he counts two lives (foetus and mother) and described the victim as pregnant but it is a style of speech that is intended to stir the indignation (emotional anger or dislike) of readers he thinks is meritorious but incurs deadly karma for him. 

The style free person may say, “Pregnant woman on motorbike dies as a result of snatch thief robbery”. 

“The killers on motorcycles have done it again — this time, snatch thieves took two lives when they tried to rob pregnant Jamilah Selamat.” Is a style of speech, a way of putting something that is not without motive but with the motive of making much of something so as to stir emotion in self and others. 

He is a hypocrite because if you find such acts distasteful you should wash your hands off this world never to return rather than feeling indignant and wanting to stir others' mental forces that harms and conditions them to force. 

Further, it is rehashed: 

“The killers on motorcycles have done it again — this time, snatch thieves took two lives when they tried to rob pregnant Jamilah Selamat” is rehashed to meet the demands of the situation, never freshly specifically composed for the occasion. Even though there are many different possible styles, this person always uses this style and the only cause is that it is rehashed. 

There may be a standard format “The X have done it again — this time, X caused W when they tried to rob pregnant Z.” In his mental jukebox and he just filled in the Xs. Ys and Zs to rehash the standard or formed sentence. The reason is he likes it, he thinks it is stylish or wonderful and memorized it so as to impress again and again. 

He is therefore a robot and no matter what you say, robotic rehashing existence is tormenting ending in final madness and being a robot, he does not have genuine understanding. 

Not killers but thieves: 

Those are not killers on motorcycles but snatch thieves on motorcycle and killing is an unplanned consequence of their thievery and so to call them killers when they are snatch thieves is false not without purpose but with the purpose of denigrating or condemning them. 

“The killers on motorcycles have done it again” is meaningless, who needs him to tell that the killers on motorcycles have done it again? The purpose is to exclaim, to stir indignation not to convey meaningful information. 

And it is a standard rehashed format like “PM has done it again” or “Malaysia has done it again”. 

WHETHER IT IS NECESSARY TO SAY ‘KILLERS ON MOTORCYCLES HAVE DONE IT AGAIN’ OR NOT IS OBJECTIVELY, IF IT IS TOTALLY UNNECESSARY, ONLY NECESSARY TO STIR EMOTION AND HE AND YOU THINK IT IS NECESSARY OR DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE, YOU ARE HEADED FOR SUFFERING. 

Careful what you say: 

Jesus said you will be judged for every careless word you say and if through emotion you speak recklessly, you are misleading others and also yourself and thus confused by your careless/reckless words, you are headed for the destination of perdition. 

It is not the purpose of the motorbike gang to kill but to rob and the death of the victim is an unintended result of their robbery and so it is careless and reckless to call them killers on motorcycles because they are in truth robbers on motorbikes who happened to kill. 

BY CALLING THEM KILLERS ON MOTORBIKES YOU ARE FOSTERING YOURSELF AND OTHERS TO PERCEIVE THEM AS KILLERS ON MOTORBIKES WHEN IN TRUTH THEY ARE ROBBERS ON MOTORBIKES. ISN’T IT MUDDLED PERCEPTION TO PERCEIVE A ROBBER AS A KILLER? IF YOU DON’T CARE, YOU MAY BE RIGHT IF IT IS WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE OR YOU MAY BE WRONG, IT HAS DEADLY EVERLASTING CONSEQUENCES FOR YOU. 

Najib said mutual respect not trust means acceptance: 

Najib said mutual respect not trust means acceptance. 

Respect is based on force and is never natural but enforced or artificial. 

By ‘respect’ people mean admiration or reverence or expressing their mental forces are stirred attractively at the person’s or race’s being, what they stand for and achievements. Because attraction is based on force it is blind and meaningless and respect may be genuine or faked, it is expected of you and you show respects just to appease others because he is such a proud man desirous of respect from others when you even look down on him. Even when respect is genuine it is a meaningless attractive stirring of a person’s mental force at the sight of a person or his achievements that may result in outward display in conduct (eg bowing, acting subservient) or speech (fawning speech). 

RESPECT IS MEANINGLESS; IT IS BASED ON FORCE WITH A REHASHED PROGRAM OF ACTIONS AND SPEECH THAT IS FOR SHOW TO APPEASE OTHERS THAT YOU NEED TO HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH. 

WHEN RESPECT IS GENUINE IT IS JUST AN ATTRACTIVE STIRRING OF A PERSON’S MENTAL FORCE AT THE SIGHT OF A PERSON THAT DRIVES HIM TO SAY OR DO CERTAIN THINGS THAT WILL PLEASE THE OTHER PERSON THAT HE IS IMPRESSIVE OR LIKEABLE. EVEN IF IT IS GENUINE, IT IS MEANINGLESS, A STIRRING OF MENTAL FORCE THAT IS NOT EVERLASTING AND CAUSES STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION. 

RESPECT IS OFTEN FALSE, LIP SERVICE, JUST FOR SHOW, YOU SAY OR DO THINGS IN FRONT OF THE OTHER PERSON TO APPEAR AS IF YOU RESPECT HIM WHEN YOU HAVE NO RESPECT OR EVEN SCOFF AT HIM. 

It reflects delusion that a person finds respect meaningful and desirable when it is hollow or emotional not based on reason or understandable, based on self identity views that the Buddha said leads to future woe and to reason that ‘respect means acceptance’. You need force not reason to acceptance and so if anyone subscribes to Najib’s view he then blindly use force to accept the other person without question and that is foolish and dangerous. 

IF A PERSON’S RESPECT FOR ANOTHER IS GENUINE (EVEN THOUGH IT IS JUST A MEANINGLESS STIRRING OF FORCE) IT IS TO BE EXPECTED THAT HE WILL USE FORCE TO ACCEPT THE PERSON. HOW CAN A PERSON NOT ACCEPT A PERSON HE TRULY RESPECTS. IT IS ONLY WHEN A PERSON’S RESPECT FOR ANOTHER IS HYPOCRITICAL, TO APPEASE HIM THAT HE HAS TO BE TOLD TO ACCEPT THE OTHER PERSON. 

THERE IS NOTHING UNDERSTANDABLE OR MEANINGFUL ABOUT RESPECT, IT IS ESSENTIALLY BASED ON FORCE, AN ATTRACTIVE STIRRING OF A PERSON’S MENTAL FORCE THAT LEADS HIM TO BEHAVE IN A CERTAIN FASHION THAT WILL CONVEY RESPECT TO THE OTHER PERSON, IT IS ALL ABOUT STYLE AND FORCE. THUS YOU ARE A FOOL AND BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE IF YOU WORSHIP RESPECT. IF RESPECT IS GENUINE, IT IS AUTOMATICALLY THAT THE PERSON WOULD USE FORCE TO ACCEPT THE PERSON YOU RESPECT. IT IS ONLY IF THE RESPECT IS HYPOCRITICAL, JUST TO APPEASE THE PERSON THAT YOU HAVE TO TELL HIM TO ACCEPT THE PERSON YOU RESPECT. THUS NAJIB WANTS TO CONVERT HYPOCRITICAL RESPECT INTO GENUINE ACCEPTANCE, GENUINE USE OF FORCE TO RECEIVE WITHOUT QUESTION THE OTHER PERSON. 

Acceptance and respect are not things you can tell others: 

Acceptance and respect are not things you can tell others to do and it will be done. If this is so and you do not know and ask people to accept, aren’t you foolish? 

It is up to the individual to accept and respect another if he wants. If a person’s respect for another is hypocritical, he is not going to convert it into genuine acceptance no matter how many times you tell him. 

WHEN PEOPLE WANT OTHERS TO RESPECT THEM, THEY EMOTIONALLY WANT OTHERS TO LOOK UP TO THEM, TO SHOW THEM DEFERENCE, THEY WILL DO OR SAY CERTAIN THINGS TO IMPRESS OTHERS EG THEY ARE VERY RICH, VERY POWERFUL, HAVE HIGH STATUS OR ARE VERY ACCOMPLISHED EG IN SPORTS THAT SOCIETY IN GENERAL RESPECTS. BY WANTING OTHERS TO LOOK UP TO THEM, THEY LOOK DOWN ON OTHERS, THINK THEY ARE SUPERIOR. HENCE THE PERSON WHO CRAVES RESPECT HAS SERIOUS SELF IDENTITY VIEWS THAT THE BUDDHA SAID IS A FETTER TO FUTURE WOE. 

ACCEPTANCE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH REASON, NOTHING UNDERSTANDABLE, YOU JUST DO AS YOU ARE TOLD BY OTHERS OR YOUR MENTAL JUKEBOX TO USE FORCE TO ACCEPT OR NOT QUESTION AND THAT IS DANGEROUS IF THE OTHER PERSON YOU ACCEPT IS NOT A MAN OF TRUTH OR GOODWILL.