The difference between greed and selfishness:
If there are such things called greed and selfishness they can be clearly defined and cannot be disputed by anyone.
Greed and selfishness are not to be confused with each other. Reflecting their lack of (true) understanding, they have a vague idea or perception of what greed and selfishness are but they do not truly understand what they are.
GREED IS A PARTICULAR (MEANINGLESS, PERISHABLE, STRESSFUL) STIRRING OF A BEING’S MENTAL FORCE TO BE ATTRACTED AND WANT TO POSSESS OR GRAB OR WANT MORE AND MORE OF THAT ITEM EG MONEY, SHARES, PROPERTY, GOLD.
SELFISHNESS IS A PROGRAMMING INSTRUCTING THE PERSON TO HOARD FOR HIS OWN EXCLUSIVE ENJOYMENT AND NOT SHARE WITH OTHERS TO WHICH THE PERSON IS A SLAVE.
THUS GREED IS A STIRRING OF FORCE AND SELFISHNESS IS A PROGRAMMING.
People don’t truly understand greed and selfishness, they only have vague perceptions (perception has nothing to do with understanding, requires only seeing) of what is being spoken about and they speak of greed and selfishness without truly understand what they are talking about.
THE BASIS OF CAPITALISM IS GREED (GRAB AS MUCH AS YOU CAN) AND SELFISHNESS (ONLY CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR OWN MATERIAL WELLBEING AND ENJOYMENT) WHICH ARE BOTH EVIL AND SO CAPITALISM IS EVIL NOT GOOD AS MANKIND FALSELY UNDERSTAND. BECAUSE GREED AND SELFISHNESS ULTIMATELY LEADS TO DISASTER, RUIN, CAPITALISM WHICH IS BASED ON GREED AND SELFISHNESS IS NEVER SELF SUSTAINING BUT END IN DISASTER AND COLLAPSE.
Sharing is the opposite of selfishness:
Sharing is the opposite of selfishness (not greed) and whatever is sharing is meritorious, is the way to heaven and the practice of heaven.
IF YOU WANT TO BE SELFISH, DO NOT WANT TO SHARE, YOU WILL PERISH AND GO TO ETERNAL PUNISHMENT BECAUSE THERE IS NO SELFISHNESS IN HEAVEN.
Proof that people have no true understanding:
For a person to consistently falsely understand in the same substance and style, that understanding must be recorded and replayed from recording and so his false understanding must be rehashed or rote never true or genuine specific to the occasion understanding.
Thus if you can prove that a person’s understanding is false and he consistently has the same false understanding his understanding must be replayed from recording or rote.
The gamut of false understanding regarding capitalism runs from:
A) It is a necessary evil or neither good nor bad
B) It is good for the benefit of society and the individual
C) It is a superior system to conduct the economy and there are no peers or better ways to run an economy.
The true understanding of capitalism is that it is evil and leads ultimately to disaster and collapse of the system because it is based on greed and selfishness (grab as much as you can, everybody grab) that is essentially a relentless plunder of the common wealth that must end in empty coffers, lots of impoverished people and a few privileged goats.
People’s false understanding of capitalism is consistently, they sport the same views or modifications of the same view consistently and the only way this can happen is that their view or understanding of capitalism is recorded and rehashed by rote every time the topic of capitalism is broached.
People understand liking as meaningful and good when it is totally unnecessary, a blind wasteful attractive stirring of mental force that leads to stress and detracts from enjoyment of what is liked.
The only way a person can consistently always understand falsely like as good and meaningful is if it is memorized and replayed from memory or is a faked understanding.
True understanding is by nature consistent:
Because true understanding is the way it actually is, it is always consistent without needing rehash. If you understand truly what is happening, what you see and hear, it must be consistent without need to memorize and rehash from memory.
JOYFUL IS THE MAN WHO TRULY UNDERSTANDS BECAUSE EVERYTHING HE SEES AND HEARS HE UNDERSTANDS IMMEDIATELY TRULY AS IT IS WITHOUT HAVING TO RESORT TO SEARCHING AND APPLYING A FALSE RECORDED UNDERSTANDING TO THE SITUATION.
Joyful lives the man of true understanding:
Only the man who truly understands lives joyfully because what he sees, he sees truly as it actually is and immediately understands truly without need to search from his library of recorded understandings for a recorded understanding to be applied and he does not need to memorize or record the understanding of what he saw.
In contrast, woeful and burdensome is the existence of the man who does not understand or understand falsely because whatever happens, he must search for cues or clues and consult his library of recorded false understandings to see which false understanding fits best and he spends or wastes a lot of time busily memorizing the false understandings of new things he has come across.
WHETHER A PERSON FALSELY UNDERSTANDS BY ROTE IS OBJECTIVE, CANNOT BE DISPUTED. FALSE AND TRUE UNDERSTANDING ARE ALL OR NONE, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PERSON TO TRULY UNDERSTAND CERTAIN THINGS BUT FALSELY UNDERSTAND OTHER THINGS. ALWAYS THE TRULY UNDERSTANDING PERSON UNDERSTANDS EVERYTHING PRESENTED TO HIM. IF YOU ARE REHASHING YOUR UNDERSTANDING AND YOU THINK YOU TRULY UNDERSTANDING THEN IT IS AFFIRMATION OF YOUR FALSE UNDERSTANDING, IN KEEPING, TO BE EXPECTED OF YOUR FALSE UNDERSTANDING.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PERSON WHO FALSELY UNDERSTANDS BY REHASH TO EXIST BLISSFULLY BECAUSE EVERYTHING HE COMES ACROSS IS A STRUGGLE TO UNDERSTAND, HE NEEDS TO SEEK LIKE A BLIND MAN FOR CUES TO CONSULT HIS LIBRARY OF FALSE UNDERSTANDINGS TO APPLY TO THE SITUATION AND HE NEEDS TO WASTE MUCH TIME MEMORIZING NEW FALSE UNDERSTANDINGS.
A PERSON WITH TRUE UNDERSTANDING IS FREE, WHAT HE SEES TRULY HE IMMEDIATELY UNDERSTANDS TRULY WITHOUT NEEDING TO ANXIOUSLY SEEK A RECORDED UNDERSTANDING NOR RECORD UNDERSTANDINGS OF WHAT HE SEES FOR FUTURE REHASH.
TRUE UNDERSTANDING IS BY NATURE CONSISTENT, FALSE UNDERSTANDING IS CONSISTENT ONLY BY MEMORIZATION AND REHASH.
Everything also rehashed:
Everything an emotional stylish being does is always rehashed.
His understanding is rehashed.
His perceptions are rehashed. There are programs that tell him what to see, what not to see, how to see it (eg take snapshots, glance through the corner of the eye, look up to look down on others).
His thinking is rehashed. Often his thinking is helpless aimless mentally talking to himself. The content and style of his thinking is also rehashed, always think of the same old things in the same old ways.
His speech is rehashed.
His actions are also rehashed. Everything people do is rehashed. Many think they are great lovers but the way they perform their sexual act is fixed, according to a program that is fixed in him and differs from others.
When is rehashing partial?
Only when the person is awakening from his somnolent rehashing, beginning to see he is rehashing is he partially rehashing, sometimes he is able to stop himself rehashing but at times he automatically reverts to rehashing like a drug addict or under social pressure, he rehashes.
ONLY WHEN THE PERSON IS AWAKENING FROM HIS REHASHING, IS SLOWLY REALIZING HE IS REHASHING AND IS TASTING THE INCOMPARABLY SUPERIOR EXISTENCE OF A NON-ROBOT IS HE THEN PARTIALLY REHASHING, OTHERWISE EVERYTHING IS TOTALLY SOMNOLENTLY REHASHED.
US wary of China’s role in Africa’:
Reflecting their false understanding, people think the US is right to be wary of China’s role when it is wrong, or they think it is wrong for the US to be wary for the wrong reason or understanding eg they identify with or support China and therefore think it is wrong for the US to be wary.
There is no true reason or right for the US to be wary of China’s role and they are wary because the US has designs for Africa, has selfish interests for Africa and therefore is stirred to be wary.
THE US HAS NO RIGHT OR REASON TO BE WARY OF CHINA’S ROLE, THE REASON THEY ARE WARY IS BECAUSE THEY HAVE SELFISH DESIGNS FOR AFRICA THAT MAY BE USURPED BY CHINA. ANY PERCEPTION THAT IT IS NATURAL FOR THE US TO BE WARY OR THE US IS WRONG TO BE WARY BECAUSE I AM CHINESE OR SUPPORT CHINA IS WRONG UNDERSTANDING.
Carla Bruni praises Pope over condoms on World Aids Day
There is no need to praise or condemn the pope for his position on condom, what is relevant is whether what he said is true or false, good or bad.
Reflecting her false understanding she thinks praise is the correct action and because it is the wrong understanding, it is the way to suffering.
THERE IS NO NEED TO PRAISE OR CONDEMN THE POPE, IT IS ABOUT THE BLIND HARMFUL USELESS STIRRING OF MENTAL FORCE, WHAT IS RELEVANT IS WHETHER THE POPE’S ACTION IS TRUE OR FALSE, RIGHT OR WRONG.
I pat your back, you pat mine:
Praise is about patting another on his back and condemning is about slapping him, they are totally meaningless exercises for show to stir mental force. Thus praised or patted on the back the person’s mental force glows or stirs attractively to like himself.
Praise and condemnation are meaningless exercises that are for show that emotional people find full of meaning. Do you need to be praised or patted on the back for doing something good?
IT IS SILLY TO NEED TO BE PRAISED OR PAT ON THE BACK FOR DOING THE RIGHT THING.
Monks today misrepresent the Buddha:
Monks who accept uncooked food, money, attend shows and singing, sports are misrepresenting the Buddha and if you have gone forth, shaved your head and call yourself a Buddhist monk then there is karma if you knowingly or unknowingly misrepresent the Buddha.
It is because professional religious today never practice even such basic conduct that they never win any meaningful insight into the truth.
ßGotama the recluse holds himself aloof from causing injury to seeds or plants [19].
He takes but one meal a day, not eating at night, refraining from food after hours (after midday).
He refrains from being a spectator at shows at fairs, with nautch dances, singing, and music.
He abstains from wearing, adorning, or ornamenting himself with garlands, scents, and unguents.
He abstains from the use of large and lofty beds.
He abstains from accepting silver or gold.
He abstains from accepting uncooked grain.
He abstains from accepting raw meat.
He abstains from accepting women or girls.
He abstains from accepting bondmen or bondwomen.
[\q 006/] He abstains from accepting sheep or goats.
He abstains from accepting fowls or swine.
He abstains from accepting elephants, cattle. horses, and mares.
He abstains from accepting cultivated fields or waste.
He abstains from the acting as a, go-between or messenger.
He abstains from buying and selling.
He abstains from cheating with scales or bronzes [20] or measures.
He abstains from the crooked ways of bribery, cheating, and fraud.
He abstains from maiming, murder, putting in bonds, highway robbery, dacoity, and violence.û
`Such are the things, brethren, which an unconverted man, when speaking in praise of the Tathàgata, might say.'
13. `Or he might say: ßWhereas some recluses and Brahmans while living on food provided by the faithful, continue addicted to visiting shows [23]; that is to say,He takes but one meal a day, not eating at night, refraining from food after hours (after midday).
He refrains from being a spectator at shows at fairs, with nautch dances, singing, and music.
He abstains from wearing, adorning, or ornamenting himself with garlands, scents, and unguents.
He abstains from the use of large and lofty beds.
He abstains from accepting silver or gold.
He abstains from accepting uncooked grain.
He abstains from accepting raw meat.
He abstains from accepting women or girls.
He abstains from accepting bondmen or bondwomen.
[\q 006/] He abstains from accepting sheep or goats.
He abstains from accepting fowls or swine.
He abstains from accepting elephants, cattle. horses, and mares.
He abstains from accepting cultivated fields or waste.
He abstains from the acting as a, go-between or messenger.
He abstains from buying and selling.
He abstains from cheating with scales or bronzes [20] or measures.
He abstains from the crooked ways of bribery, cheating, and fraud.
He abstains from maiming, murder, putting in bonds, highway robbery, dacoity, and violence.û
`Such are the things, brethren, which an unconverted man, when speaking in praise of the Tathàgata, might say.'
(1) Nautch dances (naccaü) [24].
(2) Singing of songs (gãtaü).
(3) Instrumental music (vàditaü).
(4) Shows at fairs (pekkhaü) [25].
[\q 008/] (5) Ballad recitations (akkhànaü) [26].
(6) Hand music (pàõissaraü) [27].
(7) The chanting of bards (vetàlaü) [28].
(8) Tam - tam playing (kumbhathånaü) [29]. [\q 009/]
(9) Fairy scenes (sobhanagarakaü) [30].
(10) Acrobatic feats by Caõóàlas (caõóàla-vaüsa-dhopanaü) [31].
(11) Combats of elephants, horses, buffaloes, bulls, goats, rams, cocks, and quails.
(12) Bouts at quarter- staff [32], boxing, wrestling [33].
(13-16) Sham-fights, roll-calls, manoeuvres, reviews [34].û
`Gotama the recluse holds aloof from visiting such shows.'(2) Singing of songs (gãtaü).
(3) Instrumental music (vàditaü).
(4) Shows at fairs (pekkhaü) [25].
[\q 008/] (5) Ballad recitations (akkhànaü) [26].
(6) Hand music (pàõissaraü) [27].
(7) The chanting of bards (vetàlaü) [28].
(8) Tam - tam playing (kumbhathånaü) [29]. [\q 009/]
(9) Fairy scenes (sobhanagarakaü) [30].
(10) Acrobatic feats by Caõóàlas (caõóàla-vaüsa-dhopanaü) [31].
(11) Combats of elephants, horses, buffaloes, bulls, goats, rams, cocks, and quails.
(12) Bouts at quarter- staff [32], boxing, wrestling [33].
(13-16) Sham-fights, roll-calls, manoeuvres, reviews [34].û
14. `Or. he might say: ßWhereas some recluses and Brahmans, while living on food provided by the faithful, continue addicted to games and recreations [35]; that is to say,
(1) Games on boards with eight, or with ten, rows of squares [36].
(2) The same games [\q 010/] played by imagining such boards in the air [37].
(3) Keeping going over diagrams drawn on the ground so that one steps only where one ought to go [38].
(4) Either removing the pieces or men from a heap with one's nail, or putting them into a heap, in each case without shaking it. He who shakes the heap, loses [39]
(5) Throwing dice [40]
(6) Hitting a short stick with a long one [41].
(7) Dipping the hand with the fingers stretched out in lac, or red dye, or flower-water, and striking the wet hand on the ground or on a wall, `calling out `What shell it be?' and showing the form required -elephants, horses, &c. [42]
(8) Games with balls [43]
(9) Blowing through toy pipes made of leaves [44]
(10) Ploughing with. toy ploughs [45]
(11) Turning summersaults [46].
(12) Playing with toy windmills made of palm-leaves [47].
[\q 011/] (13) Playing with toy measures made of palm-leaves.
(14, 15) Playing with toy carts or toy bows [48]
(16) Guessing at letters traced in the air, or on a. playfellow's back [49]
(17) Guessing the play fellow's thoughts.,
(18) Mimicry of deformities.û
[7] Gotama the recluse holds aloof from such games and recreations.û(2) The same games [\q 010/] played by imagining such boards in the air [37].
(3) Keeping going over diagrams drawn on the ground so that one steps only where one ought to go [38].
(4) Either removing the pieces or men from a heap with one's nail, or putting them into a heap, in each case without shaking it. He who shakes the heap, loses [39]
(5) Throwing dice [40]
(6) Hitting a short stick with a long one [41].
(7) Dipping the hand with the fingers stretched out in lac, or red dye, or flower-water, and striking the wet hand on the ground or on a wall, `calling out `What shell it be?' and showing the form required -elephants, horses, &c. [42]
(8) Games with balls [43]
(9) Blowing through toy pipes made of leaves [44]
(10) Ploughing with. toy ploughs [45]
(11) Turning summersaults [46].
(12) Playing with toy windmills made of palm-leaves [47].
[\q 011/] (13) Playing with toy measures made of palm-leaves.
(14, 15) Playing with toy carts or toy bows [48]
(16) Guessing at letters traced in the air, or on a. playfellow's back [49]
(17) Guessing the play fellow's thoughts.,
(18) Mimicry of deformities.û
RPK’s Dr M’s rights are actually also Dr M’s wrongs:
RPK says he supports Dr M whenever Dr M is right but what he calls Dr M’s rights may turn out to be or are actually also Dr M’s wrongs and so he is dangerously deceived and wants others to be similarly confused.
EXAMINE CAREFULLY AND WHAT RPK CALLS DR M’S RIGHTS ARE ACTUALLY ALSO WRONGS AND SO HE IS SUPPORTING DR M’S WRONGS, NOT RIGHTS AS HE PERCEIVES IN DELUSION.
RPK says he supports Dr M in lambasting the Malays’ attitudes, laziness and intransigence to change. But the change that Dr M wants for Malays may not be wholesome, may not correspond to changes RPK wants. For instance Dr M may want Malays to be hardworking to be ‘progressive’, money minded or worldly wise in adopting technology and business ‘savvy’. This is not necessarily good and even bad.
JUST BECAUSE DR M LAMBASTS MALAYS’ ATTITUDES AND INTRANSIGENCE DOES NOT MEAN HE IS GOOD IN WANTING MALAYS TO CHANGE AS RPK SIMILARLY WANTS. THE CHANGED MALAY DR M WANTS MAY NOT BE TRULY GOOD BUT BAD IN A DIFFERENT OR PROGRESSIVE WAY.
Again RPK is applauding Dr M for his suggestion that BN should field NGOs as candidates for the next election because that is what RPK thinks will be good.
BECAUSE THERE IS PLENTY OF MONEY TO PLUNDER, THERE IS MUCH JOSTLING EVEN BRIBES PAID TO BE ON BN’S CANDIDATE LIST, IT IS UNLIKELY BN WILL FIELD NGOS FOR THE ELECTION AND EVEN IF BN DOES THAT, IT WOULD BE TO TRICK VOTERS AND ONCE ELECTED THESE NGOS WILL UNDER BN’S THUMB, MUST TOE PARTY LINE OR BE BRIBED TO TOE PARTY LINE.
RPK IS DANGEROUSLY GULLIBLE TO THINK DR M IS SOMETIMES RIGHT, WHAT IS PERCEIVED FALSELY BY HIM TO BE DR M’S RIGHTS MAY TURN OUT TO BE ALSO DR M’S WRONGS.
The Universe explained by the Buddha:
Below is the Buddha’s description of the nature of the universe and it fits well with scientific contention of a big bang and possible big crunch. According to science the universe is about 15 billion years which also fits well with the Buddha’s scheme of things. Jesus spoke of stars falling from the sky and the sun and moon refusing to shine and this may be a description of the big crunch or contraction at the close of the Age that is also in keeping with the Buddha’s scheme.
WHAT THE BUDDHA SAYS BELOW MAY BE A FABRICATION BUT THE BUDDHA TELLS YOU HE DOES NOT FABRICATE, HE ONLY SEES, KNOWS AND SPEAKS AND THIS IS WHAT HE SEES:
2. `Now there comes a time after the lapse of a long, long period when this world-system passes away. And when this happens beings have mostly been reborn in the World of Radiance, and there they dwell made of mind, feeding on joy, radiating light from themselves, traversing the air, continuing in glory; and thus they remain for a long long period of time.3. Now there comes also a time, brethren, when this world-system begins to re-evolve. When this happens the
4. `Now there arises in him, from his dwelling there so long alone, a dissatisfaction and a longing: ßO! would that other beings might come to join me in this place! " And just then, either because their span of years had passed or their merit was exhausted, other beings fall from the World of Radiance, and appear in the
5. `On this, brethren, the one who was first reborn thinks thus to himself: ßI am Brahmà, the Great Brahmà, the Supreme One, the Mighty, the All-seeing, the Ruler, the Lord of all, the Maker, the Creator, the Chief of all, appointing to each his place, the Ancient of days the Father of all that are and are to be [154]. `These other beings are of my creation. And why is that so? A while ago I thought, `Would that they might come!' And on my mental aspiration, behold the beings came.û
`And those beings themselves, too, think thus: ßThis must be Brahmà,, the Great Brahmà, the Supreme, the Mighty, the All-seeing, the Ruler, the Lord of all, the Maker, the Creator, the Chief of all, appointing to each his place, the Ancient of days, the Father of all that are [\q 032/] and are to be. And we must have been created by him. And why? Because, as we see, it was he who was here first, and we came after that.û
Roast contains salt as much as 20 bags of crisps:
You see nothing wrong, see it as useful information but it is useless information only useful to people who are obsessed with their meaningless robotic lives here, who want to keep healthy and preserve their lives and health here not realizing they will perish.
This is called seeing the essential in the unessential by the Buddha and because you see what is unessential is essential, you have false perception and understanding that ends in insanity.
NO ONE WHO SEES THE ESSENTIAL IN THE ESSENTIAL WILL VIEW SUCH INFORMATION AS MEANINGFUL, BECAUSE YOU SEE THE ESSENTIAL IN THE UNESSENTIAL IN THE NAME OF PRESERVING YOUR LIFE AND HEALTH HERE, YOU ARE PRACTICING CONTROLLED INSANITY AND HEADED FOR SUFFERING.
Empty chair takes spotlight at Nobel prize gala
This is actually charade or elaborate exercise in make-belief with an empty chair and a ceremony that wastes time and energy. It indicates the extent of pretence and delusion in mankind.
The person is not present and so you must accept that and cancel the ceremony and quietly award it.
Whether intended or not, it is an act of defiance, for show to publicize, to uphold your side against the Chinese side that you deny you have anything against in awarding the prize.
Whether the award has political overtones you should know, if there are and you deny, then you are asking for suffering by being a liar.
CEREMONIES TO AWARD PRIZES TO RECIPIENTS ARE ACTUALLY MEANINGLESS, ONLY FOR SHOW TO PUBLICIZE THAT HAS SELFISH VESTED INTERESTS FOR BOTH GIVER AND RECEIVER, EVEN MORE SO IT IS MEANINGLESS AND CONTROLLED INSANITY (MAKE BELIEF) IF THE RECIPIENT FOR SOME REASON IS NOT PRESENT. WHY THE NEED TO GO AHEAD IN ABSENTIA EXCEPT TO MAKE A STATEMENT OF DEFIANCE THAT CONTRADICTS YOUR DENIAL THERE IS ANY POLITICAL MOTIVATION?
The essential, unessential and meaningless:
Ng-Teh bounce back to win
Things and events can be classified as essential, unessential and meaningless.
Only the person who sees and does or says the essential, sees the unessential as unessential, the meaningless as meaningless and does not say or do them is safe from future suffering.
“Ng Teh bounce back to win” is not unessential but useless information for those who see the meaningless, sports as meaningless.
And what is useless, meaningless? Singing, dancing, smiling, laughing and joking are meaningless, false and so useless.
What is unessential? How to cook curry or make a cake is true but unessential.
What is essential? Paying attention to get rid of stretched syllables, change speed and loudness are essential. Telling the truth, not telling lies, gossiping, not boasting, slandering is essential.
WHATEVER HAPPENING CAN BE EXAMINED AND CLASSIFIED OBJECTIVELY AS ESSENTIAL, UNESSENTIAL OR USELESS OR MAD. ONLY THE PERSON WHO PRACTICES THE ESSENTIAL IS HEADING OUT OF FUTURE SUFFERING. IF YOU SEE THE UNESSENTIAL AS ESSENTIAL, THE USELESS AS MEANINGFUL THEN YOU ARE HEADED FOR SUFFERING EVEN TORMENT.
Camilla wasn’t frightened, she was furious:
What is the point of telling others this except it is because he does not understand and think it is meaningful to differentiate when it is meaningless.
FRIGTHENED AND FURIOUS ARE JUST TWO DIFFERENT STIRRINGS OF HER MENTAL FORCE THAT BOTH MEANINGLESS AND HARMFUL AND IT DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER SHE WAS FRIGHTENED OR FURIOUS EXCEPT TO BOAST, SHE IS FEARLESS BUT FURIOUS, WANTS TO ATTACK.
Joseph Stiglitz: America's QE2 poses 'considerable' risks
“All this liquidity that they’re creating is not going back to grow the American economy and is going to Asia and other emerging markets where it’s not wanted,” Mr Stiglitz said. “Most of the countries around the world have begun to react. They put in capital controls, exchange rate interventions, taxes on these capital flows - a variety of interventions.”THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PAST AND NOW IS THAT IN THE PAST GOVERNMENTS IN THE WORLD WERE SECRETLY GRADUALLY PRINTING MONEY TO KEEP THE PARTY GOING BUT TODAY, FACING FINANCIAL CALAMITY THEY ARE FURIOUSLY OPENLY PRINTING MONEY TO COVER A MASSIVE HOLE IN A MISGUIDED ATTEMPT TO RESTART THE PARTY RATHER THAN TRULY REFORM.
Warren Says Wall Street Bonuses Show ‘We Still Have a Problem’
You think he speaks the truth and understands but his understanding may be false.
IT MAY NOT BE A PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE BUT IT IS A CANCER THAT WILL DESTROY THE SYSTEM.
EXACTLY WHAT THE SITUATION IS, IS OBJECTIVE, CANNOT BE REFUTED AND THE SITUATION MAY BE MORE CANCER THAN SOLVABLE PROBLEM.
True understanding not needed for survival but its absence is ultimately fatal:
Emotional stylish people are kidding themselves if they think their actions and speech are based on true understanding because it is blind force through like, dislike, sadness, hurt, agitation and fear that is the basis of what they say or do.
True understanding is not needed for survival even for a lifetime but the person’s survival is ‘hit and miss’, partly due to luck, partly due to cunning, partly due to tenacity (fighting back after disaster strikes through foolishness).
You don’t need even a bit of true understanding to survive even for a long time in this world because many situations are not life threatening even though you can sustain loss and injury through no understanding, a lot of things required from people to say and do can be copied from others and appropriately rendered through learning appropriate triggering cues suffices to allows the person of no true understanding to navigate through life quite comfortably and often the capacity to lie and fake is essential to survive in a society that values the ability to get along with others who are evil and powerful. A capacity to do and say things falsely to pander to others is in fact desirable to survive in this world where money is paid to people who can pretend and tell lies to flatter others.
IT IS A DELUSION TO THINK THAT PEOPLE MUST HAVE SOME MINIMAL TRUE UNDERSTANDING TO SURVIVE IN THIS WORLD. ON THE CONTRARY THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD HAVE NOT EVEN A BIT OF TRUE UNDERSTANDING AND THE CAPACITY FOR FALSITY AND PRETENCE HAS SURVIVAL AND WEALTH GAINING VALUE IN A SOCIETY UPHOLDING FALSITY AND MATERIALISM. YOU CAN SURVIVE VERY WELL FOR A LONG TIME WITHOUT ANY TRUE UNDERSTANDING BUT IT IS DANGEROUS HIT AND MISS, AT ANY TIME THROUGH NO UNDERSTANDING YOU CAN DO OR SAY SOMETHING THAT KILLS YOU AND LACK OF TRUE UNDERSTANDING IS ULTIMATELY FATAL, WILL KILL YOU.
AND THE REALITY IS THAT PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD BASE THEIR ACTIONS ON FORCE OR PLANS DRIVEN BY FORCE, A LOT OF THE THINGS THEY SAY OR DO IS AUTOMATIC KNEE JERK SEE THIS DO THAT OR SAY THAT, NEXT IT IS FORCE THROUGH LIKE AND DISLIKE THAT DICTATES WHAT THEY SAY OR DO AND IN RARER OCCASIONS IT IS PROGRAMMED REHASHED LOGIC THAT DETERMINES WHAT THEY SAY OR DO, NOT TRUE SPECIFIC FOR THE OCCASION UNDERSTANDING.
How to correctly understand Dr M:
Dr M says he has done this and that for Malays but the Malays have failed. What he said may or may not be true and if you do not know him or what he has done you have no right to accept it as true unless you want to go mad, you can only say this is what he says, it may be true or false.
What Dr M says may be false to heap praise on himself and condemn the Malays and the reason why he is so concerned about the Malays is not because he is so good but selfish identification with his own colour, why is he not concerned for the Chinese or Penans or Indians?
Suppose the methods Dr M used to help the Malays are wrong (or stupid), will not produce the results he wants (progress for the Malays), do you blame the Malays or him for the failure to uplift Malays? Suppose his assistance for Malays is lopsided, his cronies (eg Tajuddin Ramli, Halim Saad) got the lion share of assistance is it any surprise and are they to blame the average Malay was left behind? Suppose his policies unnecessarily alienated and penalized other races who could have help to uplift the Malays, are the Malays to be blamed or is Dr M to blame for sabotaging the economy by chasing away the Chinese?
Has he told you how much he and his cronies benefited corruptly from this policy of favouring Malays? Without telling you how much he personally benefited, it is selective telling one side of the story to favour self and condemn the Malays.
Emotional people like RPK do not really understand Dr M, they read what he says and liking it (their mental forces stirred attractively) they support him and say there is good and bad in him but they have been taken in, conned. If they read what Dr M says and don’t like what he says or don’t like him, they scoff and give some excuses why they think it is false.
WHAT DR M SAYS MAY BE TRUE OR FALSE AND WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT HE HAS DONE YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO ACCEPT IT AS TRUE. TALKING IS (RELATIVELY) CHEAP AND OFTEN PEOPLE TALK NOT TO SPEAK THE TRUTH BUT TO BLOW THEIR OWN TRUMPETS HOW GOOD THEY ARE WHILST OTHERS THEY HELPED ARE BAD.
THUS WHAT DR M SAYS MAY BE FALSE IN THE SENSE THAT HE DID NOT SAY HOW MUCH HE BENEFITED FROM THE AFFIRMATION POLICY, HIS POLICIES MAY BE MISGUIDED, INDISCRIMINATE (LOTS OF MONEY WASTED ON PRESTIGE WHITE ELEPHANTS LIKE PUTRA JAYA, TWIN TOWERS, COMMONWEALTH GAMES, AIRPORT) AND SO IT IS HIS FAULT NOT THE MALAYS’ THAT IT FAILED, A FEW ELITE UMNOPUTRAS MAY HAVE RECEIVED THE LION SHARE OF BENEFIT, HE UNNECESSARILY ALIENATED THE OTHER RACES. THE PURPOSE OF HIM SAYING SO IS NOT THAT HE IS SO HONEST BUT TO INDIRECTLY PRAISE HIMSELF AT THE EXPENSE OF MALAYS AND THE REASON WHY HE IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE MALAYS IS NOT BECAUSE HE IS SO GOOD BUT BECAUSE OF BAD SELF IDENTITY, HE IS SIDING WITH HIS RACE.
Thus there is no discrepancy at all, there is no good and bad sides of Dr M, he is not sometimes correct and sometimes wrong, whatever he says and does is designed to justify himself at others’ expense or self serving and Jesus is correct that a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. If you say there is good and bad in Dr M you are saying Jesus is wrong.
Malay nationalists are up in arms crying treachery. But Mahathir is adamant, saying the NEP has made Malays ''lazy'' and prone to rely on ''the easy way and the quick way.''''Because of that, when licenses are given, they sell the licenses...No work is done other than to be close to people with influence and authority in order to get something because they are Malays,'' he told the 2,000 delegates attending the three-day assembly.
''Truly I am ashamed to expose all these, especially in front of the other people, in front of the whole nation and the world. But they all already know all these. I am not exposing anything that they don't know,'' he said.
Mahathir expressed his disappointment that after 21 years at the helm of the country he has failed to change the Malay mindset.
''Mostly I feel disappointed, disappointed because I achieved too little result from my principal task -- the task of making my race a successful race, a race that is respected, a race that is honorable, a race that is highly regarded. I beg your pardon because I have failed,'' he said.
But despite his criticism of Malays and their over-dependence on government assistance, Mahathir defended the benefits of the NEP although he said it has slowed down national development.
Money Dr M blew away:
Under Dr M, Malaysia is said to have lost $16 billion or even more betting against the UK pound against Soros (what about Maminco), much money was spent on arguable white elephants like Putra Jaya, airport, Petronas twin towers, Bakun, Perwaja, expensive tolled roads like NS Highway (toll here and everywhere that crimped the economy) and there are many more profligate unbeneficial wastages of money.
All these wasted money could have been more profitably diverted to uplift the Malays.
AND SO IT MAY BE TRUE DR M DID MUCH TO UPLIFT THE MALAYS BUT THEY ARE HOPELESS, OR HE MAY HAVE DONE MUCH TO UPLIFT HIS OWN EGO AT THE NATION’S EXPENSE AND WHO ARE THOSE HANGING AROUND FOR LICENCES TO SELL? THE AVERAGE MALAY OR CRONIES?
Staring at the barrel of the gun:
Markets are sanguine and economists hope for recovery soon but there is plenty of evidence mankind is staring at the barrel of the gun of bankruptcy.
Many cities and municipalities in the US (including NY and California) are full of debts and cannot make ends meet, they need to borrow just to keep running and it is getting harder if not impossible to borrow on the open markets.
Thus unless a miracle happens, even if the economy recovers, many cities in the US are faced with lack of funding let alone repay the mountains of debts they have piled up in good time.
And so anyone who understands knows that unless you can wave a magic wand, mankind is staring at a gun barrel of debt.
And all these printing money apparently does not benefit the economy much, it will be channelled to speculative pursuits eg flow to countries like China where the economy is hot or bet on the commodity markets.
Has Dr M ever condemned himself?
Examine whatever Dr M says, did he ever condemn himself?
There are many things Dr M said or did in the past that are reproachable, even criminal, how often if ever has he expressed true regret let alone condemn himself?
THERE ARE MANY THINGS DR M SAID OR DID THAT ARE WRONG EG ALLOWING ANWAR’S BLACK EYE TO HAPPEN AND NOT PUNISH CULPRITS YET HE HAS NEVER CENSURED HIMSELF.
ALWAYS WHAT HE SAYS IS SELF SERVING CRITICISING OR CONDEMNING OTHERS, INCLUDING HIS OWN KIND THE MALAYS, BUT NEVER HIMSELF AND IT IS WITH THIS LIGHT YOU SHOULD VIEW WHATEVER HE SAYS.
Self serving than the truth:
When Dr M laments that he has done so much to uplift the Malays but has seen little return, it is not to speak the truth but to absolve himself of blame and beat the drum that he is good, he has done much but failed.
THE PURPOSE FOR DR M SAYING WHAT HE SAID MAY BE BECAUSE IT IS TRUE OR THE PURPOSE MAY BE TO ABSOLVE HIMSELF AND INDIRECTLY CLAIM PRAISE AT THE EXPENSE OF HIS OWN KIND.
Whatever Dr M has done to help the Malays can be determined if not by you then by God and they can be objectively found to be useful or useless, correct or wrong. If what Dr M did to help Malays were much less than what he did to help cronies and himself (just like Suharto & Marcos) then are the Malays to blame for being so backward or is it him?
Real Madrid football club’s official wine makes local debut
MALAYSIANS will now be able to taste the Real Madrid Mencia, the official Real Madrid Football Club wine specially made by Martinez Yebra Winery in Spain that is available at the Equatorial Hotel in Kuala Lumpur.Here is an example of the wasteful excesses capitalism breed. In the name of making money, they exploit everything, even a football club has adopted a drink (either paid royalty or selling a drink that has nothing to do with football).
CAPITALISM IS EXTREMELY WASTEFUL RATHER THAN EFFICIENT AS TOUTED, IT BREEDS MUCH EXCESSES IN THE NAME OF EXPLOITING YOUR NAME (REAL MADRID) THAT COLLECTIVELY DESTROYS THE SYSTEM AND THE EARTH. CAPITALISM IS A RACE WITH A START AND AN END WHEN EVERYTHING COLLAPSES THROUGH CRASS GREED AND SELFISHNESS.
Uplift his ego and pockets than Malays:
How much Dr M did to uplift the Malays and how much he did to uplift his ego, pockets and those of his cronies can be known.
If he did far more to uplift his ego and the pockets of himself and his cronies like Suharto, Marcos then what he says is false.
Did the billions he lost betting against the pound uplift the Malays? Similarly many of his prestige projects uplifted himself and his cronies more than the average Malay.
Wikileaks about Malaysia:
Singapore (and Lee Kuan Yew unsurprisingly) thinks Anwar is gay and did it.
>Malaysia is in a ''confused and dangerous'' state due to its incompetent politicians;>Thailand's political elite are dogged by ''corruption'' and the country's crown prince is ''very erratic and easily subject to influence'';
>Japan and India were struggling to deal with China's influence due to their ''stupid'' behaviour;
> and some Asian leaders wanted the junta to retain power in Burma to ensure the country's stability.
The cable that deals with Dr Anwar's sodomy case, dated November 2008 and released exclusively to The Sun-Herald by WikiLeaks, states: ''The Australians said that Singapore's intelligences services and [Singaporean elder statesman] Lee Kuan Yew have told ONA in their exchanges that opposition leader Anwar 'did indeed commit the acts for which he is currently indicted'.''
The document states the Singaporeans told ONA they made this assessment on the basis of ''technical intelligence'', which is likely to relate to intercepted communications.
The ONA is also recorded as saying that Dr Anwar's political enemies engineered the circumstances from which the sodomy charges arose.
''ONA assessed, and their Singapore counterparts concurred, 'it was a set-up job and he probably knew that, but walked into it anyway','' the cable states.
Sodomy is illegal in Malaysia and carries a jail sentence of up to 20 years.
Dr Anwar, a former Malaysian deputy prime minister, was jailed in 1999 on charges of corruption and sodomy after a falling out with then prime minister Mahathir Mohamad.
He later had his sodomy conviction overturned and was freed from jail in 2004.
In 2008 he was charged again with sodomy. Dr Anwar has maintained the case against him is fabricated and trumped up by his political enemies who fear his political resurgence.
The case against Dr Anwar has drawn widespread international criticism and has included some bizarre twists. Earlier this year, a prosecutor in the sodomy trial was dropped after she was accused of having an affair with the star witness.
The witness, 25-year- old Mohamad Saiful Bukhari Azlan, worked as an aide in Dr Anwar's office. He has accused the 62-year-old of sodomising him in an apartment in Malaysia.
Earlier this month, Australian politician Nick Xenophon travelled to Malaysia to observe Dr Anwar's ongoing court proceedings, which were adjourned.
In December 2009, a month after ONA's brief assessment of Dr Anwar's case, the Malaysian criticised Kevin Rudd for not meeting him during his visit to Australia. He accused Mr Rudd of appeasing Malaysia's ''corrupt leaders'' by snubbing him.
''He [Mr Rudd] was too obsessed with interests of getting the two countries together [and therefore] appease Malaysia's corrupt leaders,'' Dr Anwar said at the time.
Is this uplifting?
If you periodically scatter some grains for the fowls to eat, will this uplift the chicken? Is it any surprise and are the fowls to blame if they are not uplifted?
Similarly if you periodically throw some money at the average Malay you may convince yourself you have done your part to uplift them but would it be any surprise they remained un-uplifted?
I was told many years ago a Malay houseman in Kuala Trengganu was made MO in charge once he completed his internship above the officer who was in charge of him just previously. Is this the correct way to uplift Malays and might this not alienate the other races?
Not necessarily good:
Dr M appeared on TV today garbed and making a speech for a “Walk for Gaza” event and presumptuous people without true understanding may jump to conclusion he is civic minded.
IT MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE BECAUSE HE IS GOOD THAT HE HAS ATTENDED, IT MAY BE BECAUSE HE FELT HONORED TO BE INVITED OR HE WANTS TO SHOW OR IMPRESS OTHERS HE IS GOOD OR HE CRAVES PUBLICITY OR HE IS A FIGHTER AND WANTS TO DO HIS PART FIGHTING FOR GAZA (BAD NOT GOOD) THAT HE HAS DECIDED TO ATTEND. IF HE GOES WITHOUT BEING INVITED AS AN ORDINARY PARTICIPANT AND THERE IS NO CONSIDERATION OF SELF ADULATION THEN HE MAY BE TRULY GOOD.
What Singapore truly thinks of Malaysia:
Singapore diplomats think the leaders of some close Asian allies are corrupt or incompetent, cables from WikiLeaks revealed Sunday.
Confidential diplomatic notes given by the whistleblower website to Australia's Fairfax media group contained unflattering assessments of key figures in Malaysia, Thailand, India and Japan.
"A lack of competent leadership is a real problem for Malaysia," permanent secretary for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Bilahari Kausikan reportedly told US Deputy Secretary of Defence for East Asia David Sedney in a cable dated September 2008.
As such, "the situation in neighbouring Malaysia is confused and dangerous," fuelled by a "distinct possibility of racial conflict" that could see ethnic Chinese "flee" Malaysia and "overwhelm" Singapore, Bilahari was quoted as saying.
Another official, Peter Ho, reportedly described Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak as "an opportunist" who "would not hesitate" to be critical of Singapore if "it is expedient for him to do so."
He said allegations linking Najib to the murder of a Mongolian woman in 2006, which the leader has strongly rejected, would continue to "haunt" his political fortunes.
Dr M’s Great Leap Forward:
Confidential diplomatic notes given by the whistleblower website to Australia's Fairfax media group contained unflattering assessments of key figures in Malaysia, Thailand, India and Japan.
"A lack of competent leadership is a real problem for Malaysia," permanent secretary for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Bilahari Kausikan reportedly told US Deputy Secretary of Defence for East Asia David Sedney in a cable dated September 2008.
As such, "the situation in neighbouring Malaysia is confused and dangerous," fuelled by a "distinct possibility of racial conflict" that could see ethnic Chinese "flee" Malaysia and "overwhelm" Singapore, Bilahari was quoted as saying.
Another official, Peter Ho, reportedly described Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak as "an opportunist" who "would not hesitate" to be critical of Singapore if "it is expedient for him to do so."
He said allegations linking Najib to the murder of a Mongolian woman in 2006, which the leader has strongly rejected, would continue to "haunt" his political fortunes.
Dr M’s Great Leap Forward:
Chairman Mao too wanted to develop China, not necessarily because he is good but to glorify himself as the great helmsman and through self identification with China but his ill conceived, hastily executed program not only failed as expected but millions died through famine as a result of neglect of farming to produce backyard steel that was useless, of poor quality and they smelted even their cooking utensils in order to meet the great helmsman’s production targets.
Is the Chinese to blame for the failure or is Mao more to blame for his harebrained ill conceived scheme?
Thus it may not be the Malays are stupid and lazy that Dr M’s policies failed but it may be the policies themselves. There is further karma for blaming others without acknowledging your faults if present.
Did the introduction of punch cards produced more efficient civil servants or did it serve as an avenue for cronies to sell machines at exorbitant price to the government?
THUS DR M’S DRIVE TO UPGRADE MALAYS MAY NOT BE BECAUSE HE IS BENEVOLENT BUT TO GLORIFY HIMSELF AS THE GREAT LEADER NOT USING HIS OWN MONEY BUT OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY, A SMOKESCREEN TO CONCEAL UPGRADING OF HIMSELF AND SELECTED CRONIES AND THEY MAY BE ILL CONCEIVED AND MISGUIDED.
Dr M’s presence at ‘Walk For Gaza’ never good:
It is wrong view to perceive Dr M’s presence at ‘Walk for Gaza’ may be good or bad depending on his motives, it is always bad.
Israel is guilty but so are the Palestinians and to take sides (because you are muslim) is always evil not good, the way to return to this world of suffering not exit and based on emotion that is blind and harmful not true understanding.
IT IS EMOTION THAT IS A PROXY OF BLIND FORCE THAT IS THE DRIVE FOR SUCH PUBLICITY OR MONEY COLLECTING CAMPAIGNS LIKE WALK FOR GAZA AND THESE ARE ACTUALLY MEANINGLESS, DO NO USEFUL WORK AND IT REFLECTS PARTISANSHIP BASED ON SELF IDENTITY VIEWS AND SO IT IS ALWAYS BAD TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH SUCH EVENTS.
THE FACT THAT YOU NEVERTHELESS INSISTS THAT THEY ARE GOOD CAUSES DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN YOU ARE RIGHT BUT YOU MAY BE INCURABLY DELUDED IN DANGER OF FUTURE SUFFERING.
YOU WANT TO FIGHT FOR CAUSES, YOUR WISH MAY BE GRANTED SO THAT YOU RETURN HERE AGAIN AND AGAIN FIGHTING FOR ENDLESS CAUSES.
Are you mad?
OK you want to help the Palestinians and it is only coincidence you are a muslim, but why go for a walk? How can a walk help the Palestinians except dubiously by publicity?
IF YOU TRULY WANT TO HELP THE PALESTINIANS, SIT THERE AND COLLECT MONEY AND DONATIONS IN CLOTHES ETC AND ARRANGE TO SEND IT.
GOING FOR A WALK IS MAD, MAY GIVE YOU SOME EXERCISE BUT WHETHER THE PUBLICITY GENERATED IS SUFFICIENT OR NOT IS DEBATABLE AND IS THE MAD WAY TO HELP THE PALESTINIANS.
Thinking of ways to make money:
Capitalism is a cancer and a robotic program because there is money to be made by everyone whatever the means people start to think of new ways to make money for themselves.
“Thinking of ways to make money” is a programming that can be applied to all fields be it medicine, charity or making cars” and those who subscribe to it are robots dedicated to ‘thinking of ways to make money’, even when they sleep they are thinking of ways to make money, it is addictive and consumes and seizes the robot of ‘thinking of ways to make money’.
THUS IT DEGENERATES TO A NEW PRODUCT OR IMPROVEMENT OF A PRODUCT OR A SERVICE BEING USEFUL BUT SO LONG AS IT CAN MAKE MONEY IT IS MARKETTED OR OFFERED FOR SALE AND THAT IS A MAD REASON FOR PRODUCING A PRODUCT.
THE RATIONAL REASON FOR INTRODUCING A NEW MODEL OR PRODUCT IS IF IT SERVES A USEFUL PURPOSE, NOT AS A VEHICLE FOR MAKING MONEY WHICH ALTHOUGH MAKES MONEY FOR YOU, IS THE WRONG REASON THAT ENDS IN INSANITY FOR THE FOOL WHO IS A ROBOT GETTING INCREASINGLY ADDICTED TO THE PROGRAM, ‘THINKING OF WAYS TO MAKE MONEY’ WHICH IS THE INEVITABLE OFFSPRING OF CAPITALISM.
THUS ANYONE WHO THINKS CAPITALISM IS HARMLESS OR SELF SUSTAINING IN PERPETUITY HAS WRONG UNDERSTANDING, CAPITALIZM ULTIMATELY ENDS IN COLLAPSE WHEN SUFFICIENT MONEY IS IN THE HANDS OF THOSE WHO ARE EFFICIENT CAPITALISTS AND THE MASSES BECOME IMPOVERISHED, BY HOOK OR CROOK AS IS HAPPENING IN MALAYSIA AND THE REST OF THE WORLD.
How to be recruited to making money:
“Thinking of ways to make money” is a programming that is embedded in many people’s minds and they may not be even aware of it. It is not a formal programming written in words but an unwritten program.
For instance, in the course of a conversation with a friend he may dwell on making money in a certain venture and that unconsciously inducts or initiates you into the program of thinking of ways to make money so that subsequently you may occasionally dwell on ways of making money without realizing you are conditioning yourself.
EACH TIME A PERSON THINKS OF WAYS TO MAKE MONEY, WHETHER HE REALIZES OR NOT HE IS STRENGTHENING HIS ADDICTION JUST AS EACH TIME A SMOKER SMOKES, A GAMBLER GAMBLES, HE IS INTENSIFYING HIS ADDICTION SO THAT IN TIME HE AUTOMATICALLY THINKS OF MAKING MONEY IN EVERYTHING HE SEES, HE ASKS HIMSELF, IS THERE MONEY TO BE MADE? WHEN FULLY INDUCTED THE PERSON IS A HELPLESS SLAVE OF MAKING MONEY, IS OBSESSED WITH MAKING MONEY ESPECIALLY IF HE HAS SOME INITIAL SUCCESSES.
An expert or master at making money?
Many pride themselves to be masters or experts at making money, their Midas touch but they are deluded, fools.
NO ONE IS AN EXERT AT MAKING MONEY BUT THEY ARE SLAVES OF MAKING MONEY THAT CONSUMES THEM AND WILL MAKE THEM MAD BY WARPING AND FINALLY DESTROYING THEIR MINDS.
Singapore thinks Najib incompetent and opportunistic:
Singapore's WikiLeaks Gaffes
Monday, 13 December 2010 Super Admin
''A lack of competent leadership is a real problem for Malaysia,'' Kausikan told US Deputy Secretary of Defence for East Asia David Sedney in one cable, according to the story, citing the need for Najib Razak - now Malaysia's Prime Minister - to ''prevail politically in order to avoid prosecution'' in connection with a 2006 murder investigation linked to one of Mr Razak's aides.
Asia Sentinel
Some of Singapore's top Foreign Affairs Ministry officials made devastating assessments of Malaysia and its leaders to senior US officials in 2008 and 2009, according to leaked US State Department cables that the WikiLeaks website made available to Australian papers.
In exclusive stories over the weekend, the trio also trashed Japan, India and Thailand, according The Sunday Age and the Sydney Morning Herald, which reported separately that Singaporean officials believed opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim had been set up by the Malaysian government over the charges of sexual perversion that he is on trial for now, but that he was probably guilty.
The Sunday Age reported that Malaysia is in "dangerous decline," fueled by incompetent politicians, that Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak could be prosecuted over the gruesome 2006 murder of Mongolian translator Altantuya Shaaribuu if the ruling national coalition were to lose power, and that the situation in the country is "confused and dangerous," fueled by the distinct possibility of racial conflict that could see ethnic Chinese fleeing Malaysia to "overwhelm" Singapore.
The officials who made the comments in separate meetings with senior US officials were foreign affairs chiefs Peter Ho, Bilahari Kausikan and Tommy Koh, according to the Age article. The trio at the time occupied some of the most senior positions in Singapore's Foreign Affairs Ministry. They all gave US officials damning assessments of Malaysia, according to the stories.
Moreover, the trio said, Thailand is dogged by corruption and a ''very erratic'' crown prince, Japan is a ''big fat loser'' and India is ''stupid."
Although the newspapers speculated that the reports would raise a storm among Singapore's neighbors, Singapore's neighbors have long known of the island country's superior attitude. The quotes in the story merely ratify what is already known. It should be pointed out that Singapore, predominantly made up of ethnic Chinese, has always privately held the view that the surrounding countries have been ruled by hostile, often crooked incompetents who are mostly inferior to the technocrats who run the island republic.
Singaporean authorities have been perennially worried about a Muslim threat to their island country from both Indonesia and Malaysia, formulating the famed "poisoned shrimp" strategy that in a phrase means "swallow us and we will kill you." Singapore thus has a bigger, more modern and more competent air force than Malaysia and Indonesia combined.
''A lack of competent leadership is a real problem for Malaysia,'' Kausikan told US Deputy Secretary of Defence for East Asia David Sedney in one cable, according to the story, citing the need for Najib Razak - now Malaysia's Prime Minister - to ''prevail politically in order to avoid prosecution'' in connection with a 2006 murder investigation linked to one of Mr Razak's aides.
''Najib Razak has his neck on the line in connection with a high-profile murder case,'' Kausikan said, according to the story.
As Asia Sentinel has reported in a long series of stories since Altantuya's murder in October of 2006, Malaysia placed a US$1 billion order for two Scorpènes in a deal engineered by then-defense minister and Deputy Prime Minister Najib. In exchange, a company wholly owned by Najib's close friend, Abdul Razak Baginda, was paid €114 million in "commissions," according to testimony in the Malaysian parliament.
Caught up in it, besides Najib and Razak Baginda, was Altantuya, who was shot in the head and whose body was blown up with military grade explosives. Razak Baginda, her jilted lover, was charged along with two of Najib's bodyguards but was acquitted under unusual circumstances without having to put on a defense. Before she was murdered, Altantuya told witnesses she was to be paid US$500,000 for her role in the submarine deal.
After his release Razak Baginda immediately decamped for Oxford University and apparently hasn't set foot in Malaysia since.
The case, however, remains alive in France. In April, three French lawyers, William Bourdon, Renaud Semerdjian and Joseph Breham filed a case with prosecutors in Paris on behalf of the Malaysian human rights organization Suaram, which supports good-governance causes. In an email, Breham said he and Bourdon are expected to be in Southeast Asia to ask more questions this week. It is unclear if they will visit the Singaporean authorities.
In the Sydney Morning Herald's story on Anwar, ''The Australians said that Singapore's intelligences services and [Singaporean elder statesman] Lee Kuan Yew have told (Australia's Office of National Assessments) in their exchanges that opposition leader Anwar 'did indeed commit the acts for which he is currently indicted'.''
"The document states the Singaporeans told ONA they made this assessment on the basis of ''technical intelligence,' which is likely to relate to intercepted communications. The ONA is also recorded as saying that Anwar's political enemies engineered the circumstances from which the sodomy charges arose. "ONA assessed, and their Singapore counterparts concurred, 'it was a set-up job and he probably knew that, but walked into it anyway','' the cable states.
In Malaysian media Sunday, Anwar charged he was not guilty and that Malaysia's Special Branch was behind the story and had fed it to the Singaporeans.
Anwar probably guilty of sodomy:
According to one leaked despatch, Anwar probably did it:
In the Sydney Morning Herald's story on Anwar, ''The Australians said that Singapore's intelligences services and [Singaporean elder statesman] Lee Kuan Yew have told (Australia's Office of National Assessments) in their exchanges that opposition leader Anwar 'did indeed commit the acts for which he is currently indicted'.''
"The document states the Singaporeans told ONA they made this assessment on the basis of ''technical intelligence,' which is likely to relate to intercepted communications. The ONA is also recorded as saying that Anwar's political enemies engineered the circumstances from which the sodomy charges arose. "ONA assessed, and their Singapore counterparts concurred, 'it was a set-up job and he probably knew that, but walked into it anyway','' the cable states.
"The document states the Singaporeans told ONA they made this assessment on the basis of ''technical intelligence,' which is likely to relate to intercepted communications. The ONA is also recorded as saying that Anwar's political enemies engineered the circumstances from which the sodomy charges arose. "ONA assessed, and their Singapore counterparts concurred, 'it was a set-up job and he probably knew that, but walked into it anyway','' the cable states.
IT IS NOT FOR OTHERS BUT YOUR SAKE THAT YOU SHOULD ONLY STICK TO THINGS YOU KNOW, NOT HEARSAY BECAUSE THE RESULT OF SAYING THINGS YOU DO NOT KNOW IS DOUBT AND UNCERTAINTY AND YOU ARE RISKING DEADLY KARMA IF YOU END UP SLANDERING.
Anwar probably did it is taking up a position without knowing. Even Dr M foolishly admitted the first sodomy case was fixed and Azizan swore in court three times Anwar did not sodomize him and the condo was not completed on the day sodomy was said to occur, so what are the chances this time that it happened? If it did happen how come when police was tipped off earlier they did not attempt to record proceedings like VK Lingam and they only examined his anus three days later when they should have sent him immediately to the top forensic doctor in the country?
A Secretive Banking Elite Rules Trading in Derivatives
You may think all is well but behind the scenes evil hands are working to delay an inevitable reckoning with collapse.
By LOUISE STORY
On the third Wednesday of every month, the nine members of an elite Wall Street society gather in Midtown Manhattan.The men share a common goal: to protect the interests of big banks in the vast market for derivatives, one of the most profitable — and controversial — fields in finance. They also share a common secret: The details of their meetings, even their identities, have been strictly confidential.
Drawn from giants like JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, the bankers form a powerful committee that helps oversee trading in derivatives, instruments which, like insurance, are used to hedge risk.
In theory, this group exists to safeguard the integrity of the multitrillion-dollar market. In practice, it also defends the dominance of the big banks.
The banks in this group, which is affiliated with a new derivatives clearinghouse, have fought to block other banks from entering the market, and they are also trying to thwart efforts to make full information on prices and fees freely available.
Banks’ influence over this market, and over clearinghouses like the one this select group advises, has costly implications for businesses large and small, like Dan Singer’s home heating-oil company in Westchester County, north of New York City.
This fall, many of Mr. Singer’s customers purchased fixed-rate plans to lock in winter heating oil at around $3 a gallon. While that price was above the prevailing $2.80 a gallon then, the contracts will protect homeowners if bitterly cold weather pushes the price higher.
But Mr. Singer wonders if his company, Robison Oil, should be getting a better deal. He uses derivatives like swaps and options to create his fixed plans. But he has no idea how much lower his prices — and his customers’ prices — could be, he says, because banks don’t disclose fees associated with the derivatives.
“At the end of the day, I don’t know if I got a fair price, or what they’re charging me,” Mr. Singer said.
Derivatives shift risk from one party to another, and they offer many benefits, like enabling Mr. Singer to sell his fixed plans without having to bear all the risk that oil prices could suddenly rise. Derivatives are also big business on Wall Street. Banks collect many billions of dollars annually in undisclosed fees associated with these instruments — an amount that almost certainly would be lower if there were more competition and transparent prices.
Just how much derivatives trading costs ordinary Americans is uncertain. The size and reach of this market has grown rapidly over the past two decades. Pension funds today use derivatives to hedge investments. States and cities use them to try to hold down borrowing costs. Airlines use them to secure steady fuel prices. Food companies use them to lock in prices of commodities like wheat or beef.
The marketplace as it functions now “adds up to higher costs to all Americans,” said Gary Gensler, the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulates most derivatives. More oversight of the banks in this market is needed, he said.
But big banks influence the rules governing derivatives through a variety of industry groups. The banks’ latest point of influence are clearinghouses like ICE Trust, which holds the monthly meetings with the nine bankers in New York.
Under the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul, many derivatives will be traded via such clearinghouses. Mr. Gensler wants to lessen banks’ control over these new institutions. But Republican lawmakers, many of whom received large campaign contributions from bankers who want to influence how the derivatives rules are written, say they plan to push back against much of the coming reform. On Thursday, the commission canceled a vote over a proposal to make prices more transparent, raising speculation that Mr. Gensler did not have enough support from his fellow commissioners.
The Department of Justice is looking into derivatives, too. The department’s antitrust unit is actively investigating “the possibility of anticompetitive practices in the credit derivatives clearing, trading and information services industries,” according to a department spokeswoman.
Indeed, the derivatives market today reminds some experts of the Nasdaq stock market in the 1990s. Back then, the Justice Department discovered that Nasdaq market makers were secretly colluding to protect their own profits. Following that scandal, reforms and electronic trading systems cut Nasdaq stock trading costs to 1/20th of their former level — an enormous savings for investors.
“When you limit participation in the governance of an entity to a few like-minded institutions or individuals who have an interest in keeping competitors out, you have the potential for bad things to happen. It’s antitrust 101,” said Robert E. Litan, who helped oversee the Justice Department’s Nasdaq investigation as deputy assistant attorney general and is now a fellow at the Kauffman Foundation. “The history of derivatives trading is it has grown up as a very concentrated industry, and old habits are hard to break.”
Representatives from the nine banks that dominate the market declined to comment on the Department of Justice investigation.
Clearing involves keeping track of trades and providing a central repository for money backing those wagers. A spokeswoman for Deutsche Bank, which is among the most influential of the group, said this system will reduce the risks in the market. She said that Deutsche is focused on ensuring this process is put in place without disrupting the marketplace.
The Deutsche spokeswoman also said the banks’ role in this process has been a success, saying in a statement that the effort “is one of the best examples of public-private partnerships.”
Established, But Can’t Get In
The Bank of New York Mellon’s origins go back to 1784, when it was founded by Alexander Hamilton. Today, it provides administrative services on more than $23 trillion of institutional money.
Recently, the bank has been seeking to enter the inner circle of the derivatives market, but so far, it has been rebuffed.
Bank of New York officials say they have been thwarted by competitors who control important committees at the new clearinghouses, which were set up in the wake of the financial crisis.
Bank of New York Mellon has been trying to become a so-called clearing member since early this year. But three of the four main clearinghouses told the bank that its derivatives operation has too little capital, and thus potentially poses too much risk to the overall market.
The bank dismisses that explanation as absurd. “We are not a nobody,” said Sanjay Kannambadi, chief executive of BNY Mellon Clearing, a subsidiary created to get into the business. “But we don’t qualify. We certainly think that’s kind of crazy.”
The real reason the bank is being shut out, he said, is that rivals want to preserve their profit margins, and they are the ones who helped write the membership rules.
Mr. Kannambadi said Bank of New York’s clients asked it to enter the derivatives business because they believe they are being charged too much by big banks. Its entry could lower fees. Others that have yet to gain full entry to the derivatives trading club are the State Street Corporation, and small brokerage firms like MF Global and Newedge.
The criteria seem arbitrary, said Marcus Katz, a senior vice president at Newedge, which is owned by two big French banks.
“It appears that the membership criteria were set so that a certain group of market participants could meet that, and everyone else would have to jump through hoops,” Mr. Katz said.
The one new derivatives clearinghouse that has welcomed Newedge, Bank of New York and the others — Nasdaq — has been avoided by the big derivatives banks.
Only the Insiders Know
How did big banks come to have such influence that they can decide who can compete with them?
Ironically, this development grew in part out of worries during the height of the financial crisis in 2008. A major concern during the meltdown was that no one — not even government regulators — fully understood the size and interconnections of the derivatives market, especially the market in credit default swaps, which insure against defaults of companies or mortgages bonds. The panic led to the need to bail out the American International Group, for instance, which had C.D.S. contracts with many large banks.
In the midst of the turmoil, regulators ordered banks to speed up plans — long in the making — to set up a clearinghouse to handle derivatives trading. The intent was to reduce risk and increase stability in the market.
Two established exchanges that trade commodities and futures, the InterContinentalExchange, or ICE, and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, set up clearinghouses, and, so did Nasdaq.
Each of these new clearinghouses had to persuade big banks to join their efforts, and they doled out membership on their risk committees, which is where trading rules are written, as an incentive.
None of the three clearinghouses would divulge the members of their risk committees when asked by a reporter. But two people with direct knowledge of ICE’s committee said the bank members are: Thomas J. Benison of JPMorgan Chase & Company; James J. Hill of Morgan Stanley; Athanassios Diplas of Deutsche Bank; Paul Hamill of UBS; Paul Mitrokostas of Barclays; Andy Hubbard of Credit Suisse; Oliver Frankel of Goldman Sachs; Ali Balali of Bank of America; and Biswarup Chatterjee of Citigroup.
Through representatives, these bankers declined to discuss the committee or the derivatives market. Some of the spokesmen noted that the bankers have expertise that helps the clearinghouse.
Many of these same people hold influential positions at other clearinghouses, or on committees at the powerful International Swaps and Derivatives Association, which helps govern the market.
Critics have called these banks the “derivatives dealers club,” and they warn that the club is unlikely to give up ground easily.
“The revenue these dealers make on derivatives is very large and so the incentive they have to protect those revenues is extremely large,” said Darrell Duffie, a professor at the Graduate School of Business at Stanford University, who studied the derivatives market earlier this year with Federal Reserve researchers. “It will be hard for the dealers to keep their market share if everybody who can prove their creditworthiness is allowed into the clearinghouses. So they are making arguments that others shouldn’t be allowed in.”
Perhaps no business in finance is as profitable today as derivatives. Not making loans. Not offering credit cards. Not advising on mergers and acquisitions. Not managing money for the wealthy.
The precise amount that banks make trading derivatives isn’t known, but there is anecdotal evidence of their profitability. Former bank traders who spoke on condition of anonymity because of confidentiality agreements with their former employers said their banks typically earned $25,000 for providing $25 million of insurance against the risk that a corporation might default on its debt via the swaps market. These traders turn over millions of dollars in these trades every day, and credit default swaps are just one of many kinds of derivatives.
The secrecy surrounding derivatives trading is a key factor enabling banks to make such large profits.
If an investor trades shares of Google or Coca-Cola or any other company on a stock exchange, the price — and the commission, or fee — are known. Electronic trading has made this information available to anyone with a computer, while also increasing competition — and sharply lowering the cost of trading. Even corporate bonds have become more transparent recently. Trading costs dropped there almost immediately after prices became more visible in 2002.
Not so with derivatives. For many, there is no central exchange, like the New York Stock Exchange or Nasdaq, where the prices of derivatives are listed. Instead, when a company or an investor wants to buy a derivative contract for, say, oil or wheat or securitized mortgages, an order is placed with a trader at a bank. The trader matches that order with someone selling the same type of derivative.
Banks explain that many derivatives trades have to work this way because they are often customized, unlike shares of stock. One share of Google is the same as any other. But the terms of an oil derivatives contract can vary greatly.
And the profits on most derivatives are masked. In most cases, buyers are told only what they have to pay for the derivative contract, say $25 million. That amount is more than the seller gets, but how much more — $5,000, $25,000 or $50,000 more — is unknown. That’s because the seller also is told only the amount he will receive. The difference between the two is the bank’s fee and profit. So, the bigger the difference, the better for the bank — and the worse for the customers.
It would be like a real estate agent selling a house, but the buyer knowing only what he paid and the seller knowing only what he received. The agent would pocket the difference as his fee, rather than disclose it. Moreover, only the real estate agent — and neither buyer nor seller — would have easy access to the prices paid recently for other homes on the same block.
An Electronic Exchange?
Two years ago, Kenneth C. Griffin, owner of the giant hedge fund Citadel Group, which is based in Chicago, proposed open pricing for commonly traded derivatives, by quoting their prices electronically. Citadel oversees $11 billion in assets, so saving even a few percentage points in costs on each trade could add up to tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
But Mr. Griffin’s proposal for an electronic exchange quickly ran into opposition, and what happened is a window into how banks have fiercely fought competition and open pricing. To get a transparent exchange going, Citadel offered the use of its technological prowess for a joint venture with the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, which is best-known as a trading outpost for contracts on commodities like coffee and cotton. The goal was to set up a clearinghouse as well as an electronic trading system that would display prices for credit default swaps.
Big banks that handle most derivatives trades, including Citadel’s, didn’t like Citadel’s idea. Electronic trading might connect customers directly with each other, cutting out the banks as middlemen.
So the banks responded in the fall of 2008 by pairing with ICE, one of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange’s rivals, which was setting up its own clearinghouse. The banks attached a number of conditions on that partnership, which came in the form of a merger between ICE’s clearinghouse and a nascent clearinghouse that the banks were establishing. These conditions gave the banks significant power at ICE’s clearinghouse, according to two people with knowledge of the deal. For instance, the banks insisted that ICE install the chief executive of their effort as the head of the joint effort. That executive, Dirk Pruis, left after about a year and now works at Goldman Sachs. Through a spokesman, he declined to comment.
The banks also refused to allow the deal with ICE to close until the clearinghouse’s rulebook was established, with provisions in the banks’ favor. Key among those were the membership rules, which required members to hold large amounts of capital in derivatives units, a condition that was prohibitive even for some large banks like the Bank of New York.
The banks also required ICE to provide market data exclusively to Markit, a little-known company that plays a pivotal role in derivatives. Backed by Goldman, JPMorgan and several other banks, Markit provides crucial information about derivatives, like prices.
Kevin Gould, who is the president of Markit and was involved in the clearinghouse merger, said the banks were simply being prudent and wanted rules that protected the market and themselves.
“The one thing I know the banks are concerned about is their risk capital,” he said. “You really are going to get some comfort that the way the entity operates isn’t going to put you at undue risk.”
Even though the banks were working with ICE, Citadel and the C.M.E. continued to move forward with their exchange. They, too, needed to work with Markit, because it owns the rights to certain derivatives indexes. But Markit put them in a tough spot by basically insisting that every trade involve at least one bank, since the banks are the main parties that have licenses with Markit.
This demand from Markit effectively secured a permanent role for the big derivatives banks since Citadel and the C.M.E. could not move forward without Markit’s agreement. And so, essentially boxed in, they agreed to the terms, according to the two people with knowledge of the matter. (A spokesman for C.M.E. said last week that the exchange did not cave to Markit’s terms.)
Still, even after that deal was complete, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange soon had second thoughts about working with Citadel and about introducing electronic screens at all. The C.M.E. backed out of the deal in mid-2009, ending Mr. Griffin’s dream of a new, electronic trading system.
With Citadel out of the picture, the banks agreed to join the Chicago Mercantile Exchange’s clearinghouse effort. The exchange set up a risk committee that, like ICE’s committee, was mainly populated by bankers.
It remains unclear why the C.M.E. ended its electronic trading initiative. Two people with knowledge of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange’s clearinghouse said the banks refused to get involved unless the exchange dropped Citadel and the entire plan for electronic trading.
Kim Taylor, the president of Chicago Mercantile Exchange’s clearing division, said “the market” simply wasn’t interested in Mr. Griffin’s idea.
Critics now say the banks have an edge because they have had early control of the new clearinghouses’ risk committees. Ms. Taylor at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange said the people on those committees are supposed to look out for the interest of the broad market, rather than their own narrow interests. She likened the banks’ role to that of Washington lawmakers who look out for the interests of the nation, not just their constituencies.
“It’s not like the sort of representation where if I’m elected to be the representative from the state of Illinois, I go there to represent the state of Illinois,” Ms. Taylor said in an interview.
Officials at ICE, meantime, said they solicit views from customers through a committee that is separate from the bank-dominated risk committee.
“We spent and we still continue to spend a lot of time on thinking about governance,” said Peter Barsoom, the chief operating officer of ICE Trust. “We want to be sure that we have all the right stakeholders appropriately represented.”
Mr. Griffin said last week that customers have so far paid the price for not yet having electronic trading. He puts the toll, by a rough estimate, in the tens of billions of dollars, saying that electronic trading would remove much of this “economic rent the dealers enjoy from a market that is so opaque.”
“It’s a stunning amount of money,” Mr. Griffin said. “The key players today in the derivatives market are very apprehensive about whether or not they will be winners or losers as we move towards more transparent, fairer markets, and since they’re not sure if they’ll be winners or losers, their basic instinct is to resist change.”
In, Out and Around Henhouse
The result of the maneuvering of the past couple years is that big banks dominate the risk committees of not one, but two of the most prominent new clearinghouses in the United States.
That puts them in a pivotal position to determine how derivatives are traded.
Under the Dodd-Frank bill, the clearinghouses were given broad authority. The risk committees there will help decide what prices will be charged for clearing trades, on top of fees banks collect for matching buyers and sellers, and how much money customers must put up as collateral to cover potential losses.
Perhaps more important, the risk committees will recommend which derivatives should be handled through clearinghouses, and which should be exempt.
Regulators will have the final say. But banks, which lobbied heavily to limit derivatives regulation in the Dodd-Frank bill, are likely to argue that few types of derivatives should have to go through clearinghouses. Critics contend that the bankers will try to keep many types of derivatives away from the clearinghouses, since clearinghouses represent a step towards broad electronic trading that could decimate profits.
The banks already have a head start. Even a newly proposed rule to limit the banks’ influence over clearing allows them to retain majorities on risk committees. It remains unclear whether regulators creating the new rules — on topics like transparency and possible electronic trading — will drastically change derivatives trading, or leave the bankers with great control.
One former regulator warned against deferring to the banks. Theo Lubke, who until this fall oversaw the derivatives reforms at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, said banks do not always think of the market as a whole as they help write rules.
“Fundamentally, the banks are not good at self-regulation,” Mr. Lubke said in a panel last March at Columbia University. “That’s not their expertise, that’s not their primary interest.”
Singapore has to explain, say Malaysian officials
This is a silly statement to make and because it is silly, insanity is the end product.
What is there to explain, what is leaked needs no explaining, only false excuses can be provided.
RATHER THAN ASKING SINGAPORE TO EXPLAIN, BETTER SAY SINGAPORE HAS TO FIND EXCUSES WHICH ARE ALWAYS FALSE REASONS FOR SAYING SOMETHING, SO THE PERSON IS INCOMPETENT AS SINGAPORE ALLEGES.
Doing locum to make money:
You may think of doing locum in the course of thinking of ways to make money and no matter how you might deny, it is not because of love of the job that makes you do it but love of money that makes you do locum.
DOING LOCUM TO MAKE MONEY IS A FALSE REASON FOR DOING LOCUM AND THAT IS WHY A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE HEADING FOR INSANITY.
IT IS NOT BECAUSE THERE IS A GENUINE REASON THAT THEY DO SOMETHING, THEY ARE SELLING THEMSELVES OR A SKILL THEY HAVE TO MAKE MONEY AND THAT IS CONTROLLED INSANITY THAT ENDS IN UNCONTROLLABLE INSANITY.
THAT IS THE REASON WHY THE BUDDHA SAID HE HAS GIVEN UP ALL SELLING AND BUYING, THAT IS THE FUTURE DANGER OF BUYING AND SELLING, NAMELY SUFFERING DUE.
Luck smiles on siblings
PRODUCTION planner Tan Sin Ghee was in the toilet when his ticket number was called out as one of the winners of the five grand prizes of a Modenas CT100 motorcycle each.Can you see luck?
Can you see luck smiling?
IF YOU CANNOT SEE LUCK LET ALONE LUCK SMILING YOU ARE PERVERTING REALITY, SPEAKING FALSELY AND COURTING INSANITY TO SAY SO.
Confidentiality of diplomatic communication must be respected: George Yeo
Why is what is said false and incurs karma with suffering due?
Confidentiality must be respected means deception or dishonesty must be respected.
IF WHAT DIPLOMATS SAY IS THE SAME AS WHAT THEY SAY PRIVATELY WHAT IS THERE TO NEED CONFIDENTIALITY? IT IS ONLY BECAUSE WHAT THEY SAY IN PRIVATE BELIES WHAT THEY SAY PUBLICLY, THEY ARE DECEITFUL THAT CONFIDENTIALITY MUST BE RESPECTED AND SO WHOEVER SAYS CONFIDENTIALITY MUST BE RESPECTED IS SAYING DECEIT MUST BE ALLOWED NOT ONLY TO CONTINUE BUT RESPECTED AND THAT IS ASKING FOR THE CHOPPER FOR YOUR NECK.
Why no good can come out of Dr M:
It is not without reason or a great mystery why no good can ever come out of Dr M as Jesus implies when he said a bad tree can never bear good fruit.
The reason why no good can come out of Dr M is because he is a robot with a principal underlying program that even he may not be conscious of namely to be self serving, what is there in it for me, what can I gain materially or in glory or fame from whatever I say or do?
LIKE MANY IN THIS WORLD, THE ONE OVERRIDING CONCERN AND PROGRAM TO WHICH DR M IS SUBSERVIENT IS SELF SERVICE, WHAT IS THERE IN ANY VENTURE FOR ME AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT ANY GOOD CAN COME OUT OF THIS PERSON, EVEN IF HE DONATES CATTLE FOR SACRIFICE IT MAY BE TO IMPRESS OTHERS HE IS A GOOD MUSLIM.
By contrast, if Anwar was self serving he would have bid his time as number two and quietly rake in money and instead of being punched and jailed he would have taken the money and left the country. Surely he must be aware at any moment a bullet can cut short his life.
Who is likely to kill, Anwar assassinate the PM or Anwar assassinated? If Anwar cut a deal he could get millions and many will be glad to see his back and he can retire in wealth and safety.
IT IS NOT A MYSTERY WHY NO GOOD CAN COME OUT OF SOME PEOPLE, THE REASON IS THEY ARE ROBOT OBEYING THE SELF SERVING PROGRAM. WHATEVER A SELF SERVING PERSON DOES IS CALCULATED TO SERVE HIMSELF FIRST OFTEN AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS AND THAT IS THE REASON WHY NO GOOD CAN EVER COME OUT OF HIM.
How to become the greatest in heaven:
What did Jesus say if you want to be the greatest in heaven?
Jesus said whoever shall be the greatest in heaven will be the (true not hypocritical) servant of the rest.
The vast majority on earth are secretly or openly servants to themselves and they are putting on a show serving others and many are conned to view such self serving people have redeeming features.
If all these politicians have some conscience let alone service to others they would not have stolen billions and if they have stolen billions it is impossible they are truly not self serving hypocrites.
Two reasons for apparent discrepancy:
There are two reasons why there is apparent not true contradiction, someone bad is capable of both good and bad:
1) You have false perception of what is done is bad is good. Eg if you perceive smiling as good when it is meaningless and calculated deception then naturally you perceive that the self serving man is good when he smiles.
2) The good is apparent, a smokescreen and you have been successfully conned. For instance if you perceive donations are good then because he has donated you think he is good but his donation may be to gain your trust so that you will elect him to continue to plunder.
Snooker’s Alex Higgins haunts me in his old flat
The Pottergeist ... 'Hurricane' Alex Higgins
ISOIMAGES
A MUM who moved into the flat where Alex Higgins died says she is being HAUNTED by the snooker legend.
Cue frighten me ... Amanda Miller
Amanda Miller, 40, is terrified as the poltergeist of the potting ace nicknamed Hurricane breezes through every night. The apartment was cleared after cancer-stricken Higgins, 61, was found dead there in July.
Amanda said: "Most of his stuff may be gone but his presence lives on."
There are mysterious bangs - and a painting falls from the wall at precisely 6.30pm each day.
One morning she even found the old fridge that Higgins left behind had been shifted and plugged in.
Amanda, who moved into the small Belfast flat seven weeks ago, said: "I thought it was a great move because it is so handy for the shops.
Spooky ... old home of Alex
But since I moved in it hasn't felt right and all these unexplained things are getting to me. I sleep on the sofa in the living room because I can't bear to sleep in his bedroom."
But she is staying put. Amanda plans to ditch the fridge and redecorate the flat in a bid to banish the spook.
What a walk can and cannot achieve:
A walk, tai chi, yoga and rituals are merely mechanical acts and so they can only produce mechanical results, to perceive they can achieve anything more than physical results eg promote support for Gaza, promote health and spiritual wellbeing is dicing with false perception and logic that ends in insanity. It reflects the false understanding in people that they readily subscribe to such beliefs they even accept as true or fact.
What can a walk achieve? If you want to go from A to B or transport something from A to B or view the scenery from A to B, then a walk can certainly achieve that. If you want to show support for Gaza or canvass support then you are deluded, it is your delusion that it is efficacious. Thus anyone who participates in a walk for Gaza is participating in something that is meaningless, does not work. You may argue that even if it does not work, I get some exercise and feel good doing something good but that is training yourself to provide excuses, to ascribe false reasons for doing things that will be fatal.
Support for Gaza is about drumming up force in others or emotion to support Gaza. You can only explain Gaza to others so that they become knowledgeable about what is going on, that is not about support but if your intention is to gather support then you are creating karma not merit stirring up others to take sides tending towards division.
Thus even if a person attends a Walk for Gaza event without thought of self gain or glory, it is not good but bad (because it is to drum up force not reason) and a useless venture (does not work). Thus if you perceive Dr M is good because he attends such functions without being paid, you are deluded and that is a reason why you come to the conclusion there is good and bad in him.
Is Proton a costly burden or boon?
Amongst the many so called great achievements of Dr M is the national car project Proton that costs the nation a lot of money directly and indirectly through paying subsidized higher prices for a lower quality even dangerous car that even today is essentially badge engineering, borrowing an outdated model from another producer.
IT MAY BE TRUE PROTON IS A GREAT ACHIEVEMENT, TRANSFORMING THE NATION INTO A MIGHTY CAR PRODUCING ENTITY OR IT MAY BE AN ALBATROSS COSTING THE NATION ‘A BOMB’ THAT COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER USED TO HELP THE POOR.
Surely there must be some good in everyone:
This is a common riposte from people if you said no good can ever come out of so and so. It is an incorrect reply and represents false logic that ends in insanity.
IT IS NOT BECAUSE ‘SURELY THERE MUST BE SOME GOOD IN EVERYONE’ THAT THERE IS SOME GOOD IN EVERYONE AND THEREFORE I AM WRONG TO SAY THERE IS NO GOOD IN SOME PEOPLE (BECAUSE WHATEVER THEY SAY OR DO IS SELF SERVING) BUT IF YOU DISAGREE YOU MUST SEE THAT YOU ARE RIGHT AND THEREFORE PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS SOME GOOD AND BAD IN EVERYONE.
‘SURELY’ THERE IS SOME GOOD IN EVERYONE IS TO EXPRESS INCREDULITY, DISBELIEF WITHOUT BACK UP, IT IS AN EXHIBITION OF FALSE LOGIC THAT IS DANGEROUS, WILL BE FATAL.
How do you explain Gaza by going for a walk?
If your purpose is meaningful, to explain and make others understand Gaza better, how can you do that by going about on a walk? Better sit down and have a proper discussion. If you want others to emotionally jump on the bandwagon, become a lynch or partisan mob then that is a possibility and so your motive is emotional, force not reason and understanding.
IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT GAZA THEN DON’T GO FOR A WALK, IF YOU WANT TO WALK THEN DON’T TALK ABOUT GAZA. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE YOU CAN DO BOTH MINDFULLY BUT IT IS A MINDLESS EXERCISE IN ROBOTRY.
A feast for the soul
A good meal satisfies more than just our hunger, says Joan Bakewell.The person has serious false perception that she is attempting to inoculate into others with karma attached.
A meal will satisfy your hunger and no more, Jesus said you shall not care for what you shall eat or wear what more that it will satisfy more than just hunger.
It is impossible for anyone to truly see a good meal satisfying more than just hunger but it is imagination that gets more and more real the person finally perceives it as real.
WHATEVER THE MEAL, GOOD OR BAD, TASTY OR AWFUL, IT ESSENTIALLY PROVIDES CHEMICALS (CARBOHYDRATES, FATS AND PROTEINS) THAT CAN BE BROKEN DOWN TO SUPPLY CHEMICAL ENERGY AND BUILDING BLOCKS TO POWER YOUR BODILY PROCESSES, ANYTHING MORE COMES FROM EVIL NOT GOOD.
Setup and they forgot to setup recording?
Quote: "ONA assessed, and their Singapore counterparts concurred, 'it was a set-up job and he probably knew that, but walked into it anyway'," according to the cable.
People think they are great logicians but they make fundamental errors.
If the plotters truly set up Anwar, and even the IGP knew beforehand, they must be great bungling clods to forget to get a simple voice or video recording of proceedings and afterwards they did not whisk Saiful off to the top forensic pathologist to get the sperm from his anus.
Lee knew of Anwar’s activities, says Dr M
“Yes, indeed, I think he (Lee) knows,” he told reporters after delivering a talk on “Globalising Malaysians in 2020” at Universiti Tenaga Nasional here.
Here is the speech of a self serving person who does not hesitate to stick the knife in, especially someone he hates who was at one time so close like a member of his family.
It is impossible Lee knows but it is also by hearsay that may or may not be true.
Lee is not at hand to know but whatever he ‘knows’ must be by spies and spies can be wrong.
LEE HAS HEARSAY ABOUT ANWAR’S ACTIVITIES IS CORRECT, LEE KNOWS IS A LIE PERPETRATED BY SOMEONE WHO IS SELF SERVING TO STICK THE KNIFE INTO SOMEONE HE HATES WHO WAS AT ONE TIME LIKE A SON TO HIM.
He is a fool eager to stick a knife into his enemies not realizing knives will be stuck into him also and he will weep when they are stuck.
Why so desperate to sell Anwar’s guilt:
To the discerning, it looks like the ruling elite is desperate to convince the public of Anwar’s guilt, despite their dominance of the judiciary process, they are desperate to seize on whatever shred of support to convince the public Anwar is a dirty old man.
Did justice ever mean anything to the ruling elite? If Anwar is a homosexual, just bribe or cajole any of his accomplices and charge him and throw him into jail, has this nation ever concern itself to pander to international opinions?
IF IT IS TRUE ANWAR IS HOMOSEXUAL JUST GET A PARTNER TO CONFESS AND CHARGE HIM, IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW FLIMSY THE EVIDENCE, JUST GET HIM BEHIND BARS AND WHY GET SO EXCITED THAT LEE KUAN YEW SIDES WITH YOU. IS LEE KUAN YEW GOD?
ON THE CONTRARY, THE UNSEEMLY EAGERNESS TO POINT TO ANWAR’S GUILT CLUTCHING WHATEVER STRAW ONLY INDICATES MORE IT IS A CONSPIRACY.
HOW COME DR M AND THE REST ARE NOT SHOUTING ABOUT THE EXCITING NEWS THAT THEY THINK OUR LEADERS ARE INCOMPETENT AND OPPORTUNISTS?
Najib: Ignore snide remarks, focus on achievement
KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysians should prove their economic strength despite disparaging remarks made by others, Datuk Seri Najib Razak said.How convenient, when remarks are negative they are snide, when remarks serve you, Anwar is guilty you say, ‘there, there, there’.
This is clear evidence of a self serving person.
A SELF SERVING PERSON NEVER THINKS OF OTHERS, ON THE CONTRARY HE HATES (JEALOUS AND ENVIOUS) OF OTHERS, HIS WORLD REVOLVES AROUND SENSATE GRATIFICATION AND SELF INTEREST. NOT ONLY HAS HE NO CONCERN FOR OTHERS, HE WILL NOT HESITATE TO STICK HIS KNIFE IN AND FOR ONE WHO SEES, THEIR RANKS ARE FAR GREATER THAN ORDINARY PEOPLE CONCEDE.
Not an accident but a well honed program:
Many are very quick to deflect adverse events or news and pounce on positive news to uphold themselves and this is not an accident but it is a well developed program or tactic in them which means they are robots dedicated to self interest and protection with no concern for others nor commitment to truth.
IT IS NOT AN ACCIDENT BUT A SLICK PROGRAM IN MANY TO DEFTLY DEFLECT CRITICISMS OR ADVERSE NEWS AND POUNCE ON POSITIVE NEWS TO BEAT THEIR OWN DRUMS AND THEY ARE EVEN STRONGLY SEIZED OR DRIVEN BY SUCH PROGRAMS TO BE EVER CAPABLE OF CONCERN FOR OTHERS OR TRUTH AND THAT IS THE REASON WHY IT IS IMPOSSIBLE ANY GOOD CAN COME FROM THEM.
Two kinds of set up:
If you want to talk about set ups you must understand what set up is about and whether there are different kinds of set up. Just because something is a set up does not mean the victim is guilty.
There is a set up where the victim is guilty and there is a setup where the victim is innocent.
Thus BN operatives went to a meeting in a coffee shop with PR MPs with a bag full of money and conveniently ACA arrived and arrested them with money present. This is a set up where the victim is innocent.
There is a setup where the victim is guilty, demanded money and it is setup for him to receive the money and be arrested in the process.
In the Anwar case, it is likely he is innocent because if he was truly having a homosexual tryst with Saiful, it is remarkable police did not try to record the act or collect the sperm afterwards. If no such thing happened but Saiful was planted to provide circumstantial evidence as best as possible of a tryst then it is perfectly understandable why no attempt was made to record proceedings and he was sent on a run around looking for any doctor to examine his backside.
Mr Obama, thank you for not smoking:
What is said is polite, hypocritical never good:
The substance of the matter is Obama quit smoking. Why should you thank him for not smoking except that he is the president (status consciousness) and what he did coincides with your values or interest (not smoking). If Obama was a beggar or he is not a campaigner for non-smoking would he be so thanking? And he may be championing non smoking not out of concern for others but because he wants to protect his precious life from passive smoking and he may be paid to campaign.
WHAT IS SAID IS POLITE, FOR SHOW AND THAT IS HYPOCRISY AND NOT GOOD BUT EVIL. THERE IS NO NEED TO THANK OR ANYONE, THE SUBSTANCE OF THE MATTER IS OBAMA DOES NOT SMOKE AND WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL ABOUT THAT?
ANYONE WHO UNDESTANDS TRULY WHAT IS SAID MUST UNDERSTAND AS I STATE AND IF YOU DON’T IT MEANS YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND. SUCH A PERSON IS SELF SERVING AND ALWAYS.
The crazy logic of derivatives that spells future doom:
It is reported that there are trillions of derivatives active and how a cabal of bankers from major banks meet periodically to manage this ‘can of worms’ in NY. If derivatives are crazy then it is matter of time it will finally unravel or collapse and with them the world financial system.
The idea of derivatives is to shift responsibility for loans given from the issuer to an (unsuspecting) third party who will stand surety for a fee. Anyone who buys derivatives must be a first class fool and there must be plenty of uncomprehending big fools including expert investors and bankers.
If the lender did not make a decent profit after paying some fool to stand surety for the loan, why would he make the loan? It must be because even after paying off the fool who stands surety for a fee he is left with a sizeable profit that he is in the market making loans.
Since he has someone to guarantee his loans he is at no risk from default and so he can be as reckless as he can in lending money and so it has come to pass that suicidal NINJA loans were made.
Thus it is a safe assumption that a lot of the trillions of derivatives still in force are likely to ‘explode’ and there is a lot of even systemically fatal default still swept under the carpets.
ARMED WITH TRIPLE A RATINGS FOOLISH PEOPLE BUY DERIVATIVES NOT REALIZING THEY ARE STANDING SURETY FOR LOANS THAT OTHERS CAN RECKLESSLY MAKE WITHOUT FEAR OF SUSTAINING LOSSES THEMSELVES AND SO THEY ARE UNDERTAKING WHAT MAY BE A BOMB FOR A SMALL BRIBE OR FEE.
ONLY A FOOL WILL STAND SURETY WITH RISK OF ASSUMING DEBTS BY BUYING DERIVATIVES AND SO THERE ARE PLENTY OF HIGH STANDING FOOLS IN THIS WORLD. AND THERE MAY BE MORE EVEN WORSE RECKONING TO COME AS THERE ARE TRILLIONS OF DERIVATIVES STILL LURKING IN CLOSETS.
The differences between insurance and derivatives:
Insurance is regulated and have lower risks because it is insuring assets not loans or money.
In insurance there is a limit of liabilities eg insuring cars against accident, there is a finite liability, although there are fraudulent claims, few are likely to prank their cars just to claim. In the same way insurance of property against natural disasters (fires, storms) have limited maximal liabilities even if there are fraudulent claims it is unlikely to be en masse.
It is a different kettle of fish insuring loans others make because you do not know how safe they are no matter how you have been assured and since lenders know they can pass off the risks of the loans they make they are embolden to take more and more risks.
WITH INSURANCE, EVEN IF YOU HAVE INSURED YOUR HOUSE OR CAR IN NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES YOU ARE UNLIKELY TO BURN IT DOWN OR PRANK IT BECAUSE YOU STILL HAVE TO LIVE IN IT OR DRIVE IT. WITH DERIVATIVES, SINCE OTHERS GUARANTEE YOUR LOANS, WHAT RISK IS THERE? LEND ON.
The fundamental difference between insurance and derivatives:
Although apparently they are the same, insurance is very different from derivatives.
IN INSURANCE EVEN THOUGH THE PERSON HAS INSURED THE OBJECT TO BE INSURED, HE HAS AN INTEREST IN NOT PRANKING THE OBJECT (HOUSE OR CAR) BECAUSE HE STILL NEED TO LIVE IN OR USE IT AND EVEN IF HE PRANKS IT, HE IS ONLY PAID THE AMOUNT INSURED NOT MORE.
WITH DERIVATIVES ONCE THE LOAN IS INSURED THE PERSON WHO MADE THE LOAN IS NO LONGER ON THE HOOK FOR THE LOAN AND SINCE HE IS NO LONGER ON THE HOOK, WHAT FEAR HAS HE TO MAKE RECKLESS LOANS?
Implies a lot of poorly secured poor loans:
The nature of derivatives and the existence of trillions of them implies there must be a lot of poorly or unsecured poor loans waiting to unravel.
AIG insured for billions of derivatives and had to be bailed out because it could pay claims. The nature of derivatives suggests a lot of the loans are likely to be reckless and in danger of ultimate failure.
IN INSURANCE YOU TAKE A CALCULATED RISK INSURING A PROPERTY BECAUSE THERE IS INCENTIVE FOR THE INSURED NOT TO MAKE A CLAIM BECAUSE HE NEEDS THE HOUSE OR CAR.
IN DERIVATIVES THERE IS NO INCENTIVE FOR THE INSURED NOT TO MAKE A CLAIM BECAUSE THE RISK HAS BEEN PASSED TO THE INSURER AND SO HE IS LIKELY TO MAKE RECKLESS LOANS IN DANGER OF DEFAULT.
THUS THE WORST MAY NOT BE OVER BUT THIS MAY BE A LULL, THE PHONEY WAR BEFORE THE REAL THING.
Lee Kuan Yew Can Say Stupid Things:
In the aftermath of the 1997 crisis LKY visited Malaysia ostensibly to provide support for the beleaguered Dr M regime.
He told the press that Dr M did not do it (Anwar’s black eye) and the basis for his belief/knowledge was because Dr M told him so. Either he is very naive (that Dr M or people in this world are incapable of lying) or he believes he is superman, no one can or dare tell lies to the senior minister. He further recommended that Malaysians trust their government, why would it tell you lies? For self gain and cover up of course and so he is guilty of gross illogic proffering such bizarre products of his logic to be accepted by Malaysians.
Here is a man despised by Dr M, Dr M is jealous and has ill will towards LKY and Singapore and yet he comes to support Dr M, not without motive but for material gains. Again Dr M hates LKY and what he stands for, yet he is ready to pounce on anything LKY says that is favourable to him, Anwar is a dirty old man guilty of sodomy.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE LKY HAS KNOWLEDGE OF ANWAR’S GUILT. WHAT HE HAS IS HEARSAY, INFORMATION FROM SPIES WHO MAY BE UNRELIABLE AND LKY IS PREJUDICED AGAINST ANWAR, MAYBE SINGAPORE PREFERS TO WORK WITH INCOMPETENT LEADERS IN MALAYSIA. LKY CAN SAY VERY SILLY THINGS AND SO HE IS NOT WISE OR DISCERNING, ONLY SHREWD, CALCULATED FOR SELF GAIN JUST LIKE DR M IN A DIFFERENT WAY.
The difference between Dr M & LKY is shrewdness:
The difference between Dr M and LKY is that they are both shrewd (calculating for self gain) but in different ways and LKY’s shrewdness is superior and accords greater material success for himself and Singapore whilst Dr M may be an ‘unmitigated’ disaster.
Shrewdness is not about true understanding but a blind programming and the shrewd person is a robot dedicated to self gain and the superior shrewd person is the one who does and says things that bring greater genuine advantage to himself and his nation. The shrewd person memorizes many programs that have survival and material advantages for him, his programming for material gains is superior but he is actually mindless, a slave dedicated to self gain that sooner or later leads to disaster. Opening Singapore to casinos must be with LKY’s accent and though short term there may be gains, long term it may spell serious trouble for Singapore in crime (mafias infiltrating and even killing leaders).
THE OPENING OF CASINOS MAY BE LIKE OPENING SINGAPORE TO THE TENTACLES OF CRIME, CONSORTING WITH CRIMINALS WHO WILL THEN WORK TO DESTROY LIKE THE MAFIA SPREADS ITS TENTACLES IN AMERICA.
Disaster sooner or later:
Because the shrewd person has no true understanding, no matter how shrewd he is, sooner or later he will make a mistake that may be fatal, undo all the gains he made in the past.
Gambling is evil and you are making money out of the misery and tragedy of others and so you too will pay a price for making a living off the losses and sorrows of others when criminals like Mafia become embolden and plot to murder and alter the political destiny of the nation.
The basis for LKY’s faux pas:
What is the cause LKY said a silly thing like Dr M did not do it because Dr M told him so?
The reason LKY said so is because what he said is not freshly specifically composed for the occasion but rehashed driven by emotion or blind force.
Driven by a desire to support and defend Dr M against condemnation (driven by force, desire is force) and rehashing from a program in his (trust me, because I have investigated and found the truth) he blurts out Dr M did not do it because I have investigated by asking him and he told me so not realizing that this rule does not apply in this situation because what is said may be a lie.
IT IS RULES LOGIC OR PROGRAMMING THAT DETERMINES WHAT ROBOTS SAY AND IN MANY SITUATIONS THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT BUT SOMETIMES RULES LOGIC FAILS TO FIT AND THE PERSON IS LEFT WITH AN ‘EMBARRASSING’ FAUX PAS.
FOR INSTANCE, GENERALLY, A LONE GUNMAN COULD HAVE KILLED FALCONIO IN THE OUTBACK BUT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A LONE GUN MAN TO CARRY OUT THE CRIME AS CHARGED AND EVEN JAILED BECAUSE THE COUPLE’S VAN WAS FOUND FAR FROM THE SCENE AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A LONE GUNMAN TO DRIVE HIS OWN AND THE COUPLE’S VEHICLE AT THE SAME TIME IN PITCHED DARKNESS AND HERE EVEN SO CALLED PROFESSIONAL POLICEMEN FAILED TO REALIZE THEIR GROSS FOLLY FOR WHICH A MAN IS JAILED.
It is because what LKY says is not freshly composed with full understanding for the occasion but it is rehashed from a standard rule (trust me because I have investigated, in this case by asking Dr M) and driven by emotion to support Dr M that he made the faux pas.
Specific rehash of a generalized recording:
A person who is a robot may have this recording, “take this there” and he can only speak according to this mould in which various entities can be specifically inserted into the rehashed speech eg “take apple there”, “take Michael there” in which ‘this’ is replaced by the specific entity for the occasion. And because it is rehashed he always says ‘take X there’, never ‘send this there’ eg send or accompany Michael there even when it is possible to say so because he has not programmed himself to say ‘send’ or ‘accompany’.
Thus it may be that LKY in his role as PM who needs to convince the sceptical public about the veracity of what he says has a well worn recorded generalization of speech that goes something like this, ‘what I say is true because I myself has investigated it so trust me’. In many occasions what he said may pass as reasonable but sometimes he rehashes inappropriately so that his logic becomes glaringly silly.
IN MOST CASES SPEAKING ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED REHASHED FRAMEWORK ‘TRUST WHAT I SAY BECAUSE I HAVE ASCERTAINED IT BY SUCH AND SUCH’ CAN PASS AS TRUTH BUT ON SOME OCCASIONS, WHAT HE TENDERS AS VERIFICATION (DR M TOLD ME SO) IS CLEARLY QUESTIONABLE AND HE MAKES HIMSELF LOOK FOOLISH.
THERE ARE GENERALIZED PLANS OF WHAT PEOPLE SAY OR DO, WHAT THEY SAY OR DO ARE ACCORDING TO GENERAL PLANS OR MOULDS THAT CAN BE MODIFIED IN DETAILS TO FIT MANY DIFFERENT OCCASIONS AND PEOPLE WHO ARE ROBOTS REHASH ACCORDING TO THESE MOULDS THAT OFTEN FIT WELL INTO THE OCCASION TO BE PASSED AS GENUINE SPEECH BUT OCCASIONALLY HE MAKES SLIPS, THE REHASHED MOULD IS NOT QUITE ACCEPTABLE AND HE IS FOUND WANTING.
A man of no integrity:
What Jesus said that a bad tree cannot bear good fruit corresponds to what the Buddha says that the man of no integrity is a man of no integrity in whatever he says or does.
Thus if you say there is good and bad in everyone, give others a chance you may have wrong view that is the way to hell or the animal womb according to the Buddha.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY FAKE OR ORDINARY MAN TO SPEAK WITH SUCH SUSTAINED CONSISTENCY THROUGH A LONG DISCOURSE AS BELOW:
The Shorter Discourse on the Full-moon Night
"Monks, could a person of no integrity know of a person of no integrity: 'This is a person of no integrity'?"
"No, lord." "Good, monks. '
"Could a person of no integrity know of a person of integrity: 'This is a person of integrity'?"
"No, lord."
"Good, there's no way.'
"A person of no integrity is a person of no integrity in his friendship, in the way he wills, the way he gives advice, the way he speaks, the way he acts, the views he holds, & the way he gives a gift.
"And how is a person of no integrity endowed with qualities of no integrity? He is lacking in conviction, conscience, concern [for the results of unskillful actions]; he is unlearned, lazy,of muddled mindfulness & poor discernment.”
" He has as his companions, people who are lacking in conviction, conscience, lacking in concern, lazy, of muddled mindfulness, & poor discernment.
"He wills for his own & the affliction of others.
"He gives advice for his own or the affliction of others.
"He tells lies, engages in divisive tale-bearing, harsh speech, idle chatter.
"He takes life, steals, engages in illicit sex.
"He holds a view like this: 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no result of good or bad actions. There is no this world or next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no contemplatives who, practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after realized it for themselves.'
"He gives a gift inattentively, not with his own hand, disrespectfully, as if throwing it away, with the view that nothing will come of it.
"Now, monks, could a person of integrity know of a person of no integrity?"
"Yes, lord."
"Good, monks. '
"Could a person of integrity know of a person of integrity: 'This is a person of integrity'?"
"Yes, lord."
"Good, monks. '
"A person of integrity is a person of integrity in his friendship, the way he wills, gives advice, speaks & acts, the views he holds, & the way he gives a gift.
"A person of integrity is endowed with conviction, conscience, concern; he is learned, with aroused persistence, unmuddled mindfulness, & good discernment."
"He has, as his friends & companions, those contemplatives endowed with conviction, conscience, concern; who are learned, unmuddled mindfulness, & good discernment.
"He wills neither for his own nor the affliction of others.
"He gives advice neither for his own nor the affliction of others.
"He refrains from lies, divisive tale-bearing, harsh speech, idle chatter.
"He refrains from taking life, stealing, illicit sex.
"He holds a view like this: 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are contemplatives who, practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after realized it for themselves.'
"He gives a gift attentively, with his own hand, respectfully, not as if throwing it away, with the view that something will come of it.
"This person of integrity, after death, reappears in the destination of people of integrity. And what is the destination? Greatness among devas or among human beings."
What are the chances Anwar has no integrity?
If you agree that the people arrayed against Anwar have no integrity, are ruthless, will do anything even murder to get what they want, what are the chances that the person they are arrayed against, Anwar and to lesser extent, Karpal and Lim Kit Siang, too has no integrity?
IT IS UNLIKELY IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE THAT PEOPLE LIKE ANWAR (HE IS NOT PERFECT) HAS NO INTEGRITY LIKE HIS ADVERSARIES AND SO VIEWING THE CONDUCT OF HIS SODOMY TRIAL (SAIFUL HAVING SEX WITH PROSECUTER, NOT RECORDING HIS TRYST AND PRESENTING HIMSELF FOR EXAMINATION 3 DAYS LATER AND PROSECUTION REFUSING TO RELEASE REPORTS) AND IN VIEW OF DR M’S FOOLISH ADMISSION THE FIRST WAS A CONSPIRACY, WHAT ARE THE CHANCES ANWAR IS TRULY A SODOMIST?
FOR ONE WHO IS DISCERNING, FROM WHAT ANWAR SAYS AND BEHAVES, HE IS A PERSON WITH INTEGRITY AND THAT IS WHY HIS ENEMIES HATE HIM TO HIS GUTS.
RPK: Why I am a loose cannon:
You should not be a cannon let alone loose cannon and so he is deluded justifying what is bad in him and if you remain a loose cannon there is future suffering for you until your cannon is silenced.
HE IS AN EMOTIONAL MAN WITH SIGNIFICANT WRONG VIEW AND UNTIL YOU PURGE YOURSELF OFF ALL WRONG VIEW THERE IS SUFFERING FOR YOU. YOU SUFFER NOW BUT WHAT LIES IN STORE AHEAD MAY BE EVEN WORSE SO DO NOT BE COMPLACENT. SUFFERING IS WARNING OF MORE SUFFERING IN THE FUTURE. MY SUFFERING IS NOW A FAINT SHADOW OF THE PAST EVEN COMPARED WITH A FEW YEARS AGO. THE EFFORTLESS FREEDOM FROM SUFFERING THAT I EXPERIENCE TODAY IS UNTHINKABLE EVEN A FEW YEARS AGO.
Another LKY faux pas:
It is not an isolated lapse but consistent.
Amongst other things, LKY said that although he sympathized with Anwar’s plight and black eye (hypocritical), Dr M suffered greater loss in terms of credibility than Anwar sustained (beaten up, jailed).
IT MAY BE TRUE DR M SUFFERED MORE THAN ANWAR AS A RESULT OF ANWAR’S ASSAULT BUT IF HE IS WRONG, THEN HE HAS GROSS BIZARRE JUDGMENT THAT ENDS IN INSANITY.
THE RIGHT VIEW MAY BE DR M’S SUFFERING IS DESERVED, BROUGHT ON BY HIS OWN FOLLY, WHATEVER CREDIBILITY HE HAS PREVIOUSLY WAS UNWARRANTED AND HIS SUFFERING DOES NOT COMPARED WITH ANWAR’S.
Opposition not fit to govern country, says blogger RPK
If the current coalition is fit to govern the country, the opposition is also fit to govern the country, who is RPK to say who is fit and not fit to govern the country.
IT IS UNRIGHTEOUS AND HAUGHTY TO SAY SO WITH JUDGMENT DUE BECAUSE IF IT SLANDERS, YOU ARE GUILTY OF SLANDER SPEAKING LIKE A LOOSE CANNON.
The magic of Christmas
WITH Christmas less than two weeks away, Penangites are well and truly in a holiday mood. with many commercial centres transformed into mini winter wonderlands.There is no such thing as the magic of Christmas, it is a fabrication to stir excitement or attraction and the person involved is training himself and others to have false perception. He will go mad with false perception and he has debt inciting others.
ONA transcript does not make sense:
According to the wikileaked transcript that is the basis of Singapore’s belief Anwar is guilty, Anwar knew he was walking into a trap but he went ahead.
It reflects the illogic of those responsible that they can come up with such an incredible story.
It is highly unlikely if not impossible that if Anwar knew it was a setup he still walked into it anymore than if you knew you would be murdered you will walk into a trap. Unless Anwar’s sexual desire is so irresistible he threw all caution to the wind, he would have retreated if he knew it was a setup and so what was said in the transcript is false at least on this count.
Further if it was an entrapment as alleged then surely the entrappers are guilty of gross incompetence if they failed to bring along their microphones and cameras and they failed to extract Anwar’s sperm from Saiful’s rectum at the soonest possible.
IF SINGAPORE AND LKY BELIEVES SUCH TRANSCRIPTS THEY ARE GULLIBLE, UNDISCERNING.
WHAT IS THE POINT OF SETTING UP SOMEONE WITHOUT ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT EVIDENCE, MERELY SUPPORTING YOUR ENTRAPMENT BY SAIFUL’S WORDS?
Proof of people’s lack of true understanding:
You do not need to do any investigations but by the very nature of the statement (Anwar knowingly walked into a trap) one who truly understands can understand and dismiss it as false. It is vital that you understand what is false is false otherwise you will suffer doubt and uncertainty and be vulnerable to be cheated.
People like Karpal get upset and start talking about perverting justice when one who discerns know the statement is without merit, a delusion.
A PERSON WHO IS CALM AND HAS TRUE UNDERSTANDING EXAMINES THE STATEMENT ‘ANWAR KNEW IT BUT WALKED INTO THE TRAP’ AND HE UNDERSTANDS IT IS UNTENABLE AND REJECTS IT. IT IS PROOF PEOPLE DO NOT TRULY UNDERSTAND BECAUSE THEY ARE AT LOSS, CONFUSED, ARE SWAYED THAT MAYBE IT IS TRUE, ANWAR IS GUILTY.
Kidding yourself and others dangerously:
It does not matter how you insist you have true understanding and cannot see your understanding is false and rehashed but a person with rehashed false understanding always suffers terribly and because he does not truly understands he is in constant danger of being conned, falling into others’ traps and even his life is in danger.
DON’T CONGRATULATE YOURSELF IF YOU DO NOT HAVE TRUE UNDERSTANDING, IF YOU DON’T URGENTLY ACQUIRE TRUE UNDERSTANDING YOU ARE HEADED FOR ANOTHER ETERNITY OF WOE APART FROM DANGER FROM BEING CONNED AND KILLED.
Only Anwar can tell if he knowingly entered setup:
Only Anwar himself can tell if he knowingly entered the setup, anyone else who says so is speaking un-righteously, presumptuously and if you would speak thus presumptuously, how reliable can whatever information you proffer be?
Is it possible Anwar told them so?
THUS ANYONE WITH TRUE UNDERSTANDING WILL KNOW THIS IS AN UNRELIABLE WITNESS UNSCRUPULOUS ABOUT THE ACCURACY OF WHAT HE STATES.
Just diplomatic grapevine not God speaking:
Why all the hoo hah with Anwar even worked up challenging LKY and Singapore to bring evidence of his guilt to court?
This is only private diplomatic chatter and intelligence, it is not the word of truth, not infallible and it reflects human false perception and understanding that they take it as uniformly true and infallible.
HERE IS AGAIN EVIDENCE OF HUMAN EMOTIONAL FALSE UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY GO GA GA ABOUT SUCH REVELATIONS AS IF IT IS INFALLIBLE.
Proof LKY speaks falsely and does not practice what he preaches:
In the aftermath of an alleged raid on 2 army camps by Muslim radicals when there were accusations it was a sandiwara, a staged show to shore up government support, LKY who was in Malaysia on a very rare visit recommended Malaysians believe their government, why would it tell lies?
It is impossible LKY or his spies were at hand to witness the plotting and execution of the raid and he may not even have done any investigation and so without seeing and knowing he is recommending Malaysians trust their government.
UNLESS YOU SAW OR HAVE IRREFUTABLE KNOWLEDGE AN EVENT IS GENUINE YOU CANNOT STAND SURETY FOR IT, EVEN IF YOU TURN OUT RIGHT, YOU ARE HEAPING SUFFERING, DOUBT AND UNCERTAINTY BY SAYING SOMETHING YOU DO NOT KNOW AS TRUE.
It is not without purpose LKY spoke falsely in support of the government and said that as much as Anwar suffered, Dr M suffered more in loss of prestige. The purpose is to support the government against false fear of Malaysia falling into the hands of Islamic radicals.
IT IS THE FALSE UNDERSTANDING OR POOR JUDGMENT OF SINGAPOREAN LEADERS THAT MALAYSIA WAS IN DANGER OF FALLING INTO THE HANDS OF ISLAMIC RADICALS WHEN THE SO CALLED RADICALS HAVE BEEN SLANDERED AND THE DANGER MAY BE NONEXISTENT. AND IT IS WITH THIS PURPOSE AND NOT JUST INTERFERING INTO MALAYSIA’S AFFAIRS IN CONTRADICTION TO HIS VEHEMENT OPPOSITION TO FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN SINGAPORE’S AFFAIRS BUT INTERFERING FALSELY THAT HE SPOKE TO RECOMMEND MALAYSIANS BELIEVE THEIR GOVERNMENT.
YOU CAN INTERFERE TRULY INTO OTHERS’ AFFAIRS AND YOU CAN INTERFERE FALSELY BY TENDERING FALSE INFORMATION THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS TELLING THE TRUTH WHEN YOU DO NOT KNOW, HAVE NO RIGHT TO SAY SO.
AND SO ANYONE WHO TAKES LKY’S WORDS AS GOSPEL, MUST BE TRUE IS DELUDED IN DANGER OF SUFFERING AND BEING CONNED.
Why you must always speak the truth:
YOU MAY GUESS RIGHT, WHAT YOU SAID WITHOUT KNOWING TURNS OUT TRUE (MAN UTD WILL WIN 2-0, THE COIN WILL LAND HEAD FIRST) BUT YOU ARE HEAPING CERTAIN TERRIBLE SUFFERING BY SPEAKING WITHOUT KNOWING.
The wrong understanding in this world is it does not matter if you guessed or speak without knowing, no bad consequences will result, what matters is you get what you want from others by thus speaking.
By speaking without knowing or guessing you are training yourself to speak without knowing and it is a recipe for everything goes, treating words casually that ends in laxity and confusion, inability to separate what is fact and what is fantasy, fabrication.
THE BUDDHA SAID YOU MUST GUARD THE TRUTH AND THIS IS HOW YOU GUARD THE TRUTH, BY ONLY SPEAKING WHAT YOU SEE AND KNOW IS TRUE.
IT IS FOR YOUR OWN GOOD THAT YOU SHOULD STRIVE TO ALWAYS SPEAK WHAT YOU SEE AND KNOW.
EVEN IF YOU GUESS RIGHT, YOU ARE SPEAKING UNRIGHTEOUSLY AND CANNOT GO TO HEAVEN BECAUSE NO GUESSING IS PERMITTED IN HEAVEN, ONLY TRUTH IS SPOKEN. THERE IS DEBT AND PUNISHING FOR SPEAKING WHAT IS GUESSED BECAUSE IT IS DECEIVING OTHERS.
FURTHER YOU ARE CONDITIONING YOURSELF TO DOUBT AND UNCERTAINTY, OF WILFULLY IGNORING THAT YOU DID NOT KNOW WHAT YOU SAID IS TRUE BUT NEVERTHELESS SAY IT.
AS SIMPLE AS IT MAY BE, THIS IS WHAT PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD NEVER DO: ONLY SPEAK WHAT THEY KNOW IS TRUE.
No comments:
Post a Comment