Showing posts with label Freedom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Freedom. Show all posts

Thursday, January 15, 2015

The Tragic Irony of...."The White Man's Burden"

Hantu Laut

Remember "The White Man's Burden" a poem by the English poet Rudyard Kipling. The poem consists of seven stanzas, but I am only going to give the first stanza, the rest you can google if it is of interest to you.

The 1st stanza:

Take up the White Man's Burden, Send forth the best ye breed
Go bind your sons to exile, to serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness, On fluttered folk and wild..
Your new-caught, sullen people, Half-devil and half-child.

Kipling wrote the poem soon after the Spanish-American War and the colonisation of the Philippines by the American. 

Kipling, at that time considered the natives of the colonies of the white men as uncouth, uncivilised and that "The White Man" had a duty to refine the barbaric and brutish parts of the world. He began by describing the colonised Filipinos as "new-caught sullen peoples, half-devil and half-child. Surprisingly, up till today many Filipinos still revered the white men 

Some imperialists interpret the poem as aspirations to dominate the world and the European powers had embarked and colonised many parts of the world through whatever method suitable to them and the world at their mercy.

The Western world imperialism existed till today to dominate the rest of the world and impose its will on those considered half-devil and half-child....... illumining these lesser beings had never been exhausting for them.

In the old days they used a multitude of tactics from intimidation to gunboat diplomacy and to all out war. The audacity  much rest on whether the natives are timid or hostile.

Today, things haven't changed much, they still want to rule the world, only the tactics has changed. 

"You are with us, or against us", George Bush's belligerent call to his Western allies to join him when the U.S decided to invade Iraq that led to the toppling of Saddam Hussein and invasion of the country  for almost a decade. 

The Iraq War, spurred by Saddam supposedly possession of WMD (weapons of mass destruction), which later was found to be a big lie fabricated by the U.S. A blatant lie to cover its real attention, retribution for 9/11 to avenge the Muslim terrorists attack on the Twin Tower in New York on 11 Sept 2001 that killed over 3000 people, mostly Americans. 

Hundred of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children were killed in this revenge killings and the country razed to the ground by incessant and indiscriminate bombings by the U.S and her allies. Britain, among the coalition partners was the biggest running dog for theU.S lied to the world about Saddam's WMD. 

The irony, almost two-thirds of the terrorists were Saudis, but the U.S think it was Saddam that should be punished when they knew very well most of the fundings of Islamic terrorism came from Saudi Arabia, their closest ally in the Middle East.

Is Iraq peaceful and safer now? I am sure many of you would know the answer to that. 

The country is completely devastated and torn apart in sectarian violence. A puppet government installed by the U.S is completely corrupt, incompetent and ineffective. ISIS, the Islamist militants has seized large swathe of territory in Iraq and neighbouring Syria filling the power vacuum.

Afghanistan, invaded much earlier than Iraq following the 9/11 attack was to dismantle the Al Qaeda and seek the extradition of Osama bin Laden.When the Taliban government refused to entertain their request, the U.S and Britain invaded the country and bombed it to smithereens, killing thousands of innocent Afghan civilians. They finally managed to track down Osama and killed him in May 2011, not in Afghanistan, but in Pakistan the so called American ally harbouring its biggest enemy. So much for the best intelligence unit in the world, took over a decade to track him down!

They buried Osama at sea on the ground that burying him on land may turn his grave into a shrine and a martyr to the Muslims>

Did killing Osama stopped Islamic terrorism?

See, the American not all that smart, they killed one devil and thousands more sprung up with bigger thirst to inflict bigger atrocity and violence against the West.

Think of what Boko Haram did two days ago in a Nigerian village, razed to the ground and wiped out the entire village of 2000 or more inhabitants.

ALAS! THE WEST DIDN'T CRY! Not a squeak of empathy and sympathy.

Seventeen killed in Paris and the whole ground shook with cry of sympathy calling for unity and solidarity over the killing of freedom of expression.......and there was huge global response almost 2 million thronged the streets of Paris including the biggest mass murderer of our time coming out of the state of Israel.

What irony!

In May 2014 the U.S announced that its combat operations would end in 2014, leaving only residual force until the end of 2016.

I can safely assume that Afghanistan will return to the Talibans, or the like of it as soon as all foreign forces left the country.

The Western powers have not only destroyed these two countries, they have also destroyed almost all the Arab countries in the Middle East through proxy wars, except Saudi Arabia, the worst offender of personal liberty and human rights subjecting its citizens to extremely harsh Islamic laws, but the American and her Western allies love these medieval Wahhabis for their oil money and not give two hoots of her draconian laws and human right abuses of her own citizens.

This double-standard and hypocrisy are being played out wherever and whenever their interests at stake without due care and attention for human lives other than theirs.

As in Matthew 12.30 of the Gospel "Whoever is not with me is against me and whoever does not gather with me scatters" said Jesus. 

Does it not ring true of the Western powers' convention?

The recent deadly attacks in Paris that killed 17 people by wayward Muslims shows that all is not well between Islam and the West. Many Muslims viewed the West as arrogant, bigoted, domineering, unjust and want to subjugate and dominate the rest of the world.Out of those killed 12 worked for the bigoted magazine called Charlie Hebdo.

The root of the problem between Muslims and the West started over 60 years ago with the creation of the state of Israel as laid out in the Balfour Declaration for the creation of a Jewish state out of Palestinian land.

In 1945 when US President Roosevelt went to see King Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia with the proposal for the creation of a new country for the Jews, King Abdul Aziz told Roosevelt since it was the Germans who committed atrocities against the Jews why not carve a bit of Germany and give it to the Jews. Roosevelt, however, told the King that the US would not intervene without consulting both Arabs and Jews in the region. Soon after, Roosevelt died and the presidency was taken over by Harry Truman.

In the final stage of the Second World War, the US under Truman dropped atomic bombs on two Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki that brought the war to an end and the surrender of Japan. Truman, with the new found victory, arrogantly ignored to consul the Arabs and together with the other Western allies went ahead with the creation of Israel in 1948, which spurred the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Many Muslims, particularly, from the Middle East viewed the West as the biggest "munafik" and their own governments as corrupt, incompetent and easily cowed by the West. To correct the injustices, it has become expedient and rest on their shoulders to fight a private war against the West. 

Past wars between Arab states and Israel had been catastrophic for the Arab countries with the Arabs losing more territories to Israel. If right is might instead of might is right, there was no pressure from the Western powers for Israel to return the occupied territories. The West Bank, Gaza and Golan Heights were Arab lands occupied by the Jews till today.

It's OK for them to mock your culture and religion and make fun of your prophet, which they called freedom of expression, but you can't call them White, that's racist!

It's OK if thousands of you Muslims killed by Jews, but you must not be anti-semitic, or say the Holocaust never happened, it's a punishable offence.

The White Man's Burden will continue to crack its whip for world's domination to terrify and purify the half-devil and half-child. 

Thursday, November 27, 2014

Ferguson U.S.A: Unlawful Assembly, Ambiga Sreenesavan Should Return Her U.S Award

Hantu Laut


The U.S, the country that many Malaysians adore got a taste of its own medicine.

A country that does not do as what it preaches....a whited sepulchre.

When the Malaysian government labelled the BERSIH assembly unlawful, the hypocrites in the U.S administration cried foul of our government and they squealed the need for human rights and its freedom to screw our backside.

Now, the SAME HYPOCRITES called the crisis in their HOMELAND arising out of the FERGUSON debacle .....UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY!

....and IN THE SAME MOULD as WHEN THEY KICKED THE ASSES OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN GUANTANAMO but CALLED our ISA an INFRINGEMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

Maybe, AMBIGA SREENEVASAN, BEING A LADY OF PRINCIPLE WOULD LIKE TO RETURN THE U.S  "International Woman Of Courage Award" for her sanctimonious human rights work.....and  the U.S for being a country of HYPOCRITES.

Remember, Rudy Giuliani when Prince Alwaleed of Saudi Arabia donated US$10 million after the 9/11 attack, but returned the money after the Prince criticised the U.S government policy in the Middle East.

Ambiga should do the same if she has any self-respect. The U.S. government has miserably failed in its human right policy and protection of minority against racial discrimination, which is the core of Ambiga's freedom agenda for this country.

Now, they know how it feels when you have monkeys running riot on the streets.

They also shot dead a 12-year old black teenager!

Racism is well and alive in the United State of Americal.

Friday, March 23, 2012

In The Land Of The Free,Freedom Is A Myth




The US touts itself as the land of free, but it has laws which are designed to crush criticisms of the state.
Listen to this page using ReadSpeaker
Since the terrorist attacks of 2001, the US has spent about $635bn to militarise the country's local police forces [GALLO/GETTY]

New Haven, CT - In 1893, a massive financial panic sent demand for the Pullman Palace Car Company into a downward spiral. The luxury rail car company reacted by slashing workers' wages and increasing their work load. After negotiations with ownership broke down the following year, the American Railway Union, in solidarity with Pullman factory workers, launched a boycott that eventually shut down railroads across the US. It was a full-scale insurrection, as the late historian Howard Zinn put it, that soon "met with the full force of the capitalist state".

The US Attorney General won a court order to stop the strike, but the union and its leader, Eugene V Debs, refused to quit. President Grover Cleveland, over the objections of Illinois' governor, ordered federal troops to Chicago under the pretense of maintaining public safety. Soldiers fired their bayoneted rifles into the crowd of 5,000, killing 13 strike sympathisers. Seven hundred, including Debs, were arrested. Debs wasn't a socialist before the strike, but he was after. The event radicalised him. "In the gleam of every bayonet and the flash of every rifle," Debs said later on, "the class struggle was revealed".

I imagine a similar revelation for the tens of thousands of Americans who participated in last fall's Occupy Wall Street protests. As you know, the movement began in New York City and spread quickly, inspiring activists in the biggest cities and the smallest hamlets. Outraged by the broken promise of the US and inspired by democratic revolts of Egypt and Tunisia, they assembled to protest economic injustice and corrupt corporate power in Washington.

Inside Story: US 2012 - Attacking the unions

Yet the harder they pushed, the harder they were pushed back - with violence. Protesters met with police wearing body armour, face shields, helmets and batons; police legally undermined Americans' right to assemble freely with "non-lethal" weaponry like tear gas, rubber bullets and sonic grenades. There was no need for the president to call in the army. An army, as Mayor Bloomberg quipped, was already there.

Before Occupy Wall Street, many protesters were middle- and upper-middle class college graduates who could safely assume the constitutional guarantee of their civil liberties. But afterward, not so much. Something like scales fell from their eyes, and when they arose anew, they had been baptised by the fire of political violence.

Income inequality isn't just about justice; it's about freedom, too. One view of freedom minimises the state's role in an individual's life and maximises markets so that individuals are free to risk whatever they want to risk to be whatever they want to be. Another view sees the obligation of the state to hedge against the risk of the marketplace so that individuals can feel secure enough to be what they want to be.

Obviously, the libertarian view favours someone who can afford risk; the socialist view favours someone who can't. One view has confidence in the market while the other is skeptical. One view sees income inequality as natural while the other sees it as politically oppressive.Read more.

Saturday, August 20, 2011

Malaysia Gets Press Club

It's been in the planning for decades. And despite being cleverly knocked on the head once by the Malaysia’s former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, Kuala Lumpur finally has its own Foreign Correspondents Club (FCCM).

The club's first president, Romen Bose of Agence France-Presse, said after the inaugural meeting was held at the Equatorial Hotel that Malaysia was experiencing something of a media renaissance.

‘The idea of a foreign correspondents club in Malaysia isn’t new in that several groups had tried over the years to get one set up, and many had gone as far as having initial meetings and an executive committee drawn up, but were unable to get permission from the authorities.

‘The last time a group of journalists tried to set one up was in 1992 when then AFP bureau chief Mervin Nambiar and a group of very senior correspondents had banded together to push for the club to be set up, but the powers that be refused to allow its formation,’ he said.

Online media is flourishing in this country and challenging a repressed mainstream press. Prime Minister Najib Razak more recently has bowed to media reports and announced an inquiry into alleged electoral irregularities, the source of violent rallies in the capital in early July.

In doing this, he conceded the government’s censorship of an article in The Economist on the Bersih protest rally was ineffective and promised to review his country’s censorship methods.

‘If the international media wants to criticise us, let them. If we need to, we engage them. We give our side of story, and if they have crossed the line, then we have to resort to legal means,’ he said.

Foreign correspondents have traditionally found this country difficult territory in which to operate and are often widely disliked by local journalists who are coerced into toeing a management line while the outsiders are free to report as they see fit. This is largely because newspaper owners require a license to publish that must be renewed each year, resulting in coverage that’s heavily self-censored and primarily used to support government policies.

‘For too long, it was an easy out to say that the foreign media were not reporting the “real story” or were “twisting facts” or were “pro-opposition” when the reality of the matter was that the government newsmakers were unwilling or unable to engage foreign correspondents to provide their side of the story,’ Bose said.

As the paperwork from previous FCC bids languished on the mahogany desks of bureaucrats, one senior journalist was once pulled aside by Mahathir. Dismayed, the then prime minister asked: ‘Why do you want to establish a Foreign Correspondents Club here when if you have any problems you can always come and talk to me personally?’

It possibly never dawned on the leader that such cosy relations between the media and the executive arm of government was considered anathema to foreign journalists, who were also disturbed by the sycophantic relations encouraged by the government and state-linked press.Read more.


Monday, August 8, 2011

Tottenham riots: police let gangs run riot and loot

Hantu Laut

A peaceful protest developed into one of the ugliest scenes in recent UK history as sections of London went up in flame and rioters clashed with police.

This can happen in Malaysia if Bersih and Pakatan Rakyat were given their ways.


Yeah! Democracy. Yeah!Freedom.

London's burning because the cops were afraid of being accused of police brutality.




Britain’s biggest police force is facing criticism after it let looters run riot in north London for almost 12 hours, in some of the worst scenes of street disturbances seen in recent years.


The Metropolitan Police said it was focused on containing violent disorder in Tottenham on Saturday night, which left dozens of officers injured and saw squad cars, shops and flats burned to the ground.

But its tactics meant gangs of youths were free to break into stores at nearby Tottenham Hale retail park and in Wood Green, with looters forming an orderly queue in broad daylight to steal from a sports shop.

Riot police did not intervene to stop the looting in some areas until 7.30am the following morning, almost 12 hours after the riots began, and last night there were fresh disturbances in Enfield.

Police defended their actions, saying that their priority was to avoid loss of life in the violent clashes that started after a peaceful gathering outside a police station, held to protest a fatal shooting by Met officers on Thursday.

Metropolitan Police Commander Adrian Hanstock said that police took a decision to devote resources to the scene of the riot rather than the looting.

He said: “What you have to recognise here is that this is opportunistic criminality. These individuals who stole, looted and rampaged through businesses, businesses which are struggling in the current climate, took advantage at a time where police were dealing with some serious incidents that posed a threat to life.

“Of course we are going to focus on fires and people potentially in danger.

“You have got a situation where people have been violent and are setting fire to things. Police officers have to remain in position even after the initial violence dies down.

“It is a very delicate balance. Officers have to consider that by staying here [the riot scene] can I prevent someone being seriously injured or should I intervene when someone is committing a theft that we might be able to investigate afterwards.” Read more.

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Banning The Islamic Veil

Hantu Laut

First the minaret.The Swiss see the sharp pinnacle as an ominous bird of prey ever ready to pounce on them and devour them in a flash.Couldn't figure out where the threat came from.Now, the French see the purdah or niqab as a threat to their culture and have decided to impose a total ban of wearing the Islamic veil.

Would there be backlash violent in nature? Muslims are easily ignited by thing like this, by thing they see as an attack on the religion.A backlash from the extremists wouldn't be far-fetched.

Although, I don't agree with the French on the ban as it is an encroachment into a person's personal liberty, I also believe Muslims should try liberalise some of the negative aspect of their practices if they were to fit into the society they live in.As they say 'when in Rome do as the Romans do'.It is fine to use the purdah in the desert of Arabia when the desert storm is blowing in your face but why must women be forced to use this most uncomfortable attire in less harsh environment.

I can feel with the French people's discomfort with the purdah.Can you tell what's under the dress, a man or a woman?

Only a small fraction of Muslim women wear the purdah, either forced by the husbands or forced by peer pressure.

The French is taking a big risk imposing the ban.With so many act of terrorism can we blame them for being jittery?

Nicolas Sarkozy's cabinet approves bill to ban full Islamic veil

Despite warnings move could be anti-constitutional, French president gives it his full backing

kenza drider

Kenza Drider, born in France to Moroccan immigrant parents, who defends the right to wear the veil. Photograph: Remy De La Mauviniere/AP

Nicolas Sarkozy defended his ambition to impose a total ban on women wearing the full Islamic veil today, despite warnings that such a move could be anti-constitutional and socially incendiary.

As interior minister Michèle Alliot-Marie presented the bill to the French cabinet, the president reiterated his determination to crack down on a garment he considers to have no place in a secular society committed to women's rights.

"We are an old country anchored in a certain idea of how to live together. A full veil which completely hides the face is an attack on those values, which for us are so fundamental," he told his ministers. "Citizenship has to be lived with an uncovered face. There can therefore be absolutely no solution other than a ban in all public places."

The rightwing government is determined to push through legislation for a total ban and hopes to make it enforceable by spring of next year. Declaring that "no one can wear a garment in public which is aimed at hiding their face", the bill approved by the cabinet today envisages fining any woman in a niqab or burqa 150 euros.

As an alternative or possibly supplementary measure, they could also be made to take a course in the values of French citizenship. Husbands or partners who make women wear a full veil face a fine of 15,000 eurosor a year in prison.

The legislation, the product of almost a year's discussion and research by French MPs and the government, has focused attention on the country's estimated 5 million Muslims, in particular the small minority of around 2,000 women who are thought to wear the niqab.

This week has seen tensions flare over the issue: last night the police had to be called in to break up clashes during a debate organised by the women's rights group Ni Putes Ni Soumises (Neither Whores or Doormats) and disrupted by pro-Palestinian protesters.

In the western town of Trignac, according to a report in the local newspaper Presse Océan, a shopper tried to snatch the veil from the face of a Muslim woman who had allegedly hit her after hearing derogatory remarks being made about her niqab.

Although it has the support of the Elysée and most members of Sarkozy's rightwing UMP party, the total ban is likely to come under fire from MPs of other political colours when it is debated in parliament in July.

Many opposition figures, while favouring a ban of some kind, have argued the proposed legislation is inapplicable and advocated a more moderate measure that would still allow the niqab on the street.Read more..

Saturday, January 16, 2010

What Price Freedom?

Hantu Laut,

First, it was Lim Guan Eng who banned what he called government-sponsored newspapers from covering his press conferences.

Now, the wise old man, the highly revered Nik Aziz is breathing fire against bloggers whom he says only interested in vilifying others and baneful to the soul.

Better a lie that soothes than truth that hurts.

See, sooner or later the same ghost will come to haunt you.

The very same thing they accused UMNO of intolerance is now causing them much distress.

Do you see any difference between what the present government is doing and what this government in waiting would be doing when they sit in Putrajaya?

Everybody loves freedom.

Without freedom there would be a palpable sense of loss of personal liberty.

In this country the Muslims are in worse position when it comes to personal liberty.We are subjected to two sets of law,the Sharia and Civil Law.The non-Muslims have only one to worry about. Muslims also have to be beware of two law enforcements, the snoop police and the real one (which is least worrying unless you breaking the law).

Muslims can't go to nightlubs,discos,pubs,can't consume alcohol, can't have sex before marriage,can't be homesexual,can't show their love and effection in public even to their loved ones and I can tell you hundred and one things Muslims can't do that many non-Muslims can do in their daily existence.

Actually, I am not all that correct.Some Muslims can.If you are in the elite class you can.Have you ever heard of any elitists or any of their children being dragged to the Sharia court.Kartika Sari Dewi Sukarno did not carry the VIP badge except for namesake of the famous former Indonesian president.Not good enough to get her out of trouble.

Unfortunately, freedom always come with a price.A price some have to pay heavily for.Ask Nelson Mandela, he knows best what freedom means.He is probably the longest incarcerated prisoner of conscience in modern history.

As in Paul McCartney song 'Freedom' he says is God given right and no one should take it away from you.

Here's the lyric.

This is my right, a right given by god
To live a free life, to live in freedom

We talkin’ about freedom
Talkin’ bout freedom
I will fight, for the right
To live in freedom

Anyone, who wants to take it away
Will have to answer, cause this is my right

We talkin’ about freedom
Talkin’ bout freedom
I will fight, for the right
To live in freedom, ah yeah, comon now...

You talkin’ about freedom
Were talkin’ bout freedom
I will fight, for the right
To live in freedom

Everybody talkin’ bout freedom
Talkin’ bout freedom
I will fight, for the right
To live in free----------dom


Here's the song.



That's MacCartney's simple mind on freedom.


In Philosophy, freedom means one can act according to ones will without constraint, servitude or held by the power of others.Quite close to MacCartney's simple version.

So, how many Malaysians think they have lost political freedom?

At least most of those in the left wing, accusing the government of infringement of basic human rights.Of not being able to express themselves freely (except on the blogs) and indulge in their new found delicious dish of nasi lemak and of going to the streets to eat their hearts out.

Most grouses, according to the political anarchists (not analyst), were against the absence of freedom of the press, freedom of expression, freedom to assemble and demonstrate on the streets (their favourite dish).However, when the MSM lashed out at some of the wrongdoings in Pakatan states they say it's unfair, they only want the goose not the gander, accusing the newspapers as running dogs of the government.

Malaysia, to them is a totalitarian regime.An illusion born out of frustration and the insatiable wanting of political power.Would Malaysia be better under a new regime? Those in the opposite camp that I have met say, for better or for worse, we must give it a try as the present one is rotten to the core.

As they say "Revenge is a dish best served cold."Is this want of political power comes with an irresistible menu of witch hunting?

One should not judge a book by its cover? There are always the good, the bad and the ugly. It happened in Sabah when Berjaya took over from USNO. The painful and costly lesson was paid by the state government recently, after over 30 years of legal tussle, paid RM120 million to an individual whose land was acquired by the then Berjaya government.Musa Aman's government is now poorer by RM120 million.

When you can't get what you want it easier to blame others for your own inadequacy.The political anarchists differ in what they see as true 'political' freedom.

Is there such thing as absolute freedom?

Absolute freedom is anarchism.

If PAS can sell the freedom of the use of 'Allah' which I am not against at all but have my suspicion of the real motive.Political or religious? A show of liberalism? Or a process of endearing to the non-Muslims?

Is that the real PAS?


Surely, there is price to pay for freedom and Nik Aziz is feeling the pain from the same blogger who, before falling out, did his best to castrate UMNO for him and his party.