Tsai vows stable ties with Beijing in CSIS speech


TAIPEI, Taiwan — During Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) stay in Washington, D.C. on her U.S. tour, Tsai vowed to maintain stable relations with China in her speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) on May 3.

The speech, titled “Taiwan Meeting the Challenges Crafting a Model of New Asian Value,” highlighted Tsai’s political views on economic change, social infrastructure, defense, U.S. and international relations, along with the much talked about cross-strait relations.

“I am also committed to a consistent, predictable and sustainable relationship with China.” Tsai had said, reiterating her stance of “maintaining the status quo,” saying she believes this “serves the best interest of all parties concerned.” She also claimed that the consensus of the people backed up her stance as well.

A peaceful and stable cross-strait relationship is Tsai’s aim, which she cites is in accordance with the “will of the Taiwanese people and the existing R.O.C. constitutional order.”

Apart from encouraging both sides to “treasure and secure the accumulated outcomes of more than 20 years of negotiations and exchanges,” which are what Tsai will base her cross-strait relations efforts upon, the DPP chairwoman said she will also see to passing the Cross-Strait Agreement Oversight Bill (兩岸協議監督條例) in the Legislative Yuan, and installing rules to oversee negotiations and exchanges.

Economic Measures

Apart from restating that her economy policy is aimed at reducing Taiwan’s reliance on single market systems, and to ensure Taiwan’s economic autonomy, the model aims to mold Taiwan’s economic competitiveness from an “efficiency-driven model to an innovation-driven one.”

Tsai attributed economic autonomy to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s words in June last year, saying that the island nation “would be vulnerable if it loses economic independence.”

On the other hand, Tsai has also set up a special task force to discuss trade liberalization and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), as she had repeatedly emphasized Taiwan’s need to join the TPP.

US Relations and International Contributions

“I will ensure that Taiwan works together with the U.S. to advance our common interests,” Tsai said in proposing her U.S. relations plan, and reminded Taiwan not to take relations with the U.S. for granted.

Moreover, Tsai promised to improve Taiwan’s participation and contribution in international issues, “such as humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, medical assistance and joint efforts in economic aid with backup support from our active NGO’s.”

Tsai’s speech was said to be based on creating new Asian values in Taiwan through “fostering democracy” and her other political views, as a standard for other neighboring countries to follow.

The CSIS is a Washington-based think tank that concentrates on developing solutions for defense and security, regional stability, and transnational challenges including energy, climate, global development and economic integration.

Sing Tao sues trio over debate protest


Friday, June 05, 2015

Sing Tao News Corporation is seeking HK$1.57 million as compensation against three radical protesters, including legislator “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung, who disrupted the grand final of its annual school debating competition.

As well as Leung, People Power members Mandy Tam Heung-man and “Fast Beat” Tam Tak-chi have been named in the writ, filed in the High Court on Wednesday.

Sing Tao is also seeking an injunction barring the trio from future events organized by the company.

The trio were among a group of protesters who stormed Queen Elizabeth Stadium, chanting slogans and hurling paper at guests, including Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, on May 15.

Between 7.45pm and 8.22pm, the writ alleged that Leung and Tam Tak-chi used a megaphone to broadcast slogans, which others would echo.

Tam also allegedly hurled paper balls to where the officials of the event were sitting.

Meanwhile, Mandy Tam allegedly approached Lam with an open yellow umbrella while the chief secretary was about to deliver a speech and presented her with a protest letter. She also engaged in shouting, yelling and chanting.

The trio allegedly caused a nuisance, disturbance and disruption of the event.

Because of the trio’s interruption, Lam was unable to deliver her speech. Comments of the judges were also seriously interrupted and became inaudible because of the alleged nuisance.

Sing Tao, publisher of Sing Tao Daily and The Standard, is claiming against the trio for manpower cost of more than HK$1.5 million in the preparation, promotion and production and an out-of-pocket expense of HK$75,000.

For the past 30 years, the Sing Tao Inter-School Debating Competition has been held in conjunction with the Education Bureau and is sponsored by the Standing Committee on Language Education and Research. STAFF REPORTER

Hollywood Whitewashing: ‘Aloha’ film attacked for ‘white-washing’ of Hawaii

in other news. Asian actors and actresses are going to Asia to start their acting careers

There’s trouble in paradise. Director Cameron Crowe has come under fire for his latest work, accused of “whitewashing” the cast. “Aloha” – starring Bradley Cooper, Emma Stone, and Rachel McAdams – is set in Hawaii and follows a troubled military contractor’s personal journey through life and love on the lush, diverse island.

But the group Media Action Network for Asian Americans (MANAA) says that the film has almost no non-white actors and no non-white principal characters despite being set in an extremely diverse state. Hawaii is over 70% non-white, with a diverse population the result of decades of social, economic, and political upheaval. Additional cast members to Cooper, Stone, and McAdams include John Krasinski, Alec Baldwin, Bill Murray, and Danny McBride.

“This comes in a long line of films (‘The Descendants,’ ‘50 First Dates,’ ‘Blue Crush,’ ‘Pearl Harbor’) that uses Hawaii for its exotic backdrop but goes out of its way to exclude the very people who live there,” MANAA founder and president Guy Aoki said in a press release. “It’s an insult to the diverse culture and fabric of Hawaii.”

The film had been met with skepticism for months. The Sony email hack revealed frustrated executives calling the film’s script “ridiculous.” Reviewers were reportedly banned from early screenings before the film’s late-May release, a move often associated with low confidence in the film by the studio.

An Associated Press report rounded up reaction from Native Hawaiians and academics, including activist Walter Ritte, who said, “They’re taking our sacred word … and they’re going to make a lot of money off of it.” A scathing piece by Entertainment Weekly’s Chris Lee, “I’m not buying Emma Stone as an Asian-American in Aloha,” slammed the decision to cast Stone as Allison Ng, an Air Force pilot of Chinese-Hawaiian-Swedish descent.

“But in order to process this idea of Stone as a bi-racial character,” wrote Lee, “as someone whose genetic lineage can be traced back to the Middle Kingdom by way of Polynesia, you must first get past the obvious stumbling blocks: her alabaster skin and strawberry blond hair, her emerald eyes and freckles—past the star’s outwardly unassailable #Caucasity—if only because the movie hammers home her cultural other-ness in just about every other scene.”

In a response to the controversy, Sony has defended the film and Crowe, saying in a statement that “Aloha respectfully showcases the spirit and culture of the Hawaiian people.”

“Filmmaker Cameron Crowe spent years researching this project and many months on location in Hawaii, cultivating relationships with leading local voices,” the statement continued. “He earned the trust of many Hawaiian community leaders, including Dennis ‘Bumpy’ Kanahele, who plays a key role in the film.”

The studio released a ”featurette” online featuring cast members reflecting on “The Spirit of Hawaii” in the film. At the May 28th red-carpet premiere, the director and stars defended the film against the recent wave of criticism.

“I think that Cameron was very much about Hawaiian culture. We did a blessing to kick off the film, and he took us to watch live Hawaiian music all the time, and so I don’t know, I don’t know if that’s fair,” Rachel McAdams told reporters. “I understand that you always want to represent everyone equally, but I certainly think that he has a great deal of respect for Hawaiian people and Hawaiian culture.”

“I read some of the stuff that’s been said and I just think, ‘I can’t wait for you to see the movie,” Crowe told reporters, “because we certainly know the power of Aloha and what Aloha means, and you know, didn’t choose the title randomly.”

The film currently stands at 18% on movie review-aggregator Rotten Tomatoes and grossed just $10 million during its opening weekend.


Men ‘Calling Yourself Feminist Is Invading a Movement That Was Not Made for You’


Feminist Tumblr makes explicit the movement’s anti-male ideology:

Feminism as a movement is not about prioritizing the feelings of cis men as above or equal to our own. You are welcome to be an ally for us. But calling yourself feminist is invading a movement that was not made for you and in which your voice is not necessary and often not wanted. It is male privilege to think you are entitled to join and gain a title in any club, group or movement you want. I’ve noticed that cis men who insist on being called “feminists” rather than “feminist allies” put their own feelings and need for legitimacy/validation above the actual goals and priorities of feminism. Feminist can be used as an adjective/descriptive term for men, like “I met a guy who seemed very feminist.” Or “He has some strong feminist beliefs”. A man could say “I believe in feminism”. But to adopt the title of feminist is appropriation of a movement that has been built on and by the suffering of women and other people who experience gender-based oppression. Basically, if a man says he’s a feminist and, when asked by us to call himself a “feminist ally” instead, he refuses, he proves that he doesn’t actually care about women or our needs and feelings, and he has no right to be involved in feminism in any way.

Feminism means: Men have no rights. Period.

“Feminism is a totalitarian doctrine of hatred. It cannot be reformed, nor can it be appeased. Feminism is an ideology that demands war against human nature, and the question is whether we can stop this deadly menace before it destroys our civilization.”
Robert Stacy McCain, April 13

Radical equality requires the negation of liberty, because only the oppressed have rights, and their oppressors have none. The feminist worldview requires that any apparent inequality between males and females must be condemned as injustice. All men are members of the oppressor class, benefiting from and participating in the victimization of women (all women) under a system of male supremacy. To speak of men’s “rights,” according to feminist ideology, is to justify inequality, and to assert that women deserve to be treated as inferior.

This is feminism’s formula for insanity, a totalitarian theory that denies the reality of sexual difference and seeks evidence of patriarchal oppression in every individual decision (because “the personal is political”). Once this principle of Feminist Consciousness is grasped, we see why The First Rule of Feminism is SHUT UP!

“Feminist consciousness is consciousness of victimization . . . to come to see oneself as a victim.”
Sandra Lee Bartky, Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression (1990)

Feminism means men have nothing to say, because men have no valid knowledge. Whatever a man believes is wrong, whatever a man does is oppressive, and anything a man says is sexist. Therefore, SHUT UP!

It is especially important that feminists should be empowered to insult men, and to ridicule men who resent such insults:

Some feminist on the internet: Haha white boys are gross, it’s funny how they think they can dance or their opinions matter lol
No white guy ever: See this is okay because she has a right to express herself under free speech. Plus if I can’t laugh at myself, who CAN I laugh at? Also I’m sure she was just kidding and doesn’t really believe that, I should give her the benefit of the doubt.

You see how her chip-on-the-shoulder resentments are expressed as an ostentatiously “clever” reversal: Feminists are accused of being over-sensitive and humorless, and so therefore — har-de-har-harthe joke is on you, “white guy,” whom she accuses of being too stupid to “get” her cleverness, so that you don’t even know whether she’s “just kidding” or whether she “really believes” the hateful things she says about you.

You know who excels at this kind of manipulation, smokescreening, gaslighting and psychological projection? Narcissistic sociopaths.

“Misandry Mermaid,” as she calls herself, is a warped and sadistic personality who derives perverse pleasure from imagining the humiliation and mental pain she endeavors to inflict on males. Mendeserve this humiliation, the feminist believes, because men are her inferiors and have unjustly refused to recognize her superiority. The man who refuses to kneel before her in worshipful adoration has deprived her of what is rightly hers, and the man who dares speak in his own defense thereby proves himself a misogynist, by justifying his existence, which oppresses her. Any cruelty the feminist inflicts on a man is social justice, and he cannot be permitted to say a word in reply.

“Forever Bathing in Your Male Tears,” you see.

Most people cannot understand Feminist Logic™ because it is so difficult to imagine hating anyone as much as feminists hate men.

The Lesbian Strangler: Jessica Ewing Murdered Friend Who Rejected Her

“Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice.” (Chicago Women’s Liberation Union pamphlet, Lesbianism and Feminism, 1971; Stevi Jackson, Sue Scott, Feminism and Sexuality: A Reader, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 282)


Virginia Tech senior Samanata Shrestha was 21 when she was strangled to death in February 2014 by a fellow student, Jessica Ewing, 22. Police and prosecutors had not publicly discussed the motive, and it was not until a sentencing hearing this week that Ewing testified that she is a lesbian, and had been in love with Shrestha, who rejected her. Ada Calhoun atCosmopolitan reports:

Shrestha had invited Ewing over for dinner. At the apartment, Ewing strangled Shrestha, then put the body in a sleeping bag and put it in the victim’s car. Her plans to burn the body were thwarted when a friend wouldn’t help her. She described this in a damning journal entry as: “Some friend. He fucking won’t even help me move a goddamn body . . . friendship test failed.” . . .
During her statement, pulled out of her bit by bit by her attorney, Ewing described a fragile mental state that made her “lose it” the night of the attack. She said she had been sexually abused by a friend’s father as a young girl, had been drugged and raped at a campus party by an unknown assailant in spring 2013, and had felt deep conflict around her sexual feelings for Shrestha. She said she had kept these secrets from everyone except for therapists at a local counseling center, whom she told about the rape. In fall 2013, she was depressed and failing classes, and that, too, she kept from her family. “The only thing I know how to do is hide things,” she said when explaining the steps she’d taken to conceal the murder. “The only thing I’ve ever done is hide what I don’t want people to know.” . . .
One of those in the courtroom was Shrestha’s boyfriend, Scott Masselli . . . They had talked, Masselli said, about getting married next year, and he’s haunted by a sense that he should have protected her . . .
Ewing said yesterday that she thought of Shrestha as a “golden child” or a “perfect person,” a derogatory descriptor she used for someone to whom things came easy. But Shrestha had overcome obstacles. She came to the United States at the age of 3 from Nepal and learned English at school while speaking Nepali at home. Shrestha eventually also became fluent in Spanish, Hindi, and American Sign Language. . . .
The week of Feb. 3, 2014, on one of their daily calls (Masselli graduated from Virginia Tech in 2012 and is now finishing up law school at William & Mary), Shrestha told Masselli that she was going to make dinner for Ewing on Friday. The girls had been around each other three or four times, Masselli said (Ewing said in court it was more like six).
The girls had also kissed once or twice. “Sam’s boyfriend was aware that Sam had some interest in finding out what it would be like to kiss another girl,” Commonwealth’s Attorney Mary Pettitt told Cosmopolitan.com. “There had been a kiss exchanged between the two girls, but he doesn’t like the characterization even of ‘experimenting.’ I don’t know how you describe that. It was curiosity or interest. He didn’t feel like she was bisexual or not interested in him or anything.”
“You would be greatly mistaken if you wrote that Sam had a romantic relationship with the defendant,” Masselli wrote in an email. . . .

Problem: One girl is “bi-curious” or “hetero-flexible,” and the other girl — well, it’s serious for her, you see? One girl is popular and successful and has a boyfriend in law school, and the other girl — well, she’s damaged, you see? We are expected to ignore the fact that damaged people are often dangerous people. We aren’t supposed to mention this, because we aren’t supposed to “stigmatize” the mentally ill. Certainly we cannot be permitted to “blame the victims,” and Jessica Ewing depicted herself as a victim twice-over, first of childhood molestation and then of campus rape, although (conveniently) this is an unverified narrative, a poor-pitiful-me story offered as an excuse for murder.

Excuse me for being unsympathetic to murderers. For every killer who tells this kind of tale of youthful woe, there are hundreds of other people who had worse childhoods and yet managed to grow up to be law-abiding responsible adults. Now we return to The Tale of The Lesbian Strangler:

At 3 in the morning the night before the dinner, Ewing texted a friend from her Bible study group: “Tomorrow night is worrisome. And I can’t stop this idea. It slowly creeped its way to consume my black heart. I want to … let someone else decide, but I’ve already etched it in history.”
Shrestha’s mother, Rajshree Shrestha, said in court yesterday that the family prides itself on being good hosts and believes it is the ultimate treachery to eat food someone has prepared for you knowing all the time that you plan to kill them. Ewing, however, said there was no plan, and that she and Shrestha had been secretly dating. Ewing said the “worrisome” text was about how she was expecting they would have sex that night, something she was excited for but also anxious about. For one thing, she said, she felt she would be cheating on her boyfriend. Also, she said growing up Baptist in the small town of Easton, Maryland, she was led to believe that homosexuality was wrong. . . .

(News flash: Lots of people grow up Baptist in small towns and don’tbecome lesbian murderers.)

“Jessica’s never been an aggressive person,” her mother, Donna Ewing, a band teacher, told the judge. . . . Answering a question about all the surprises her daughter introduced in court — shame around lesbian feelings, rape, childhood sexual abuse — Donna Ewing said through tears to the judge, “It just breaks my heart knowing what she’s had to endure.”

(Again: There are people who had worse childhoods, but did not grow up to become lesbian murderers.)

She said in court that she was ultimately kicked out of the [university’s] Corps [of Cadets] following an accusation around the same time made by someone “who had it in for me” that she had hazed new recruits by pouring water on their faces while they exercised. . . .
Once ostracized from her Corps friends, Ewing said, she spiraled into a depression. It was then that she met Shrestha. Both biology students, they’d met outside a classroom where they had back-to-back classes. They wound up talking about TheLion King, which Ewing said was her favorite movie and which Shrestha said she had never seen. They made a plan to watch the film together, and Ewing described that as their first date. . . .

(So “somebody had it in for” her, and she was ostracized and depressed and then she meets the girl she is destined to murder. Notice it’s always poor pitiful Jessica we are expected to feel sorry for? Not, y’know, the girl she strangled.)

About two months later, Ewing drove to Shrestha’s apartment with a large bottle of Yellowtail wine and a can of whipped cream. She spent a long time getting ready and was an hour late. When she arrived, she said, she was disappointed that Shrestha was wearing yoga pants and complained about it. Ewing said Shrestha then changed into a dress, the same dress found later with her naked body. They then bickered, Ewing recalled, over the proper way to chop bell peppers for the meal . . .
Shrestha texted with her boyfriend throughout the evening, and then after a lull, “She hid my phone, sorry. Ha ha. Love you.” . . .

(Notice Jessica was an aggressive pursuer? Notice she was “disappointed” and “complained”? Notice Samanata kept texting with her boyfriend — reassuring him — and this caused Jessica to hide her phone? This is what an obsessive, controlling personality is like.)

As they drank, Ewing said, they became playful, making a fort out of blankets and having a whipped cream fight. Ewing said they then both took all their clothes off and had sex in the fort. A fight followed, Ewing said, during which Ewing called Shrestha a “whore” and a “spoiled bitch” who had a paid-for apartment and a Mercedes. Ewing said Shrestha then told her she was only an “experiment,” and Ewing became “beyond mad. I was hurt and upset. I would say enraged . . . I loved Sam. I couldn’t believe she would be . . . that I could be just some experiment to her. It hit me where I was most vulnerable. It’s no excuse. But I couldn’t control it at the time.”
In a struggle, Ewing said, they knocked over a hamster cage. Ewing then overpowered Shrestha and strangled her to death.

You can read the rest. Jessica’s tale of sudden rage and loss of control, we understand, is intended to show that Samanata’s murder was notpremeditated. But exactly why, after having sex with her, would Jessica call Samanata a “whore” and a “spoiled bitch”? If she harbored such resentments toward her, what was all that “playful” stuff about? Never mind. If this was a premeditated murder, Jessica’s plan for getting away for it was badly flawed. One interesting detail: Jessica asked “her best friend, Keifer Kyle Brown, to rid her apartment of ‘dark’ books — books about tarot cards and the occult and, inexplicably, a Shakespeare compilation — that she feared might make her look suspicious.”

Books about “tarot cards and the occult”? The lesbian murderer was dabbling in that stuff, huh? It makes sense.

War on Human Nature: The Celebrity Fantasy Dress-Up With ‘Caitlyn’ Game



We now live in a world in which we are required to believe lies, where telling the truth is condemned as “hate,” and where strangers feel qualified to diagnose you as suffering from an irrational “phobia” if you refuse to cooperate with their political agenda. As I remarked a couple of months ago, “Until I started studying radical feminism, I never thought of ‘normal’ as an achievement.”

Of course, one of the strange things I encountered when I started the research that became the “Sex Trouble” research project is that radical lesbian feminists were being labeled as “transphobic” because they refused to play along with dishonest “gender” games. Today, I woke up and turned on Fox News and was disturbed to see “Fox and Friends” playing along with Bruce Jenner’s ridiculous farce, and why? Because yesterday, when Neal Cavuto snarked at the new Vanity Fair “cover girl,”the Left went into attack mode and, we may presume, Rupert Murdoch’s executives issued a memo commanding everyone on the network to join in the “Caitlyn” charade. The Culture of Lies has become so powerful that we must forfeit respectability if we dare speak truth to perverse power.

Let’s flashback to what I wrote in January 2014:


By the time a feminist reaches the radical point at which normal sexual intercourse is regarded as inherently oppressive, she has already marched a good distance down the Crazyville Road. Sane, normal people become the Enemy and, in order to maintain her delusions, the feminist seeks out the company of her fellow radicals, who share and confirm these extreme beliefs. The maladjusted thereby exile themselves to a sort of voluntary asylum, where they only encounter lunatics like themselves.
So, RadFem 2013 was a conference in London, which resulted in a gigantic controversy because radical feminists insisted on excluding the “transgendered” from their female-only event, and one of the featured speakers, Australian lesbian feminist Professor Sheila Jeffreys, was about to publish a new book, Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism, that was deeply offensive to the “T” people represented in the LGBT acronym.
How crazy did that conflict become? At one point in April, the venue tried to cancel the event after discovering that “certain language was used and some statements were made about transgender people that would go against our equalities and diversity policy.”


This is what you find as you travel down the Crazyville Road: “Diversity” forbids radical feminists to have a women-only conference, because “equality” means that men have a right to be women, too.

Not only are the lunatics running the asylum, but now sane people are diagnosed as crazy for not participating in delusions.

Feminism is now undergoing a sort of nuclear meltdown because the liberal (“pro-sex”) feminists have encouraged men to accept the idea that promiscuity, pornography and prostitution are “empowering” to women. Buying into that liberal lie has a way of transforming men into depraved monsters who crave wicked and perverse thrills. Women who are brutalized by such beastly men — and girls coming of age, horrified by the prospect of being required to conform to the pornified “ideal” of womanhood in this twisted liberal culture — experience psychological trauma. As sex becomes increasingly dehumanized, the minds of both men and women are warped. Human dignity is abandoned. Reason gives way to savage ferocity. Selfishness is celebrated as wisdom and mercy is condemned as weakness. People abandon the ancient faith, and embrace radical ideology with the fanatical certainty of religious zeal.

“In order for men to have a justification for exploiting women and an ability to enforce that exploitation, heterosexuality has to become, not merely an act in relation to impregnation, but the dominant ideology. . . .
“Heterosexual hegemony insures that people think it natural that male and female form a life-long sexual/reproductive unit with the female belonging to the male. . . .
“Male supremacy is what is attacked in lesbian ideology. What we are doing in revolutionary struggle is to make our consciousnesses different. When enough people’s consciousnesses are different, then we make a revolution.”
Margaret Small, “Lesbians and the Class Position of Women,” in Lesbianism and the Women’s Movement, edited by Bunch and Nancy Myron (1975)

“The view that heterosexuality is a key site of male power is widely accepted within feminism. Within most feminist accounts, heterosexuality is seen not as an individual preference, something we are born like or gradually develop into, but as a socially constructed institution which structures and maintains male domination, in particular through the way it channels women into marriage and motherhood.”
— Diane Richardson, “Theorizing Heterosexuality,” inRethinking Sexuality (2000)

“Western culture is founded upon . . . the idea that there is an essential difference between men and women. . . .
“The idea of biological sexual difference stands as the major obstacle to the recognition that men and women actually stand in relation to one another in positions of dominance and subordination. . . .
“The category of sex into which humans are placed is the basis of compulsory heterosexuality . . .”
Sheila Jeffreys, Beauty and Misogyny: Harmful Cultural Practices in the West (2015)

The devil knows his time is short, you see.

Bob Belvedere at The Camp of the Saints had a very interesting post about the way revolutions impact mental health. The madness now erupting from our culture like a volcano of insanity is a result of the Obama Revolution: ISIS is the Hope and “Caitlyn” Jenner is the Change.