US evil metastases from its original 1971
tumor is now reaching the maximum the world can take. However, the
pro-Zionist and the anti-Chinese evil already started in US in the 19th
Century - and in the 20th Century Chinese super-physicist Chien-Shiung
Wu got to personally feel it.
The
world's top physicist Chien-Shiung Wu was "asked" (i.e. coerced*) by
the Oppenheimer team to make the atom bomb working, which she did - but
was remarkably absent in the Oppenheimer movie.
* Men from the
Manhattan project came to her dormatory room, confiscated and classified
her typewritten paper which she had made ready for publication in the
Physical Review, and ordered her to solve the crucial problem that
hindered them from making the atom bomb. The world's first nuclear
reactor, a breed reactor, was purposefully built for enriching
plutonium. However, because of a theoretical flaw, it shut itself off
before reaching the level of producing the right amount of plutonium.
Chien-Shiung
Wu then in 1949* proved quantum entanglement and that Einstein was
wrong, and in 1956 proved that the universe was in imbalance with
anti-matter, and set the first experimental basis for the Standard Model
- but was the most downtrodden, belittled and persecuted physicist
ever. Why? Because of her ethnicity. Considering that Marie Curie had
already got two Nobel prizes for much less, one might conclude that it
wasn't Chien-Shiung Wu's sex but the fact that she was Chinese.
*
The polarization of pairs of gamma-ray photons produced by
electron–positron annihilation was made by Chien-Shiung Wu in 1949,
thereby demonstrating that entangled particle pairs considered by
Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen as a paradox. Chien-Shiung Wu was the first 1949
to conclusively verify photon entanglement. Her experiment was done
only 15 years after Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen
first brought the concept of quantum entanglement to light in what’s
known as the EPR paper.
The width and extent of
Chien-Shiung Wu's scientific genius and achievements top all.
Chien-Shiung Wu not only mastered theory and the math but also the
technology needed for empirical experiments - to an extent that she made
the most crucial parts herself on top of the world's by then cutting
edge equipment. If she had been Jewish her intelligence and talent would
have been celebrated but because she was Chinese it twas "explained"
only as her "hard work".
Chien-Shiung Wu: 'I wonder whether the
tiny atoms and nuclei, or the mathematical symbols, or the DNA molecules
have any preference for either masculine or feminine treatment.'*
*
In 1936, Chien-Shiung Wu was accepted by the University of Michigan,
but she was shocked when facing extreme sex segregation on the campus
and the fact that women had to use a separate sex segregated entrance.
She therefore decided to study at the more liberal Berkley in
California. Wu was a popular student and the most talented.
Chien-Shiung
Wu was extremely close to her father (compare Peter Klevius original
research on how fathers, brothers etc. males not affected by
heterosexual attraction made it possible for girls/women to transgress
sex segregation), who was an engineer. He created an environment for
girls that encouraged curiosity, questioning and research from an early
age. Wu's mother was a school teacher who also valued sex equality.
Chien-Shiung
Wu received her primary education at a school for girls that was
founded by her father. At home, she was surrounded by books, magazines
and newspapers. Her hand writing was considered outstanding by others as
she was praised for her Chinese calligraphy.
As a high school
student, Chien-Shiung Wu (much like Einstein) struggled in the subject
of mathematics. Her father bought self study guides to trigonometry,
algebra and geometry one summer to help. That experience created a life
long habit of self learning and gave Wu sufficient confidence.
Wu
emerged from an environment that blended traditional Chinese culture
and modernism. Wu Zhong-yi, her engineer/businessman father, and Fan
Fu-hua, her teacher mother, were progressives from well-to-do scholarly
families who opened the Ming De School for girls in Liuhe, emphasising
not only the Analects of Confucius and Chinese poetry but also maths and
sciences. Crucially, the couple, who also had two sons, recognised
their daughter’s remarkable intellectual qualities.
Her father
started reading articles in scientific journals to Wu before she learned
to read, and allowed her to play with the quartz radios he constructed.
He was not just a scholar, he was also a revolutionary who embraced
boldness and took part in China’s 1911 revolution. He included “shiung”,
the Chinese character for “hero”, in her name, and held up the Ming
dynasty explorer-diplomat Zheng He, whose legendary seven voyages set
sail from their hometown, as a “bang yang”, or life example.
After
finishing in the top 10 among more than 10,000 applicants, Wu, aged 11,
attended the prestigious Suzhou Girls High School, where her preference
for hard sciences solidified. Graduating top of her class in 1929, she
headed to the National Central University (NCU), in Nanjing, China’s
then capital. NCU housed an impressive physics faculty that included Shi
Shiyuan, who had worked with Nobel laureate Marie Curie, Wu’s idol.
Wu Chien-shiung’s father takes young Wu to the Temple of Mazu to learn of Zheng He. Illustration: Samuel Porteous
Wu Chien-shiung’s father takes young Wu to the Temple of Mazu to learn of Zheng He. Illustration: Samuel Porteous
In
Nanjing, Wu remained laser-focused on her studies and gained the lab
experience she craved. But, ever her father’s daughter, in December
1932, she agreed to lead a protest against Japanese aggressions plaguing
the country. Hundreds of students followed Wu to the Presidential
Palace, where, as evening fell and temperatures dropped, Chiang emerged.
He promised Wu and the crowd to do better, and Wu returned to her lab,
little suspecting she and Chiang would meet again, under quite different
circumstances, some 30 years later.
Wu
is especially cheered for not pushing her name in science - i.e. the
very opposite to Peter Klevius who has been forced to do so*.
Without
Peter Klevius pushing his name, his scientific contributions to the
world would be wasted - and he would have to live with a bad conscience
for not even trying to offer the world something he thinks is beneficial
for all people.
While supporting
religious extremism, West bans what it needs the most, i.e.
Confucianism* and Chinese talent, the main keys to Chinese tech
superiority.
Chien-Shiung Wu was (and still is) belittled as an
"experimental" physicist. However, whereas a theoretical physicist
doesn't need to be able to do experiments, an experimental physicist
need to know everything about both theory and tech.
Chien-Shiung
Wu's plan to return to China was interrupted by Mao's cultural
revolution and ban on Confucianism*. However, little did she know that
US would repeat the same ban after her death.
*
Most intellectuals, political reformers and revolutionaries in the 20th
century opposed China’s traditions – with Confucianism at their core –
blaming them for China’s temporary backwardness and poverty, which was
in fact caused by Western and Japanese attacks. This culminated in an
anti-Confucian Maoism. But since the early 1990s, there has been a huge
revival of the Confucian tradition, not just for political reasons but
also because of economic reasons – not just China, but other countries
with a Confucian heritage like South Korea and Japan have modernized in a
relatively peaceful and harmonious way. And it turned out that
Confucian values that had been blamed for China’s (Western+Japan caused)
problems were actually the key for modernization. The gravely misled
and violent protesters 1989 wrongly believed that Western style
"democracy" would be better for China. However, today in retrospective
China's development on the anti-Maoism track proves them fundamentally
wrong.
Peter Klevius wrote:
Media's US led depiction of the 1989 Tiananmen "democracy"* riots in China is as far you can get from the truth.
* Even if some of the violent
rioters really believed that "democracy" would be better for China,
history now tells them how wrong they were. Moreover, just consider
dollar embezzler (1971-) US reaction if China had become even stronger
technologically, economically, politically and morally (if the latter is
even possible for a 1.4 billion country)? That wouldn't have extended
US stolen hegemony, right.
$-freeloader
US extreme anti-China cognitive, financial, militaristic warfare is
made possible with US 1971 stolen world dollar hegemony and is a crime
against humanity and most people are too busy/ignorant to understand the
danger of the cornered US - but instead fear China which offers best
consumer goods, infrastructure etc, without imposing its system as US
does!
Sadly, many haven't understood the enormity of US
financial fraud 1971. And US economists - and some stupid US puppets
called "allies" - just "explain" away how US as the only country in the
world can prosper and militarize the rest of the world despite constant
trade deficit. "We're just so good" is Bloomberg's and others answer!
When
US 1971 stole* the world dollar it could manipulate it as it wanted and
have the world pay for its trade deficit. However, China is now back
and challenges it with superior tech which makes consumers happy.
China's capitalist reform got severely hit 1988-89 because of US Feds
chock rate increase. That caused havoc in a still extremely vulnerable
China on its path out from Maoism.
*
1944 Bretton Woods "agreement" pegged the world dollar to US dollar
which was then pegged to gold under US Feds custodianship. 1971 US was
bankrupt and arbitrarily violated the gold connection but kept the
custody over the world dollar. Although it hit poor countries the most,
China was especially vulnerable because it was in an intensive
opening-up trade development following Deng Xiaoping's capitalist reform
policy.
Peter Klevius analysis
of the US controlled media massacre of the truth about the Tiananmen
square incident by neglecting cause and effect while producing
anti-China* smear.
* No, it's
not just CCP! Undemocratic Christian theocracy US uses Sinophobia as
synonymous with "democracy", well knowing that the absolute majority of
Chinese people don't share the US view on "democracy", although young
Chinese in the late 1980s realized the difference in living standard
between US and China after Deng Xiaoping opened up the China that Mao
had closed. So when US again manipulated the world dollar it hit hard
(up to 19% 1989 inflation from 7% 1987) on China's economy.
Peter
Klevius agrees with Klaus Schwab (WEF) who said "I respect China's
tremendous achievements … over the last forty years. China could act as a
role model for many countries, but in the end, each country should be
left to make its own decision regarding the system it wants to adopt. We
should be very careful in imposing systems
but the Chinese model is certainly a very attractive model for quite a
number of countries." Peter Klevius: Especially for US!
Wu'er Kaixi (aka Örkesh Dölet) Of Uyghur heritage from Xinjiang had a leading role during the 1989 protests.
Peter Klevius: What did he think about the old Uyghur jihad battle cry "kill the Han and the Hui"?
Summary
of Peter Klevius Tiananmen analysis: There were two distinct and
mutually exclusive groups of protesters who were not distinguishable by
their appearance.
The absolute
majority were peaceful protesters. However, the rest were intent for
violence, and their leaders even openly admitted that they wanted to
provoke PLA to also use violence "so the world could see it". But even
this wasn't enough. As critics of Chai Ling’s role in the movement
point to the infamous “last words” interview she gave to US
journalist Philip Cunningham on May 28, just days before the riots.
With the movement facing an uncertain future, a deeply pessimistic
and fearful Chai gave video testimony to Cunningham in which she
described her intention to leave the square, adding “I want to live”.
But, other students would have to stay until the square was “washed
with blood,” she said.
Much of the rioters brutality was the
result of Beijing’s decision on June 2 to send in unarmed soldiers to
clear the Square. The unarmed soldiers were set upon immediately by
rioters around the Square waiting for the chance to attack the soldiers.
Beijing’s armed battalions were sent in later.
US Embassy daily reports of what was happening at the time.
The US Embassy report for June 4 notes:
“the beating to death of a PLA soldier, who was in the first APC to
enter Tiananmen Square, in full view of the other waiting PLA soldiers,
appeared to have sparked the shooting that followed.”
So it was the rs, not the government soldiers, that started the bloody confrontation.
State Department chroniclers continue their unbiased summary of events:
“.. the initial moves against the students suggested to many that the
Chinese leadership was still, as of the morning of June 3, committed to a
relatively peaceful resolution to the crisis.”
From there we go to:
“fascinating eyewitness accounts of the disorganized and confused
retreat of PLA soldiers from the center of Beijing after their advance
on Tiananmen Square was halted by crowds of demonstrators on the morning
of June 3.’ ..the soldiers were ridiculed by Chinese citizens and
scolded by elderly women who called them “bad boys” and “a disgrace to
the PLA.”
On the day after, on June 4, however: “thousands of
civilians (rioters - not peaceful protesters) stood their ground or
swarmed around military vehicles. APCs were set on fire, and
demonstrators besieged troops with rocks, bottles, and Molotov
cocktails.”
Media reports confirmed this rioters violence.
According to the Wall Street Journal of June 4:
“As columns of tanks and tens of thousands soldiers approached
Tiananmen many troops were set on by angry mobs … [D]ozens of soldiers
were pulled from trucks, severely beaten and left for dead. At an
intersection west of the square, the body of a young soldier, who had
been beaten to death, was stripped naked and hung from the side of a
bus. Another soldier’s corpse was strung at an intersection east of the
square.”
Even ABC, later to one-sidedly dramatize cruelties by
government forces, describes how in front of the Australian embassy a
PLA solder was beaten to death, disembowelled and left with his penis
stuck in his mouth.
But those who condemn government violence at
Tiananmen need to explain the seeming hatred of the government among
protesters that triggered Tiananmen events .
Chai
Ling, like many other Tianamen rioters became Christian and welcomed in
US. Listen to her video to measure her bloodthirstiness - and
cowardice.
The "tank man" hoax*
*
The photographer used Peter Klevius favorite film camera (before F4)
Nikon Fe2. 10 years earlier Peter Klevius bought a Nikon Fe because of
its fast (for fill in flash) titanium shutter, which also handled better
in cold than Canon's slow and cold sensitive fabric shutter. Moreover,
whereas Canon A1 was useless with low battery (which was also really
expensive), Nikon Fe (and Fe2) could still do B and 1/90 mechanically.
Double exposure and good depth and field control also helped. However,
the best thing was the wonderful metering system with both manual and
auto relative to each other on the side of the viewer.
Although
the "tank man" photo is authentic, its usage is almost never. As Peter
Klevius has always said: Cameras never lie - pictures do. And in this
case it's the presentation against a background on an extremely
distorted Western presentation of the "Tiananmen massacre", that
completely eliminates the "hero" against the "evil CCP" mantra - at a
time when CCP had abandoned everything Maoist.
Peter
Klevius was first reluctant to even mention the "tank man" in the post
because he thought most people already understood the silliness in it.
However, a brief check revealed that BBC and other fake media still uses
it deeply tendentiously and polemically. According to Peter Klevius,
the incident clearly shows that PLA had strong orders to be careful with
non-violent people no matter what they did. Otherwise any army would
hav just taken the guy for interrogation - as a ny police would have
done in any other country. Moreover, his strange behavior can only be
described as either mad or just joking in front of the crowd. There was
nothing to "protest" against - or did he want them to park on a normally
busy street, or even worse, return to Tiananmen square?!
1)
5 June 1989 everyone in Beijing knew that PLA wouldn't hurt non-violent
civilians. Yes, that happened accidently in the chaotic battle the day
before with the rioters who deliberately started the violence (already 3
June) against unarmed PLA soldiers whom they burned alive and hanged
etc. That the PLA may have used excessive force is in line with any army
in a similar situation. Just listen to Chai Ling and understand how
deliberate the provocations from the rioters side were. Btw, also check
the Waco siege and similar incidents in US.
2) It didn't happen at Tiananmen square, and the tanks were not going against protesters but just the contrary, i.e. back home.
3) Little, or nothing is publicly known of the man's identity or that of the commander of the lead tank.
4)
An endless list of "theories" have been put forward. Shortly after the
incident, London newspaper Sunday Express named him as "Wang Weilin"
(王维林), a 19-year-old student who was later charged with "political
hooliganism" and "attempting to subvert members of the People's
Liberation Army." This claim has been rejected by internal Chinese
Communist Party documents, which reported that they could not find the
man, according to the Hong Kong-based Information Center for Human
Rights. One party member was quoted as saying: "We can't find him. We
got his name from journalists. We have checked through computers but
can't find him among the dead or among those in prison."
There
are several conflicting stories about what happened to him after the
"demonstration". In a speech to the President's Club in 1999, Bruce
Herschensohn, former deputy special assistant to US President Richard
Nixon, alleged that he was executed 14 days later; other sources alleged
he was executed by firing squad a few months after the Tiananmen Square
protests. In Red China Blues: My Long March from Mao to Now, Jan Wong
writes that she believes from her interactions with the government press
that they have "no idea who he was either" and that he is still alive
somewhere on the mainland. Another theory is that he escaped to Taiwan
and remains employed there as an archaeologist in the National Palace
Museum. This was first reported by the Yonhap news agency in South
Korea.
The Chinese government has made few
statements about the incident or the people involved. The government
denounced him as a "scoundrel" once on state television. In a 1990
interview with Barbara Walters, then-General Secretary of the Chinese
Communist Party Jiang Zemin was asked what became of the man. Jiang
first stated (through an interpreter), "I can't confirm whether this
young man you mentioned was arrested or not", and then replied in
English, "I think [that he was] never killed." The government also
argued that the incident evidenced the "humanity" of the country's
military.
In a 2000 interview with Mike
Wallace, Jiang said, "He was never arrested." He then stated, "I don't
know where he is now." He also emphasized that the tank stopped and did
not run the young man over.
Cui
Guozheng, was an unarmed cook in the 348th Regiment of the 116th
Division. He was murdered by rioters because he did not stay close
enough with the other troops.
Peter Klevius started as an empty
origo/singularity whose existencecentrism (mind) now is the sum of his
experience with his surroundings and due synaptic adaptations, while
also constituting part of the surroundings of others. A canvas which
doesn't have a soul/self of its own but does reflect what it has
experienced and adapted to. However, the false impression of having a
"self", "free will" etc. rests on language, i.e. the use of the word 'I'
which animals and humans without language lack. As a human with
language you are in the same position as Peter Klevius, and together we
all (incl. non-language humans) make up the total existencecentrism of
humankind - and the key to a universal human with (negative) Human
Rights without irrational exceptions and impositions. So when Peter
Klevius talks/writes/acts, he does so against a background that includes
the latest synapses combinations in his brain as well as what his other
nerve signals bring to his thalamus from his body and other
surroundings. Peter
Klevius (1981, 1992): The ultimate question ought to be: What is it
like to be a stone? There's no difference between human consciousness
polished through living, and the "consciousness" of a stone that has
been smoothly shaped in streaming water against other rocks, stones etc.
It started its "life" as a rugged piece of rock in a mountain and
adapted to its life in streaming water down hill, or perhaps as a piece
of rock falling on a beach and polished by waves.
How US robs the world
.
