Trial translation "Australians are born with double standards, they will go to hell if they don't" Shangao County Video Contribution

The text is edited from the original video. Invasion and deletion.

The original Chinese script is taken from the video, available at either of the two links:

B station address: https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1jT4y1M7Hd

Youtube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x15UaJxo7Ug

Translator's Note:

• In trying to translate, and doing a little research, Churchill's statement seems to be about establishing a state for the Jews on Palestinian land, not when using poison gas in Iraq. In addition, according to the information found, Churchill is advocate for using poinsoned gas rather than the order of the use of poinsoned gas. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29701767 _
• The Anglican doctrine quoted is the thirteenth, not the fourteenth.

Notes on the English translation:

• I have tried to preserve the oral style and to maintain a line-by-line correspondence to the original script of the video in Chinese as much as possible.
• The script is written with a primarily Chinese audience in mind. Some "you"s and "we"s refer to the Chinese audience.

Shangao County: Australians are born with double standards, they will go to hell if they don't

On Australians' Double Standards

Hello everyone, my name is Tushan Gaoxian Tu.

Hello everyone, I am Shan Gao Xian.

A few days ago, the painting of Wuhe Qilin successfully broke the defense against Morrison. Why is Australia committing such crimes, and why is it shameless fury? Let me share my opinion: because neither we nor Afghanistan are human beings to them.

A few days ago, the painting of Wu He Qi Lin successfully broke the defence of PM Morrison. Australian government's pathetic performance almost makes people laugh. Why does Australia commit such crimes and yet show rage without shame? Let me talk about my opinion: because because neither we nor Afghans are considered human beings in their eyes.

Many people like to quote the famous liberal politician Winston Churchill: Democracy is the least bad system. I don't want to comment on whether this statement is right or wrong, I just want you to know something else Churchill said - when the war criminal Churchill ordered the use of gas bombs on Iraq in 1920, he said: "I do not admit to these people It's a mistake to do something like this, when a stronger, higher, wiser race did it to them, entered and replaced them in this way."

Many people like to quote Churchill, the famous liberalist politician, who said: "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried." I don't want to comment on whether this is right or wrong, I just want you to hear something else Churchill said. Churchill, the war criminal against humanity, advocated for the bombing of Iraq with poisoned gas in 1920 and said the following: "I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."[1]

If you think Himmler and Saddam should be hanged for gassing civilians, what about Churchill? Why use Churchill as an introduction? Not to criticize liberals, because they never deserve to represent freedom, but to say a very simple fact: In the eyes of a considerable number of Western liberals, people outside of them are not human. Just like Churchill's democratization, in which "people" does not include Irish, Indians, Africans.

If you think Himmler and Saddam should be hanged for using poisoned gas on civilians, what about Churchill? Why do I cite Churchill as a start here? It's not a criticism on liberalism. They have never deserved to represent liberty anyway. Just a simple fact : in the eyes of a significant portion of Western liberalists, people other than themselves do not count as human beings. Just as Churchill's term "democracy" does not include the Irish, the Indians, nor the Africans.

Yes, when looking at the various concepts of "human rights" and "human beings" in liberal discourse, don't ignore the background that liberalism as a whole has not defined what a person is, and there is no unified definition at all. Because the question of what is a human being is a part of the spiritual world and cannot be interfered with, if interference is contrary to freedom itself. The definition of man in this context is plural, and ultimately manifests itself in a sense of social average. In the context of Western, especially British and American culture, it is often extremely anti-human. To what extent is it anti-human? For example, Article 14 of the Thirty-nine Canons of the Anglican Church: "Good works done before justification are not pleasing to God, because they do not spring from faith in Christ Jesus, and they also do not. A person cannot be fit to receive grace." This is typical justification by faith, which means that even if a person is a good person like Lei Feng, if he does not believe in God, he is not a person. The Anglican creed contains not only justification by faith, but also Calvin's double predestination, that man is predestined both by God's rejection and by God's election. And whether or not to be saved does not depend on the almighty and omniscient God's foreknowledge of man's future actions, but first depends on whether he is chosen by God, because God's will is incomprehensible but necessarily just. That is to say, those who are rejected by God cannot be saved and can only go to hell. Calvin likes to light sky lanterns more than the Holy See, that is, to roast the living people-using a slow fire is a reflection of this mentality.

Indeed, when looking at the various concepts like "human rights" and "human beings" in liberal discourse, one must not lose sight of the fact that liberalism as a whole has never defined what a human being is, and cannot give a universal definition at all. Because the question of what is a human being is part of the spiritual world and cannot be interfered with. To interfere would be contrary to liberty itself. The definition of the human being, in this case, is pluralistic and ultimately just manifests itself as the average consciousness of the society. In the context of Western, especially Anglo-American culture, it is often manifested in an extremely anti-human way. To what extent is it anti-human? As an example, Article 13[2 ] of the 39 Articles of the Church of England: "Works done before the grace of Christ, and the Inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace." This is typ ical of justification by faith alone (sola fide), which means that even if a person is as good as Lei Feng, if he does not believe in God, then he is not considered a human being. This Anglican creed contains not only justification by faith but also John Calvin's double predestination theory, according to which God has actively chosen some people for damnation and some for salvation. And salvation does NOT depend on the omnipotent and omniscient God's foreknowledge of man's future actions, but above all on being chosen by God , whose will is incomprehensible but necessarily just. That is, those who are damned by God are beyond salvation and can only go to hell. Calvin is even more fond of burning at the stake than the Church, that is, roasting a living person - with slow burning. This is a reflection of this mentality.

As we all know, Calvinism has a huge influence on the Ansar nation, not only in Puritanism, not only in Anglicanism, not only in Christianity, but also on the universality of the social subconscious. In short, not only are pagans and heretics not considered human, but even believers are not necessarily human. Since they are not human, of course they cannot be treated in the same way as the righteous.

It is well known that Calvinism has had a tremendous influence on the Anglo-Saxon nation, an influence that exists not only in Puritanism, in Anglicanism, in Christianity, but also in the subconsciousness of society in general. In short, not only are pagans and heretics not considered human beings, but even believers may not be considered human beings. Since they are not considered human beings, they certainly cannot be treated in the same way as the righteous people are treated.

It can be said that the problem of double standards is rooted in the cultural genes of the Ansa nation. The problem has become so serious that it is not whether it is shameful to practice double standards, but that it is shameful not to practice double standards, and it will lead to hell. Because if a person does not practice double standards, it is equivalent to admitting that he is rejected by God and not chosen by God. To not engage in double standards ideologically is to admit that one is wrong. Being better than others means having the power to sin against others. That is to say, because I am high-quality, I can be low-quality. This is a logic that is difficult for the Chinese to understand, and this logic has been reinforced in the British and American colonial era and even today. Therefore, for the Chinese, all the advantages of Britain and the United States should not be a reason to worship Britain and the United States, otherwise it is equivalent to walking on the altar.

It can be said that the problem of double standards is rooted in the cultural DNA of the Anglo-Saxon nation, and the problem has become so serious that it is not whether it is shameful to engage in double standards, but that it is shameful not to engage in double standards, otherwise hell is the price to pay. For if one does not engage in double standards, it is equivalent to admitting that one is damned by God and is not the chosen people of God. Ideologically not engaging in double standards is the same as admitting that you are wrong. To be better than others means to have the right to commit crimes against them. It means that because I am standing high, I can act low. This is a logic that is difficult for the Chinese to grasp, but it is a logic that has been reinforced throughout the Anglo-American colonial era and even today. So for the Chinese, all the merits of Britain and America should not be a reason to worship them, otherwise, it would be the equivalent of walking up to the altar voluntarily as a sacrifice.

The issue of nationality is a long-standing chronic disease in Western civilization. It does not mean that people who do not believe in Christianity will not be expelled from their nationality, but different standards for expulsion have shaped the history of the West to a considerable extent. Because the influence of monotheism on Western civilization is so profound, just like how we Chinese view Confucius and Zhu Xi, we cannot deny that they influenced our words, deeds and even our thoughts, especially on the moral level. This influence is specific to Britain and the United States, that is, double standards belong to social morality. It can even be said that if Christians think they are the chosen ones, then liberals go one step further, they directly think of themselves as God. For example, the so-called Enlightenment thinker Locke, who proclaimed that "life is free," not only invested in the black slave trade, but also believed that the existence of a large number of African slaves led people to believe that they were "natural slaves" in the Aristotelian sense. As for abolitionists' actual stance on racial issues similar to animal protectionism, as reflected in the saying "no abolitionist wants to be a black neighbor".

The issue of human status is a chronic illness in Western civilization. I'm not saying that non-Christian faiths do not expel people from the human status, but rather that different criteria for expulsion have shaped the history of the West to a considerable extent . Because the influence of monotheism on Western civilization is so profound, just as no matter how you view Confucius and Zhu Xi, as a Chinese, we cannot deny that they have influenced our everyday words and thoughts, especially on the moral level. As to the British and Americans, this means double standards are part of social morality. One could even say that if the religious consider themselves to be the Chosen People, then the liberals are one step closer, they consider themselves to be God directly. For example, Locke, the so-called Enlightenment thinker who cried out that "all men are born free," not only invested in the black slave trade but argued that the very existence of large numbers of African slaves led people t o believe that they were "slaves by birth" in the Aristotelian sense. As for the abolitionist position on race, it resembles more of animal rights advocates, as reflected in the saying "no abolitionist is willing to be neighbours with a black man".

Civilized and uncivilized during the British Empire, democratic and undemocratic during the American Celestial Empire, are all variants of double predestination in practice, and therefore have their own double standards and differentiated treatment. What if you do as they say? Sorry, you can't convince all citizens of a free country that there is always a standard for you. More importantly, if you do what they say, you're acknowledging their superiority, convincing them that they are chosen by God, and will only further encourage them to practice double standards. In the West, especially in the English and American contexts, when we read the word "person", we must delve into its specific meaning, otherwise it will cause a huge misunderstanding. For example, the genocide against humanity document uses up to three words in the U.S. Constitution: "we the people" can never actually be understood as the meaning of "we the people", it actually means "only we are human beings". This is why the United States is "full of noble words and anti-humanity. If it weren't for American gangsters, who would understand the flavor".

Civilized and uncivilized in the British Empire, democracy and non-democracy in the American supremacy are, in practice, variants of the double predestination theory, and thus carry their double standards and differential treatment. What if they do what they dictate? Sorry, you cannot convince all citizens of liberalist states, so there is always a (set of double) standard(s) that suits you. More importantly, if you do what they say, you are acknowledging their superior status, which is tantamount to making them believe that they are Chosen, and will only further encourage them to engage in double standards. When we read the word "people" in the Western, especially British and American contexts, we must look deeper into its specific meaning, otherwise, it will cause monstrous misunderstandings. For example, the most used three words in the genocidal anti-human document -- the US Constitution: "we the people" can never be understood to mean "we the people", it actually means "only we ar e human". This is what the United States is: "Full of noble words, yet full of anti-human deeds. If not an American bandit, who would understand the taste of it?"[3]

Universal values and predestination are contradictory and interdependent, not only in Britain and America, but also a distinctive feature of Western civilization. Russell, for example, believes that the advanced nature of the proletariat in Marxism is another form of predestination. It's just that other forms of predestination appear so mild compared to the Anglo-American double predestination theory. What should be more aware of is that if, in Russell's view, Marxism is difficult to get rid of the traces of Christianity in some ideas, then it is necessary for us to have any illusions about the Anglo-American gangs with dual predestination cultural backgrounds?

Universal value and predestination are completely contradictory and at the same time interdependent. They not only exist in Britain and the United States but are also a distinctive feature of the entire Western civilization. For example, Bertrand Russell believes that "the advanced nature of the proletariat " in Marxism is another form of predestination. It's just that the other forms of predestination seem so mild compared to the British and American double predestination theory. What is more important to realize is that, if even Marxism in Russell's view still has trouble getting rid of traces of Christianity in some of its thinking, do we need to have any illusion about the Anglo-American bandit gang of the double predestination cultural background?

We often say that universal values are a veil of hypocrisy, but this is actually a misunderstanding, it is not. Because we are not human, they think it is good to do evil to us. They can use 10,000 ways to expel us, deny our rights, and give legitimacy to their aggression and plunder. Western monotheism is an ideology originating from the bottom, with equality and universality in its origin, but they have not brought equality and universality to all mankind. On the contrary, after becoming an official ideology, after two thousand Over the years of class rule, an extremely sophisticated method of using universal values to package hierarchy and hierarchy has evolved, so that similar ideas and methods have surpassed religion and become the genes of the entire Western civilization. The subtleties are hard to understand.

We often say that "universal values" are just a veil of hypocrisy, but this is a misunderstanding. Because we don't count as human. They think that doing evil to us is a kind of good. They can expel us from human status in ten thousand ways, deny our rights, and legitimize their invasion and plunder. Western monotheistic religions are an ideology that originates from the bottom of society and has equality and universality in its origin, but they do not bring equality and universality to all mankind. On the contrary, after becoming the official ideology, they have developed an extremely sophisticated way of using "universal values" to package the theory and practice of hierarchy through two thousand years of class rule. So much so that similar ideas and techniques have transcended the religious realm and become part of the DNA of the entire Western civilization, the subtleties of which are difficult for the Chinese to understand.

So, no illusions! Don't have fantasies! Don't have fantasies!

So, no illusions! No illusions! No illusions!

For example, the slaughter incident in Australia, which was exposed by its own family scandal, is still a manifestation of the superiority of the Australian system under the Chinese values. with the power to kill. Why is Australia angry? Because in their opinion, when Australia is showing its superiority, the Chinese, as the target of slaughter, are not only ungrateful, but make irresponsible remarks about the superiority of a free country, which is a serious arrogance. And what if you beat him up? On the contrary, he will doubt whether he is really chosen by God and whether he is really superior. East Asian morality cannot be applied to people under the cultural background of predestination and double predestination, and there cannot be any weakness or anyone who saves others by himself. Gangs are like springs, depending on how strong you are. If you are strong, he will be weak, and if you are weak, he will be strong.

For example, Australia exposed this war crime themselves this time. In Chinese values, this is still considered a reflection of the superiority of the Australian system. But don't judge another as one's self. Under predestination or even double predestination, this superiority constitutes , counterintuitively, the right to invade and kill. Why is Australia angry? Because in their view, when Australia is demonstrating its superiority, the Chinese, as the objects to be slaughtered, are not only ungrateful but even disputing the superiority of a "free " country, which is a serious arrogation. And what if you pummel them? They will instead surmise that they are really chosen by God, and really superior. To those people from predestination and double predestination cultures, we should never apply East Asian morality, never show softness, never measure them by ourselves. The bandit gang are like springs, depending on how strong you are. If you are strong, they are weak; if you are weak, they a re strong.

I said that we should put ourselves in the position of barbarians and consider how to deal with the relationship with the West, which is just using words that the Chinese can easily understand. In fact, the reality is much more cruel than this. The debate between Yi and Xia is always based on quality and human beings who are justified by deeds. Under the double predestination theory of justification by faith, as long as they think, we can never be considered human. . After all, even they themselves can fire each other. I'm not against Chinese people's recognition of liberalism in the context of Chinese, but if you have a favorable opinion of Britain and the United States because of liberalism, then it is tantamount to looking forward to Thanksgiving turkeys. From the Confucian perspective, any superiority of Britain and the United States is the theoretical foundation of crime in their culture. With that in mind, it's not hard to understand the crimes and anger against the Anglo-American history, against Australia.

When I say we have to put ourselves in the position of barbarians to consider how to deal with the West, I am merely using familiar concepts that are easy for the Chinese to understand. In fact, the reality is much harsher than that. In traditional Chinese discourse, the discernment between barbarian and civilized is ultimately about quality and justification by actions. But under the double predestination of justification by faith, we can never be counted as human beings if they don't want us so. After all, even they themselves can expel each other. I have no objection to Chinese people endorsing liberalism in the Chinese context, but to have any good feelings about Britain and America because of liberalism is tantamount to a turkey looking forward to Thanksgiving. Any superiority of the Britons and Americans perceived from the Confucian perspective is the theoretical root for the crimes conducted under their culture. Understanding this, it is not difficult to understand the crimes in British and American history, and the crimes and anger from Australia.

Afghanistan is our neighboring country, and we have been invaded and slaughtered in our history. The Afghan people were slaughtered by the devils and we were powerless and could not even make a sound. This is the grief of the Afghan people, our grief, and the grief of mankind. I have always had sympathy for the people of the Islamic world since modern times, not because I identify with monotheism and Islam, but because colonialism and imperialism are too bullying. China is indeed the target of being hurt by extremist religious ideology, but don't forget that when Ali Nasser, they also tried to solve the problem with so-called civilized methods. What forced them to be what they are today? Who is to blame? I believe that Qianqiu Qingshi has its own public opinion, because gangsters cannot rule forever.

Afghanistan is our neighbour. We, too, have suffered greatly from invasions and massacres in our history. The Afghan people are being slaughtered by the devils but we can't do anything about it, we can't even make a sound. This is a tragedy for the Afghan, a tragedy for us, a tragedy for humanity. I have always had sympathy for the people of the Islamic world in recent times, not because I identify with monotheism or Islam, but because colonialism and imperialism were just too bullying . Indeed, we in China have also been victimized by extremist religious ideas, but let's not forget that at the time of Muhammad Ali and Gamal Abdel Nasser, they also tried to solve problems with a so-called "civilized" approach. What drove them to the state today? Who is to blame? I believe that history will arrive at its own justice because the bandit gang can not rule the world forever.

The enemy we have to face is such an anti-human gang of unprecedented shamelessness, unprecedented evil, no personality, and no conscience. All we can do is fight. Fighting in all places, fighting by all means, is not for the glory of one country and one family, but for the beggars of all the peoples of five continents.

The enemy we have to face is such an unprecedentedly shameless, unprecedentedly evil, totally inhumane, totally unconscionable anti-human bandit gang. All we can do is to fight. To fight in all places, with all means, not for the glory of any one country or nation, but for the livelihood of the billions of people on all continents.

In the end, the genocide of North American slave owners, the gang against humanity must be destroyed!

Finally, the North American slave-owning genocidal anti-human bandit gang must be destroyed![4]

Check in!

Charge into the border![5]

Notes

[1] There might be a factual error in the original script, although not disqualifying the point being made here. These words were not uttered in direct relation to 1920 Iraq poisoned gas bombing. But in 1937, when arguing for opening the gates of Palestine for Jewish immigration, Churchil made the quoted statements to the Palestine Royal Commission. Check source and judge it for yourself: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29701767

[2] The original script said Article 14, but it's actually Article 13.

[3] The original script here is in the form of a 4-part short poem with each part consisting of exactly 5 Chinese characters.

[4] The author of the original video chants this line at the end of every video he makes. This is an allusion to Cato the Elder's "Carthago delenda est".

[5] This is a slogan of Ru Guan Xue which is a popular internet meme the author started, comparing today's US to the Ming dynasty hanging on its last breath, and today's China as the force from Manchuria (babarians from the central land Chinese viewpoint ) and eventually ended Ming and established Qing dynasty.