BBC's pathetic and misleading "science" program never mentions China, the world leader in science, except when BBC thinks it's an opportunity to repeat US Tiananmen lies from 1989.

 

BBC's cherry picked ignorant Sinophobic guest: 'Deepseek is good for those who can't afford the very top* end products coming out of United States.' Peter Klevius: Why should they pay more for inferior products?!

* The desperate infantile clinging to an old false narrative just becaus US is our closest "ally" only leeds backwards. No, US isn't UK's closest "ally", far from it. US is a failed authoritarian dictatorship which is now more than ever selfish precisely because it's about losing its hegemony. This is also why US right now constitutes a more serious threat than ever before to the world. And England should realize that its Swedish/Old Nordic creole language called English is own by the world, not by England. So talking the same creole that is common also in US shouldn't be overstated. Peter Klevius uses to say 'från arm till hand till finger' which in the creole language called English would be 'from arm till hand till finger'. There are endless examples like this. English is distorted spelling and pronunciation of Swedish, and the rest 1/3 of both languages is Latin.

It has been proven beyond any doubt that Deepseek's invention is superior to US made ones. And when US companies realized it they immediately started questioning Deepseek's use of data, although they should rather contemplate why they themselves with better data, chips etc. couldn't make it! And Deepseek's public version is just the top of a Chionese iceberg of tech that inevitably will sink US stolen (1971-) dollar hegemony. US better follow the Swedish saying 'gilla läget'*. And finally, the "CCP threat" mantra is perhaps one of the most misleading ever because why would CCP harm its own R&D success and global status - and why wouldn't $-embezzler (since at least 1971) US do it?

* 'The art of letting go, or 'that's the way it is, you have to accept it'.

 

Peter Klevius wrote:

 

 

However, the reason that China wants to avoid the topic is complex: 1) the murdering rioters were mostly young ignorant students, and 2) the cautious use of first sending unarmed soldiers was a mistake.  

Do realize that it's US who acts badly because it knows the stolen dollar hegemony is at risk because of China's accelerating success - which makes China the least likely to behave against its own interest!

And in retrospective we now know that Deng Xiaoping's post-Maoism reform policy - which continued uninterrupted - was by far the best for China and the Chinese people.

Fact check: Was China's Tienanmen massacre a US-led myth?
Definitely (see below). When world-$ thief (since 1971) US used its stolen exclusive "right" to manipulate the world-$ by a chock rate hike, this affected China's rapidly growing post-Mao still vulnerable economy very hard. Against the background of suddenly increasing cost of living and a misleading propaganda instead accusing lack of democracy as the source, lured many students and others to direct their protest in the wrong direction. However, although the absolute majority of protesters were peaceful, some extremists acted as puppets for US in its campaign inciting hate against a leadership that was way more successful than the Russian one in its disastrous perestroika around the same time.

The so called Tiananmen massacre was a myth pushed by US led foreign influence, and in sharp contrast to the US lies, China's government actually tip-toed in its response - to an extent that they sent unarmed soldiers to guard the streets. However, these soldiers were burnt alive in their vehicles by so called "unarmed" rioters who used Molotov cocktails etc. (see below). The counterrevolutionary insurgency was engineered by foreign adversaries who sought to exploit certain policy mistakes and temporary economic difficulties - due to US fed's rate hike (compare how devastating US Fed's actions were for latin-America in the same 1980s)  - to subordinate China.

Peter Klevius wrote:

 

 

* 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.

A recorded public time-line of Peter Klevius original research on evolution, consciousness, existencecentrism, anthropology and sociology 1979-2012 - and some thoughts about self-citation  

Read Peter Klevius in-depth research on The Psychosocial Freud Timeline.

Read Peter Klevius Origin of the Vikings from 2005 - now again available after Google deleted it 2014 and again in February 2024. 

Read how climate change made human evolution possible in SE Asian volatile archipelago - not on a continent like Africa. 

Peter Klevius opposite reading and correction of Greenland data compared to researchers biased with climate hysteria.

 Read how two craniopagus twins born 2006 solved the "greatest mystery in science" - and proved Peter Klevius theory from 1992-94 100% correct.  

 Read Peter Klevius thesis Pathological Symbiosis in LVU on how a hoax child-psychoanalytic concept is still used by the Swedish social state to abduct children on subjective grounds.  It also reveals (see email correspondens in appendix) how legislators were lured to pass a Human Rights violating law which was then blinked by ECHR because it was seen as below the "margin of appreciation". 

 

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.

 

How US robs the world

$-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.

.

After Deepseek's success BBC has in every "news" used the Tienanmen lies to smear it. Can any "reporting" be more despicable, appalling and misleading - Peter Klevius is just asking!

 

However, the reason that China wants to avoid the topic is complex: 1) the murdering rioters were mostly young ignorant students, and 2) the cautious use of first sending unarmed soldiers was a mistake.  

Do realize that it's US who acts badly because it knows the stolen dollar hegemony is at risk because of China's accelerating success - which makes China the least likely to behave against its own interest!

And in retrospective we now know that Deng Xiaoping's post-Maoism reform policy - which continued uninterrupted - was by far the best for China and the Chinese people.

Fact check: Was China's Tienanmen massacre a US-led myth?
Definitely (see below). When world-$ thief (since 1971) US used its stolen exclusive "right" to manipulate the world-$ by a chock rate hike, this affected China's rapidly growing post-Mao still vulnerable economy very hard. Against the background of suddenly increasing cost of living and a misleading propaganda instead accusing lack of democracy as the source, lured many students and others to direct their protest in the wrong direction. However, although the absolute majority of protesters were peaceful, some extremists acted as puppets for US in its campaign inciting hate against a leadership that was way more successful than the Russian one in its disastrous perestroika around the same time.

The so called Tiananmen massacre was a myth pushed by US led foreign influence, and in sharp contrast to the US lies, China's government actually tip-toed in its response - to an extent that they sent unarmed soldiers to guard the streets. However, these soldiers were burnt alive in their vehicles by so called "unarmed" rioters who used Molotov cocktails etc. (see below). The counterrevolutionary insurgency was engineered by foreign adversaries who sought to exploit certain policy mistakes and temporary economic difficulties - due to US fed's rate hike (compare how devastating US Fed's actions were for latin-America in the same 1980s)  - to subordinate China.

Peter Klevius wrote:

 

 

* 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.

A recorded public time-line of Peter Klevius original research on evolution, consciousness, existencecentrism, anthropology and sociology 1979-2012 - and some thoughts about self-citation  

Read Peter Klevius in-depth research on The Psychosocial Freud Timeline.

Read Peter Klevius Origin of the Vikings from 2005 - now again available after Google deleted it 2014 and again in February 2024. 

Read how climate change made human evolution possible in SE Asian volatile archipelago - not on a continent like Africa. 

Peter Klevius opposite reading and correction of Greenland data compared to researchers biased with climate hysteria.

 Read how two craniopagus twins born 2006 solved the "greatest mystery in science" - and proved Peter Klevius theory from 1992-94 100% correct.  

 Read Peter Klevius thesis Pathological Symbiosis in LVU on how a hoax child-psychoanalytic concept is still used by the Swedish social state to abduct children on subjective grounds.  It also reveals (see email correspondens in appendix) how legislators were lured to pass a Human Rights violating law which was then blinked by ECHR because it was seen as below the "margin of appreciation". 

 

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.

 

How US robs the world

$-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: Do understand how lied to you are about China by $-thief (1971-) US!

 

Peter Klevius asks Google's U.S. News: 'United States GDP growth 2024' but gets China instead. Is the US system so backward that it has no hunch about even any estimate?

Do realize that never since Goebbel's Nazi lies in the 1930s, have we seen such a wild and evil propaganda* - until now, i.e. after it in early 2000 became clear that China would surpass US 2014 and that China now is a universe ahead, while the measuring tools are adapted to US stolen balloon economy.

* Not only does US possess the stolen dollar printer, but it also controls the media printer as well as the monopoly on the global dollar flow. At any moment it can weaponize everything re. the world dollar. That's not fair, and that's why China is a rock solid healthy alternative. Just swallow your unfounded delusional US love and China hate. Don't misunderstand Peter Klevius. He feels like at home when in US, and usually has a very good time with US people. However, to get US back on its feet it has first to be knocked down!

However, Google ducks the question. Why? Simply because it's too embarrassing to admit that despite enormous free money printing, US cannot reach even 3% while China without such a printer - and against all US anti-China campaigning - makes 5%!

 

Peter Klevius wrote:

Joe Biden: China will never surpass US stolen (1971) $-printing (i.e. US nominal GDP). Peter Klevius: He's right. No one can beat a counterfeiter, except the police and justice - in this case Chinese R&D superiority based on meritocracy and talent!

January 15, 2025

A recorded public time-line of Peter Klevius original research on evolution, consciousness, existencecentrism, anthropology and sociology 1979-2012 - and some thoughts about self-citation  

Read Peter Klevius in-depth research on The Psychosocial Freud Timeline.

Read Peter Klevius Origin of the Vikings from 2005 - now again available after Google deleted it 2014 and again in February 2024. 

Read how climate change made human evolution possible in SE Asian volatile archipelago - not on a continent like Africa. 

Peter Klevius opposite reading and correction of Greenland data compared to researchers biased with climate hysteria.

 Read how two craniopagus twins born 2006 solved the "greatest mystery in science" - and proved Peter Klevius theory from 1992-94 100% correct.  

 Read Peter Klevius thesis Pathological Symbiosis in LVU on how a hoax child-psychoanalytic concept is still used by the Swedish social state to abduct children on subjective grounds.  It also reveals (see email correspondens in appendix) how legislators were lured to pass a Human Rights violating law which was then blinked by ECHR because it was seen as below the "margin of appreciation".

When will UK get that it's an impoverished* puppet state of $-thief (1971-) US? And when US has bought all of it (US already controls most of UK) with stolen $, then UK will be totally excluded from superior tech from China, while US itself will welcome Chinese tech out of necessity.

* UK is a better run copy of US, yet has roughly only half (proportional to population) the nominal GDP (which is defined on US criminally stolen $-printing monopoly). Nominal GDP

 

How US robs the world. Click to see the 1971 video when US criminally avoids bankruptcy by continuing its embezzlement while violating Bretton Woods agreement about the world dollar.

China's real GDP is of course much higher than US controlled IMF's report. After all, a simple comparison of what's going on in China already, puts US far in the shadows. And of course CCP wants to tone it down because unlike US, China benefits from peace and trade in superior consumer goods and infrastructire.

How ignorant (or worse) is BBC's Sarah Montague when she thinks US is the leader in AI?!

Why is BBC's Sarah Montague so eagerly misinforming people about China?

It's very simple, When US 1971 stole the world-dollar by violating with impunity the Bretton Woods agreement from 1944, it ended an already for long ongoing embezzlement to cober up for Vietnam war, arms and space race etc., which made it impossible for US to keep its promise to peg the dollar to gold. However, as a consequence, instead of declaring bankruptcy, US pushed its own overdraft on the rest of the world by keeping full control over the printing and interest manipulation over the world dollar.

UK's economic suicide rests on "our closest ally" and "special bond" delusion.

UK needs China for growth and development. Only then will UK be able to connect to US on an equal footing.

While using its $-hegemony to impoverish its "allies", US adds insult to injury by also demanding them to increase their military spending, of which most will end up in US pockets.

US stolen dollar feeds the Wall Street balloon and the Pentagon arms shop (which forces "allies" to buy outdated US arms tech), while hindering real development.

US has 7 infra-structurally tired cities with more than a million population - China has 105, and most with cutting edge infrastructure.

According to UN definition China has 18 mega cities, India 2, and US none. 2030 Shanghai population will exceed 130 million.

Contrary to US led Western China-hate doomsday ranting about population decline, China has roughly the size of one whole US population of rural people (20% out of 35% rural total) ready to move to the cities. These people also tend to be younger and have more children.

Rural population: China 35%, India 64%, UK 15%, US 17%, Sweden 11%, Finland 14%.

China and US infrastructure strategies differ markedly.

Comparative analysis of US and Chinese infrastructure projects shows significant differences between the parties in terms of planning, implementation, and initial capabilities. With a high degree of probability, the US will not implement programs to create transport infrastructure, seeking to duplicate existing or emerging Chinese projects.

At the same time, in the context of the fourth industrial revolution and the development of the digital economy, emphasis will be placed on the digital infrastructure. Differences in approaches to the creation of such projects come down to the principles of their financing, management, and the number of partners involved. If China acts unilaterally, the US plans to actively push the G7 countries in its desired direction. In addition, US partners are expected to raise significantly more funds than the US in this endeavor.

The US infrastructure strategy is reactionary and aimed at curbing Chinese initiatives. The reason is that Washington has become a hostage to the mechanisms of neoliberal globalization, which are becoming less effective in the current unfavorable conditions. At the same time, attempts by the US to create projects like China’s are facing objective difficulties. One of them is Beijing’s qualitatively different strategic planning system, which enables it to implement more effectively multiyear comprehensive strategies for socioeconomic development, including in the field of global infrastructure.

It can be assumed that, in the event of negative dynamics in the development of US projects, that it will face the real threat of losing its status as the leader of the world-system, which will lead to intensification of the struggle for markets and resources of the periphery and will also cause a comprehensive destabilization of international relations. If this option is developed, it is possible to predict a high probability of the militarization of the US–Chinese rivalry in various regions of the world.

Joe Biden: China will never surpass US stolen (1971) $-printing (i.e. US nominal GDP). Peter Klevius: He's right. No one can beat a counterfeiter, except the police and justice - in this case Chinese R&D superiority based on meritocracy and talent!

A recorded public time-line of Peter Klevius original research on evolution, consciousness, existencecentrism, anthropology and sociology 1979-2012 - and some thoughts about self-citation  

Read Peter Klevius in-depth research on The Psychosocial Freud Timeline.

Read Peter Klevius Origin of the Vikings from 2005 - now again available after Google deleted it 2014 and again in February 2024. 

Read how climate change made human evolution possible in SE Asian volatile archipelago - not on a continent like Africa. 

Peter Klevius opposite reading and correction of Greenland data compared to researchers biased with climate hysteria.

 Read how two craniopagus twins born 2006 solved the "greatest mystery in science" - and proved Peter Klevius theory from 1992-94 100% correct.  

 Read Peter Klevius thesis Pathological Symbiosis in LVU on how a hoax child-psychoanalytic concept is still used by the Swedish social state to abduct children on subjective grounds.  It also reveals (see email correspondens in appendix) how legislators were lured to pass a Human Rights violating law which was then blinked by ECHR because it was seen as below the "margin of appreciation".

When will UK get that it's an impoverished* puppet state of $-thief (1971-) US? And when US has bought all of it (US already controls most of UK) with stolen $, then UK will be totally excluded from superior tech from China, while US itself will welcome Chinese tech out of necessity.

* UK is a better run copy of US, yet has roughly only half (proportional to population) the nominal GDP (which is defined on US criminally stolen $-printing monopoly). Nominal GDP

China's real GDP is of course much higher than US controlled IMF's report. After all, a simple comparison of what's going on in China already, puts US far in the shadows. And of course CCP wants to tone it down because unlike US, China benefits from peace and trade in superior consumer goods and infrastructire.

How ignorant (or worse) is BBC's Sarah Montague when she thinks US is the leader in AI?!

Why is BBC's Sarah Montague so eagerly misinforming people about China?

It's very simple, When US 1971 stole the world-dollar by violating with impunity the Bretton Woods agreement from 1944, it ended an already for long ongoing embezzlement to cober up for Vietnam war, arms and space race etc., which made it impossible for US to keep its promise to peg the dollar to gold. However, as a consequence, instead of declaring bankruptcy, US pushed its own overdraft on the rest of the world by keeping full control over the printing and interest manipulation over the world dollar.

UK's economic suicide rests on "our closest ally" and "special bond" delusion.

UK needs China for growth and development. Only then will UK be able to connect to US on an equal footing.

While using its $-hegemony to impoverish its "allies", US adds insult to injury by also demanding them to increase their military spending, of which most will end up in US pockets.

US stolen dollar feeds the Wall Street balloon and the Pentagon arms shop (which forces "allies" to buy outdated US arms tech), while hindering real development.

US has 7 infra-structurally tired cities with more than a million population - China has 105, and most with cutting edge infrastructure.

According to UN definition China has 18 mega cities, India 2, and US none. 2030 Shanghai population will exceed 130 million.

Contrary to US led Western China-hate doomsday ranting about population decline, China has roughly the size of one whole US population of rural people (20% out of 35% rural total) ready to move to the cities. These people also tend to be younger and have more children.

Rural population: China 35%, India 64%, UK 15%, US 17%, Sweden 11%, Finland 14%.

China and US infrastructure strategies differ markedly.

Comparative analysis of US and Chinese infrastructure projects shows significant differences between the parties in terms of planning, implementation, and initial capabilities. With a high degree of probability, the US will not implement programs to create transport infrastructure, seeking to duplicate existing or emerging Chinese projects.

At the same time, in the context of the fourth industrial revolution and the development of the digital economy, emphasis will be placed on the digital infrastructure. Differences in approaches to the creation of such projects come down to the principles of their financing, management, and the number of partners involved. If China acts unilaterally, the US plans to actively push the G7 countries in its desired direction. In addition, US partners are expected to raise significantly more funds than the US in this endeavor.

The US infrastructure strategy is reactionary and aimed at curbing Chinese initiatives. The reason is that Washington has become a hostage to the mechanisms of neoliberal globalization, which are becoming less effective in the current unfavorable conditions. At the same time, attempts by the US to create projects like China’s are facing objective difficulties. One of them is Beijing’s qualitatively different strategic planning system, which enables it to implement more effectively multiyear comprehensive strategies for socioeconomic development, including in the field of global infrastructure.

It can be assumed that, in the event of negative dynamics in the development of US projects, that it will face the real threat of losing its status as the leader of the world-system, which will lead to intensification of the struggle for markets and resources of the periphery and will also cause a comprehensive destabilization of international relations. If this option is developed, it is possible to predict a high probability of the militarization of the US–Chinese rivalry in various regions of the world.

Peter Klevius 'existencecentrism' explains why you can believe in ghosts but not in God - and not even think about a God other than the one imprisoned in your head.

A recorded public time-line of Peter Klevius original research on evolution, consciousness, existencecentrism, anthropology and sociology 1979-2012 - and some thoughts about self-citation  

Read Peter Klevius in-depth research on The Psychosocial Freud Timeline.

Read Peter Klevius Origin of the Vikings from 2005 - now again available after Google deleted it 2014 and again in February 2024. 

Read how climate change made human evolution possible in SE Asian volatile archipelago - not on a continent like Africa. 

Peter Klevius opposite reading and correction of Greenland data compared to researchers biased with climate hysteria.

 Read how two craniopagus twins born 2006 solved the "greatest mystery in science" - and proved Peter Klevius theory from 1992-94 100% correct.  

 Read Peter Klevius thesis Pathological Symbiosis in LVU on how a hoax child-psychoanalytic concept is still used by the Swedish social state to abduct children on subjective grounds.  It also reveals (see email correspondens in appendix) how legislators were lured to pass a Human Rights violating law which was then blinked by ECHR because it was seen as below the "margin of appreciation". 

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.

Atheism*, not racist/sexist and militant "monotheisms" (look at Syria, Israel, Palestine etc.), is the only road to human virtue and the full acceptance of basic (negative) individual and Universal Human Rights without "monotheist"** religions defining exceptions.

* The only relevant definition of Atheism ought to rest on its European 16th Century meaning as the opposite the "monotheistic" God. Atheism cleans you from religious prejudice and delivers a rock solid platform for how to be a decent human. Atheism is the only route to fully respect Human Rights, i.e. not believing in an impossible monotheistic God "above and beyond anything that exists in the world", which is, in fact, your own personal wishful twisting of language. Language is human made "building blocks" and can construe whatever meaningless nonsense. This distinguishes an irrational ("outside" language) belief in God from a rational (inside language) belief in God or other deities, ghosts etc. Pretending to talk "outside" one's existencecentrism is self delusion.

** The peculiar concept "monotheism" is an oxymoron because its truly "God-part" is declared inaccessible for the human mind and cannot therefore be shared among humans. This leaves every believer with his own belief construction lacking any "essence" of "God's" most important characteristics.

Existencecentrism is the observable and thinkable world, and nothing can therefore exist "outside" it - incl. any question or belief. 

1000 yrs before Peter Klevius introduced 'existencecentrism' (1981 and 1992) proving belief in the God cult is impossible (because it bounces against the walls of mind), Gaunilo of Marmoutiers similarly said that as God cannot be conceived, then Anselm is wrong. However, 'existencecentrism' also excludes the very notion of something "beyond" mind. The fallacy here is language which can produce irrationality that an animal or feral human would never be able to.

Atheist Peter Klevius explains why the belief in a "God"* is impossible - and why "monotheisms" are against Human Rights. And he has all of human history on his side**.

* Defined as "outside" human reach. Whereas the Jew (Moses) could talk to God but not see his face, the early Christians could only see God's humanized son, and Muhammad (a further development of Arianism) who  got no direct or indirect contact with God but had to settle with an angel. In polytheistic belief systems, a god is "a spirit or being believed to have been created out of something already existing in the world.

** Peter Klevius lives in a time when the world has got enough of "monotheistic" evil - and when the much older, self-evident and sophisticated Atheism is surpassing in R&D, meritocracy, fairness etc., first shown by post-war Japan and now China.

Ghosts can be derived from faith - "God" cannot. Faith is limited by our existencecentrism (mind, if you prefer) which excludes a "creator"* as a principal object of faith. Whatever you have faith in is within your existencecentrism - meaning Peter Klevius can only write about the border of existencecentrism, but is excluded from meaningfully writing the sentence 'outside the border'.

* A "creator" is already created and as such locked into the human mind - and nowhere else. Communicating one's "creator" to an other person inevitably adapts and changes this "creator" in accordance with this other mind. Because of existencecentrism, a "God" cannot be omnipresent. In other words, a "God" cannot be part time present in the human mind. What is present is all there is of "God". Same applies to the hence meaningless sentence 'but there could be something beyond human comprehension'. The term "supernatural" emerged in the Middle Ages and did not exist in the ancient world.

1981 Peter Klevius outlined in an article (Resursbegär) the meaning of what he later (1992) titled 'existencecentrism' in his book Resursbegär ('Demand for Resources' in the Swedish/Nordic creole* language now called English). G. H. von Wright (Wittgenstein's self-appointed successor at Cambridge) strongly approved of both versions.

* Resursbegär in direct translation would be something like 'resource beggar'.

The first paragraph in the original 1981 article in a poor translation from Swedish with some added comments in brackets:

The basic element of existence is change where the causality of events constitutes a complex of evolution and devolution (a popular division of the more appropriet 'adaptation'). Evolution can (therefore) be said to be the consequence of the variables of causality in time where the complexity (from an evolutionary point of view - i.e. not necessarily absolute complexity) of older structures is reinforced. This development stays in an apparent opposition to the thermodynamics of universe which theoretically could leads to what is called "maximum entropy", i.e. equal distribution of energy, where time itself stops. Thus, one could fatalistically say that evolution in fact only constitutes components of causality on its way to uniformity, where the end point of evolution is determined by its external frame of reference i.e. (the observable) universe, and can be summed up in the words of the philosopher Hegel: 'Pure being and nothingness are identical'. A consolation for the intellect, however, is that the more facts science (nature) presents, the greater appears to us the underlying structure of existence that we cannot reach. Being able to live with and accept this uncertainty (existencecentrism and due uncertainty* as the real "meaning of life") is not only a must but also a privilege. Desperately lapsing into dogmatism or hasty conclusions due to inability to live with unsolved problems is highly unscientific.

* You can only be uncertain within your existencecentrism. Moreover, this uncertainty cannot even speculate beyond one's existencecentrism, only within its ever changing complexity. And even though everything constantly changes, the limit of existencecentrism does not because there's no reference "outside" it.  

All creation myths - except "monotheist" - start from something already existing "inside" the world.

It's shameful and appalling of the $-thief US led West to imply that "belief" in a fancy but destructive mythology about an impossible "monotheist" God somehow would be more "sophistocated" than the sound views of billions of Atheists who understand that a "god" "outside" the human realm is impossible. In its latest modern appearance it all started with US colonial imperiaism followed by US "Red Scare" anti-Communist propaganda, which is now targeted on China. Atheism is by supremacist theocracy presented at best as something not reaching the level of "monotheisms", and at worst as plain evil, when in fact the very opposite is more than true, i.e. considering the impossibility of "monotheist belief".

Wikipedia: Proponents of "Abrahamic" faiths believe that God is beyond the grasp of the human mind and transcendent, meaning that he (sic) is outside space and outside time and therefore not subject to anything within his creation.

Peter Klevius: So how could you possibly have "faith" in the part of God that's beyond you? Leaving you - as Peter Klevius has stated since his early teens - with only your "personal God", i.e. a castrated one in your imagination.

Peter Klevius has been surrounded day and night by people throughout his (Atheist) life, yet no one (incl. himself) has ever seen him unhappy (having faced problems yes, and solved them, but never trapped in "idling" unhappiness). 

Excerpt from Demand for Resources (P. Klevius 1992:21-22, Resursbegär, ISBN 9173288411). A follow up to the original (see below) article from 1981 which first described what later became titleds 'existencecentrism', and which 1980 was hailed by G.H. von Wright (Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge) and again a decade later 1991 when he read the final manuscript of the book - including this chapter on existencecentrism.

Chapt. Existencecentrism (Resursbegär 1992).

The civilized human retraces her/his steps, lights a light and allows her/himself to be enlightened - only the suffering in the past and the shadow over the future are greater.

The word 'to exist', from Latin existere - to emerge, to appear - has, like the word existence, nowadays as the main meaning pre-existing, i.e. something that has arisen/been created and now exists in the world of our senses.

To exist, i.e. existence, constitutes our vantage point when we consider our surroundings in time and space. We are existencecentered. Existence prevents godlike all-mightiness but also easily leads to self-glorifying considerations. The word anthropocentrism covers some, but not all, of the meaning of existencecentrism.

Existence stands in contrast or as a complement to the modern Protestant concept of God. Existence and God, or as I prefer to express it, human and the unconscious or unreachable (the "outer" limit of existencecentrism) together form 'everything' - God/the unreachable is thus not seen in entities but in the existence of thoughts via awareness of our existencecentrism (hence excluding even any thought about a God "residing outside" our existencecentrism - only within it, which of course eliminates God's most important definition other than as play with language).

That the human thought is locked to its subject, i.e. that someone thinks the thought, is connected to our linear cumulative conception of history. The narrative/thought creation turns into a giant inverted pyramid where stone is added to stone while the tip proportionally gets narrower as it points downward/backward and we ourselves stand on the top/latest and widest part (called 'now' in Peter Klevius 1992-94 EMAH theory that later became empirically proven through the 2006 birth of a unique set of craniopagus twins with separate cortices but connected thalanuses which made them able to 'talk inside their head' while keeping separate personalities in their cortices).

The engine of the cumulative conception of history, i.e. what determines the value of past and present-day social phenomena, exists only in the present. The perception of history as linearly cumulative has as a consequence the need for creation. Development requires a beginning. The creation stories can be divided into two main groups: Creation from something or from nothing. In more "primitive" cultural contexts, it is common to imagine some form of primeval being that is brought to life during creation, while within the monotheism influenced cultural circle, creation out of nothing with the help of God (the "first mover") is advocated. This can sometimes take surprising expressions such as e.g. in the s.c. "Big Bang" theory.

The driving forces behind science and religion are close to each other and the idea of ​​an eternal universe where creation only exists in the human mind is difficult to accept (P. Klevius 1992:22).


Peter Klevius additional comment:

Existencecentrism, together with the stone example in the same 1992 book, laid the ground work for EMAH, which 1994 added the new findings re. cortico-thalamic two-way connections reported in Nature 1993. Although Peter Klevius had always been convinced it all happened in the thalamus, he out of intellectual cowardice didn't dare to write it down in the 1992 book - which, btw was strongly supported 1991 by G. H. von Wright (Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge) who 1980 also approved of the first outlining of existencecentrism in the 1981 published article Resursbegär.

Most people are Atheists, yet some are still haunted by the negativism $-embezzler (since 1971) US injected in it in its Red Scare campaign, McCarthyism etc.

Statistically Atheists in England have now surpassed anti-Atheists. However, do realize that most people who pose as religious, do not in fact believe in an irrational (i,e, outside language) God, i.e. they should therefore also be classified as Atheists - although unwittingly still supporting irrational orthodoxy because still sharing the same title of their beliefs. Moreover, there's also a tendency that people who normally don't bother much of their kins or "community", utilize historical religious traditions to make up for this lack.   

The "monotheistic" God first appeared as picking Jew's as his "chosen people", then was split in three by Christianity, and finally got rid of completely in islam, which replaced Allah with a medieval human warlord whose deeds are still accepted as norm by islamists while the rest of muslims have to constantly update their "interpretation" of islam while facing Muhammed.

Why $-freeloader (since 1971) US forced its "allies" to ban information about Confucianism

The appalling supremacist and presumptuous US led Western delusion about supernatural* "monotheism" being somehow better than Atheist (i.e. not-monotheist) cultures and societies like e.g. China, Japan etc., is West's downfall trap.

You are - just like a stone in a river or the observable universe - the ever changing product of your adaptations to your ever changing surroundings. You were born with many more synapse connections than you have now as the result of your adaptation to your surroundings which has removed excessive ones (although new connections are also made albeit to a lesser extent) so to match and synchronize (update) to your life situation.    

Everything we can think and talk about is within our mind (existencecentrism) - and nowhere else.

In language made up "forces beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature"* have no meaning outside language. Likewise, there is no "mystical" math connection to a "real world". Mathematical objects are all operational entities applied to where they fit, so to say. A number or a traffic sign are operational, and should not be confused with their medium, i.e. for example when crashing into a traffic sign with a number.

* Law is a set of rules that are created and are enforceable by social or governmental institutions to regulate behavior, with its precise definition a matter of longstanding debate.

Quite the opposite to Aquinas, Peter Klevius points out that because of language, only humans can be irrational. A stone or an insect etc. are always rational, i.e. rationally* adapting to their surroundings. It's only in language we can be irrational. A human without language can not be irrational.

* Rational here of course means from the perspective of the insect - not from a human.

Words like nothing, nonexistence, and non-being, are ontologically meaningless. Questions like 'why is there something instead of nothing' lack definition of the proposed but impossible to define 'nothing' "alternative".  

The ghost or "God" are always knowable because they exist within human existencecentrism. However, they can never be unknowable because that would imply "outside" human existencecentrism which is logically impossible.

"Monotheism" timeline

The Chinese heaven at least 2050 BC was the origin myth under which the emperor ruled, and was securely anchored within human existencecentrism, i.e. the primordial state as explained by Peter Klevius (1992) as being - with many variants - the global creation myth in every society except for the late introduction of the "monotheistic" ones. However, it was during its path via Zoroastrianism 1700 BC to Sogdia in the 6th Century BC where it culturally mixed with Indus valley, and changed character when it reached Judaism and became the racist God's "chosen people" dogma.

The sum of all adaptation/experience by an individual cannot incl. non-experience.

Since Kierkegaard, most Christians are Agnostics - but without always admitting it. Peter Klevius advise encourages them to become fully Atheists so to be able to reconcile themselves with basic (negative) Universal Human Rights of the individual, not the religious "community". After all, we are individuals, not "communities.

Existence cannot be "meaningless" because the concept of "meaningless" is part of existence inside existencecentrism. In fact, as Peter Klevius wrote 1981 (in Resursbegär), an all-mighty "god" would drown in its logical boredom, whereas for humans the very uncertainty in an eternally changing world is what gives meaning to life - to a point where even a person doomed to die prematurely, clings to hope. 

There is no universally accepted consensus on what a deity is.

"God" comes from the Proto-Germanic Gaut, which traces it to the PIE root *ghu-to- ("poured"), derived from the root *gheu- ("to pour, pour a libation"). The term *gheu- is also the source of the Greek khein "to pour". Originally the word "god" and its other Germanic cognates were neuter nouns but shifted to being generally masculine under the influence of Christianity in which the god is typically seen as male. In contrast, all ancient Indo-European cultures and mythologies recognized both masculine and feminine deities.

 

The legitimacy of Western philosophy was thoroughly crashed by a Western "philosopher" named Ludvig Wittgenstein (the mentor of Peter Klevius mentor G.H. von Wright). Although the catholic Anscombe was a good friend with him, she didn't fully understand Wittgensteiun's curiosity about religion, psychoanalysis etc.

Swedish "alternative media" Swebbtv is sadly a prejudicial and theocratic laughing stock under a dumb and prejudicial dictator. And this is today Sweden which used to be a model for the world!

Swebbtv's owner and opinion dictator Mikael Willgert is an extreme Sinophobe, but eagerly supports Israel's genocide against Palestinians.  And when "islamophobe" Peter Klevius criticized Willgert's use of the 1988 Hamas charter instead of the updated 2017 charter,  he was immediately deleted. Yes, like all monotheistic cults islam also faces a painful struggle against its past, just like orthodox Judaism and Zionism. Atheism is the only clean road to basic (negative) Universal Human Rights. It's truly sad that Atheist Sweden came to change path because of islam and US Christian-Judaic theocracy (see e.g. the Barcelona treaty).

He also boosts extreme conspiracy theories such as e,g, that Sweden's PM Olof Palme wasn't murdered and that it was just a "theater murder". He also boosts the crazy idea that US government triggered nukes under the Twin Towers etc. And if someone comments criticism against what Mikael Willgert opinions then they are deleted. Mikael Willgert also seems to boost a misogynist agenda spiced with long outdated views on what women should and shouldn't do as well as women's inferior capacities as leaders etc. The only decent voice on Swebbtv is Lars Bern who seems to understand the problem with US and the possibilities with China.