On “democratic centralism”:

Seems the “democratic” in this expression has as much to do with democracy as the “Democratic” in “German Democratic Republic”.

January 18, 2006 @ 5:08 am | Comment

This (http://tinyurl.com/akaob) is a must
for all Agitprop-Lovers. Only question: Where did
all the noses go?

January 18, 2006 @ 6:41 am | Comment

It’s also like the word “Holy” in the “Holy Roman Empire”

January 18, 2006 @ 7:40 am | Comment

An Academic Analysis of the Social Levels in China and America

Today’s Chinese society and American society can be said to consist of 3 levels. Lower lever (Level C), which means people who work for a boss and who live by paychecks. Medium level (Level B), that level includes bosses, businessmen, and high paying white collars. Upper level (Level A), that level consists of people who is part of the state mechanism, for example, policemen, officials, judges, etc etc.

In this classification, the Upper Level does not actually have more wealth than the Medium Level. For example, a policemen have much less money than a company senior executive. But the upper level has more power. For example, in a soccer match, the referee is not as rich as the players, yet he is clearly in a higher position of authority.

Now, let’s call the Upper Level level A. Medium Level level B. And Lower Level C. So I said that both American and Chinese society is made up of Level A,B, and C. Yet, there’s some difference. What is the difference? Well, the difference lies in the relationship between Level A (upper) and Level B(middle).

To put it simply, in America, Level A is very close and intimate with Level B. In other words, Level B has a lot of room to influence the actions of Level A. But in China, Level B has very little influence over Level A. In other words, China’s level A can very comfortably ride on top of Level B. China’s Level B simply does not have enough force to challenge level A.

This is actually a very good thing. Because level A is not influenced by level B, it can better manage the society and establish long term strategic visions. Therefore, maintaining the dominance of Level A over Level B is a precondition for China’s growth. In fact, it actually benefits Level B to have Level A riding it.

In America, Level B has to constantly influence Level A to maintain its own interests. THe result is constant bickering and arguing and things get mired in non-progress. For example, it is pathetic that the gun-control issue has been discussed for decades and has no real resolution. That kind of efficiency is even worse than the UN.

Now, democracy-lovers will now jump out and say “It is good to have arguments and debates!”. But my question is, how come we don’t see the same intensity of arguments in other areas? Do you see arguments and bickering when engineers are building spaceships? Did big American corporations became profitable by letting employees and executives argue all the time? How about a patient? if you are a patient, do you want doctors to spend 1 month arguing over your diagnosis, or do you want someone who simply is in control and knows that he/she is doing?

Of course, scholarly debates should be encouraged. But the difference between healthy debates and unhealthy debates is that a healthy debate focuses on the issue at hand and nothing else. An unhealthy debate is one in which the parties have personal interests entangled in the issue at hand, and they are really arguing to protect his/her personal interests. For example, when two chess players argue over whether to move the rook first or move the knight first, that is a healthy argument, because they are only concerned about the goodness of the move and has no personal interests involved. But, when a political party argues with another party over whether to reform education/environment/economy, they are arguing because their political fates are on the line, so the issue at hand is simply a tool or a cover, they are not really concerned about the issue, but what they can gain from the issue. And I’m a afraid to say, 70% of arguments in American society are of such unhealthy arguments.

Now, when Level A can comfortably ride Level B, then even Level B would feel very nice and should enjoy it. So my advice to China’s businessmen and white collars is to just let Level A ride you. If you fight it, then you’ll simply hurt yourself because the time you spent arguing with Level A could have been used for Level A to do better things.

But there’s a condition for Level A to ride Level B. That condition is: Level A must have a very close and intimate relatioship with Level C (Lower Level). Level A must represent the interests of Level C. In other words, the more Level A represents the interests of Level C, the better it can maintain its riding position in society and be free of influence from Level B.

But if Level B’s force grows larger, it’ll inevitably try to influence Level A in every aspect. And Level A will try to resist such influence. And in such struggle, both Level A and B will try to win over Level C. If level A loses its intimacy with Level C, then Level C will be won over by Level B, and join forces with Level B to fight Level A. The result is that Level A loses its riding position and is forced to share power with Level B.

So, for Level A, the goal is make sure to always keep an intimate relationship with Level C and always represent the interests of Level C.

In Summary, China’s social structure in which Level A comfortably rides Level B is a very advanced and mature one, and it should try very hard not to slip into the American structure where level B has shaken off Level A and can influence Level A.

If the day comes when the Chinese leadership cannot help but be influenced by Level B, then China is not too far away from collapse.

January 18, 2006 @ 4:18 pm | Comment

Dos anyone actually bother to read any of that, or do you, like me, simply scroll down as soon as you reach the first two lines?

January 18, 2006 @ 5:01 pm | Comment

I scanned it and summarized it: “Fascist dictatorships are good for you!”

January 18, 2006 @ 5:12 pm | Comment

I scanned it and summarized it: “Fascist dictatorships are good for you!”

Why is that the summary? That is irrelevant to that post.

January 18, 2006 @ 5:25 pm | Comment

In other words, China’s level A can very comfortably ride on top of Level B. China’s Level B simply does not have enough force to challenge level A.

This is actually a very good thing.

January 18, 2006 @ 5:28 pm | Comment

I am happy that you agree with me Richard.

January 18, 2006 @ 5:35 pm | Comment

Where did I express agreement?

January 18, 2006 @ 5:37 pm | Comment

I also agree that it is a good thing, and it is an advantage for China to have this kind of structure

January 18, 2006 @ 5:39 pm | Comment

Gee, what a great dialogue.

January 18, 2006 @ 5:48 pm | Comment

Math’s check and balance analysis basically outlines a social mechanism based on an eternal group exploitation: the government and bureaucrat’s guide to total control bypandering to the “under class” to claim political dominance over all.

January 18, 2006 @ 7:16 pm | Comment

math, the problem with your analysis is that you included the political category A as a category at all when talking about class. usually class is judged by income, mobility, respectability of profession, etc, and not someone’s political status. the problem with china is that the party has succeeded in making a system in which people must join the party if they ever want to become a manager, president, etc. its true people do make it on their own, but only with the help of their buddies in the party.

January 18, 2006 @ 7:18 pm | Comment

I enjoy reading Math. Most of his posts offer some very insightful and original ideas that are often “outside the box”. Even though sometimes his writings are a bit wacky and ironic.

The central point of that post is that it is tragic for a nation when its government is in bed with its business men. And both of these join forces to screw John Q. Public. Of course by “screw”, I don’t mean they starve ordinary citizens to death, or intentionally give unfair treatment to citizens. What I mean is that when the gov’t is in league with big business and other interest groups, it will develop an institutionalized mindset to take care of those interest groups before worrying about the general public.

You all remember Jerry Spring. He ran for a mayor or senate seat a few years ago. And he said something that still haunts me to this day. He said, “The reason I’m running is that I realize most of the laws and institutions in this country are created to benefit and convenience people like me, not people like you.”

How true that is, especially today, where lawmakers openly invite oil companies and drug companies to help them draft laws, when United States Congressmen/Senators receive compaign contributions from all those sources that each have their agendas.

Just like Math said, when A’s relationship with B is too close, C gets screwed. So a better way is for A to forever be intimate with C, so B doesn’t get much influence.

January 18, 2006 @ 7:46 pm | Comment

“The central point of that post is that it is tragic for a nation when its government is in bed with its business men. ” says China Hand … this describes China exactly!! I have to say I agree with you on this one China Hand.

January 18, 2006 @ 8:04 pm | Comment

I enjoy reading Math.

I’m shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

As to the rest of your comment, it’s as though we read two separate articles (referring to Math’s latest). I didn’t see him arguing that business and the government need to be seaprated. I saw him arguing that the CCP is infallible, capable of making swift, accurate decisions without fuss or bickering, without influence or pressure from the B class.

Just about everything he writes is deeply flawed. Personally, I want a second opinion before the doctor sends me for major surgery. Businesses that allow employee participation and that invite feedback and transparency work better than those with the executives in an ivory tower. I have no problem with C. H.’s points about the risks of having big business in bed with the government. but that’s not what Math’s post is about. And besides, big business is just as much in bed with the government in China asit is in the US. Most of these riots occur because of big business conspiring with the politicians to fuck the lower classes. And in China, they can’t hire a laywer and stop the project in its tracks, as they can in the US, even with our too-cozy relationship of business and government. Yeah, the power of big business in America sucks and is a source of shame to many on the left and the right. But look what’s happening this instant, with the lobbyist closest to those in power about to go to jail for at least 10 years. That’s the power of rule of law. until that’s part of the equation, Math’s arguments are pure BS.

January 18, 2006 @ 8:04 pm | Comment

Jeff, we all agree on that. A no-brainer. Can China boast a system free of the influence of business? Does the CCP make more decisions favoring the little guys or big business? Do the courts have a track record of standing up to business interests and siding with the disenfranchised? (Rhetorical questions; I know the answers already.)

January 18, 2006 @ 8:09 pm | Comment

I saw that link shulan; made me sick. MY question is: with all the green fields with butterlflies and blue skies surrounding wind-generating fans and polite well-bhaved children quietly playing while police stand looking dreamily into the distance without a single migrant worker around to beat up, in what country was the cartoon shot?

January 18, 2006 @ 8:26 pm | Comment

The picture looks like a modern day picture of pollution.

January 18, 2006 @ 9:47 pm | Comment

Businesses that allow employee participation and that invite feedback and transparency work better than those with the executives in an ivory tower.

Like which companies?

big business is just as much in bed with the government in China as it is in the US. Most of these riots occur because of big business conspiring with the politicians to fuck the lower classes.

There’s a distinct difference between the relationship of gov’t and business in China and the US. In China, gov’t makes compromises with businesses and makes favorable policies for businesses sometimes for the sake of development, but the gov’t at its core knows that it is rooted in the fundamental interests of the people, and I don’t believe any leaders in China forgets that. The local officials is a different story, I agree, and thus is the result of those local riots. That is why the rule of law is needed in China and that is why there needs to be more intra-party democracy within the CCP to improve the quality of its cadres and make sure why they are who they are.

But in the US, there’s a tacit legitimacy that Senators and Congressmen should concern themselves with representatives from the business community. Gov’t corruption in the United States is in a sense more severe in China because most of it is legalized and legitimized. Yes, you may get a few bouts of crackdowns like with Abramoff and Delay. But the vast majority of them are doing things that would be enough to put them away for 20 years if they were officials in China. Yet in the US, it’s all legal. Let’s just take this Abramoff case for example, with the amount of money that some of those Congressmen received from Abramoff, they would surely be sentenced to life in prison or death in China. But in the US? I bet half of them will get some sort of “plea-bargain” with prosecutors and walk away with a few years, maybe even just a resignation.

No one is denying that China has corruption, but Chinese leaders at the top are serious at trying to curb it (as hard as it might be). In the US, corruption is institutionalized and legitimized that you don’t even realize certain acts will be considered corruption in other nations.

January 18, 2006 @ 10:06 pm | Comment

ABC’s
In a theoretical sense, the ABC description isn’t a bad idea. But this does not even closely describe China today.

China being run like a corporation makes it very competitive in the international arena, just as a company with a functional command structure would be more agile than those based on consensus management.

But companies perform for the shareholders, or class A, not for class C. In what way has the CCP catered to the class C people? Standard of living has increase has no bearing on this because as it is a normal progression of technology and trade, irrespective of government structure.

Class C interact solely with local governments. Even if class A has only good intentions, we all agree that the local government suffers serious corruption. So ABC is already broken in China – and I didn’t even get to Companies yet…

January 18, 2006 @ 11:51 pm | Comment

I can’t understand Math until I’ve had ten shots of vodka. And a joint.
Then all of his algebraic letters start dancing around (square-dancing, for some reason they prefer country-western dancing even thought I don’t), and then after a few more tokes they all start having an orgy.

January 18, 2006 @ 11:54 pm | Comment

Like which companies?

Google
My own company
Microsoft
Krispy Kreme
Costco
Fedex
Most of the Fortune “Top 100 companies to work for”
Thousands more

These are just some I’m familiar with off the top of my head, mostly through my work. Many, many, many companies in the West have adopted worker feedback programs, offer company gyms, the right to review your manager, profit-sharing, etc. Microsoft has fleets of its employees writing blogs, often critical of the company. Same with the Washington Post. Some, maybe most companies, suck in many ways. But many are progressive. The list is huge – in parallel with your own ignorance.

January 19, 2006 @ 12:05 am | Comment

Companies and Authoritarian Governments
In the US, everyone can petition the goverment through lobbying. Today this system is flawed and dominated by companies or governments, such as China’s campaign contributions to Clinton via Loral in exchange for US space technology. This urgently needs to be cleaned this up, because companies have an affinity for authoritarian governments, and will easily trade anything for the right to operate or favorable regulations.

So you take the fact that authoritarian governments are more agile, and that democracies have a dimension of authoritarianism within, it’s not clear to me what the long term prospects are. Google, MSN, and Yahoo, I don’t see a day far away when the CCP will complain about a blog based or an email from New York . Although Lockheed Martin is unlikely to give up their principles since they deal with arms, the Loral example shows how close we are to this line. Germany and France’s recent discussion for lifting the ban is another example.

As China forms an alliance with fellow totalitarian countries, the free nations of the world will increasingly have something in its hands. My long term projections at this point is that the freedoms of individuals will converge globally, like standard of living. This may mean less freedom for people in the US, but perhaps improvement in China. Hopefully, by then, people in China will learn to think using information outside of what the CCP feeds them.

My personal belief is that the government should answer to the people, and therefore not run like a company. Unlike a company that you don’t like, you can’t quit CCP authoritarianism. That is, unless you get on a boat and go to Taiwan.

January 19, 2006 @ 12:11 am | Comment

@china_hand

Gov’t corruption in the United States is in a sense more severe in China because most of it is legalized and legitimized. Yes, you may get a few bouts of crackdowns like with Abramoff and Delay. But the vast majority of them are doing things that would be enough to put them away for 20 years if they were officials in China. Yet in the US, it’s all legal. Let’s just take this Abramoff case for example, with the amount of money that some of those Congressmen received from Abramoff, they would surely be sentenced to life in prison or death in China. But in the US? I bet half of them will get some sort of “plea-bargain” with prosecutors and walk away with a few years, maybe even just a resignation.

As I understand it, your main argument is that because you can get sentenced to death for corruption in China it is not as likely to occure as in the US. Do you realy believe that? When has the threat of death penalty ever prevented a criminal from commiting crimes? That sever penalities discourage crimes is a myth. They are just there to satisfy the peoples lust for revench.

Do you realy believe that only the threat of such punishment is a better tool than transperancy ( like the “freedom of informatin act”), a free press and independent jurisdication?

Let’s face it, China is much more corrupt than most Western countries. I don’t know if you ever heard of the NGO Trancperancy International. Their index of Corruption (on a scale from 10 -no corruptio- to 1 -severe corruption) gives the US a 7,6 and China a 3,2.
Hongkong without democracy, but with a free press and the rule of law even has a 8,3 so don’t tell me this is Western propaganda for democracy.

http://www.transparency.org/

January 19, 2006 @ 1:24 am | Comment

Corruption rarely touches the lives of every day Americans, except in non-direct way. In China, the poor live with the yoke of corrution around their necks, day in and day out. Repressive taxes, land seizures, unpaid salary…it all goes back to corruption. And not just the poor. Corruption has to be factored into every business plan in China – there’s always an under-the-table bag of cash for the greedy official scumbag. This is not the case in America, not even close. A free media and the right to take such people to court make it very difficult.

Can we all just agree China Hand is a blowhard of near-immeasurable ignorance, who loves to shout out the first thing that pops into his head, with no evidence, ever?

January 19, 2006 @ 2:17 am | Comment

Richard, why are you suggesting we all agree about China Hand? See? He’s right! You are trying to impose your culturally biased standards in an authoritarian way.

If you really had an open mind, you would consider that MAYBE, China Hand’s ignorance IS MEASURABLE!
Verbally measurable anyway, with terms like: “Vast”, “overwhelming”, and “mutitudinously monomaniacal”

January 19, 2006 @ 2:31 am | Comment

Keep it simple: his ignorance is infinite.

January 19, 2006 @ 2:47 am | Comment

Now more seriously, about the origin of corruption – and how and why it is MORE prevalent and inherent in the nature of Communist Party dictatorships (and I’m going to enjoy smacking “Math” around with this, now):

1. I recommend the physicist Jacob Bronowski’s book, “Science and Human Values”; here’s what he writes about “the habit of truth”:
(Sorry for the long quote, Richard):

“By the worldy standards of public (political) life, all scholarsin their work are (or ought to be) oddly virtuous. They do not make wild claims, they do not cheat, they do not try to persuade at any cost (as the Communists do), they appeal neither to prejudice nor to authority (as the Communists do), they are often frank about their ignorance (as the Communists are not), their disputes are fairly decorous, the do not confuse what is being argued with race (as “China Hand” does) politics, sex or age, they listen patiently to the young and to the old who both know everything. These are the general virtues of scholarship, and they are PARTICULARLY the virtues of science. Individually, scientists no doubt have human weaknesses. BUT IN A WOLR IN WHICH STATE AND DOGMA (Communist Party) SEEM ALWAYS EITHER TO THREATEN OR TO CAJOLE, the body of scientists is trained to avoid and organised to RESIST EVERY FORM OF PERSUASION but the fact. A scientist who breaks this rule, as Lysenko has done (he was a whore for the Communist Party), is ignored……”

…all of which means that any “science” whose main purpose is to support any political party, is not science, but rather superstition.

2. By Andrei Sakharov, the inventor of Russia’s Hydrogen bomb (who later spoke out for nuclear disarmament and of course was persecuted by the Communists):

“International affairs must be completely permeated with a scientific methodology and a democratic spirit, with a fearless weighing of all facts, views and theories, with maximum PUBLICITY (ie, a free press) of ultimate and intermediate goals, and with a consistency of princples (ie, universal standards of ethics)”

Corruption of ALL kinds begins with setting political doctrine or expedience above the habit of truth. And in these times, setting politics above the habit of truth can literally put the world in immediate danger of nuclear war.

January 19, 2006 @ 3:11 am | Comment

Ah, now, on the OTHER hand, here’s something ELSE for Math – whose love of “fact” is very unscientific on the one hand, AND very inhuman onn the other hand. (Because, real Science is HUMANISTIC, but our robotic friend “Math”, is not.
From Dickens’ novel, “Hard Times”:

“You are to be in all things regulated and governed,” said the gentleman (Mr Grandgrind the schoolmaster), “by FACT! We hope to have, before long, a board of fact, and nothing but fact. You must discard the word ‘fancy’ altogether. You have nothing to do with it. You are not to have, in any object of use or ornament, what would be a contradiction of fact. You don’t walk upon flowers in fact; you cannot be allowed to walk upon (pictures of) flowers in carpets. You don’t find that foreign birds and butterflies come and perch upon your crockery; you cannot be permitted to paint foreign birds and butterflies upon your crockery…you must use,” said the gentleman, “for all these purposes, combinations and modifications (in primary coulours) of MATHEMATICAL figures which are susceptible of proof and demonstration. This is a new discovery. This is fact. This is taste.”

January 19, 2006 @ 3:37 am | Comment

As a matter of FACT, this is going to go right over MATH’s head.

January 19, 2006 @ 3:42 am | Comment

And while I’m at it, MORE FUN with Scientific Humanism:

By Lewish Carroll (the great Mathematician, as well as a fanciful writer of lovely stories): mind you he wrote this in 1865, BEFORE EINSTEIN WAS BORN! Here you go:

“Moment is the product of mass into velocity. (Compare Einstein’s E-MC2 of 40 years later!) To discuss this subject fully, would lead us too far into the subject Vis Viva, and we must content ourselves with the fact that NO MOMENT IS EVER FULLY LOST, BY FULLY ENLIGHTENED particles. (Carroll’s emphasis) …A COUPLE consists of a moving particle, raised to the degree of M.A., combined with what is technically called a “better half”….

From Lewis Carroll’s “The Dynamics of a Parti-Cle” (Oxford, 1865)

January 19, 2006 @ 3:50 am | Comment

When the f^&k did these threads get leased out to the likes of Math?

I’m sick of his BS. Considering how much of the major industries of China are state-owned, the idea there’s no collusion is a fantasy. As for the govt caring for the masses, we all know about the income gap, non-existent healthcare, etc.

Finally, to make it simple, its all true about the US. It’s more corrupt, more flawed, etc. And that still doesn’t change anything about China’s problems. Stop making false comparisons. Or even better, Richard, ban that fatuous git.

January 19, 2006 @ 5:05 am | Comment

Here here

January 19, 2006 @ 5:17 am | Comment

I meant, ‘hear, hear” although I expect Richard to react with ‘there, there’

January 19, 2006 @ 5:18 am | Comment

Shulan, on that animation: just to pre-empt M&CH, does anyone find those new US Army recruitment ads gut churning? Like where the black teenage son of the single mom says “I’m the man now, Mom”, and she changes her mind about forbidding him to go to war? And let’s not forget the Marine Corps long standing ad campaign involving scaling mountains and an officer inside a diamond? I just wish the Chinese would hire Keith David for voiceovers like the Navy. Keith David rules. Which brings me to my other point; that ad makes a crucial mistake that no US agitprop would make. There’s no ethnic diversity in the crowd at the end. Uh uh, that’s a no no. You have to encourage those 55 minorities to follow the law too, yknow. And I guess people who have noses don’t need to worry about it either.

January 19, 2006 @ 5:26 am | Comment

I don’t know if the question of corruption in China was settled or not but I would just like to point to an article from Asia Times about how the CCP party structure actually promotes corruption. Sorry for the long quote.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/GI21Cb01.html

“In a recent book on the overheating problem, Zeme You Guo Re Le? (Why is There Overheating Yet Again?), Chinese economists Fan Gang and Zhang Xiao-jing point out that desire for promotion plays a big part. As cadres tend to be rewarded for economic growth in their areas, getting big projects going is essential for advancement.”

“Contrary to what Keynes believed, in China state control of investment has not only failed to tame the “animal spirits” of the free market but is actually a source of additional instability. During the command economy period, leaving the “duty of ordering the current volume of investment” in the hands of the central government produced some of the worst economic disasters on record. Subsequently, it has also become clear that this duty cannot safely be left in the hands of local government officials given the perverse nature of their incentive structures. And while speculative investment using one’s own money must at some point be limited by fear of loss, for someone in a position to misappropriate state funds with impunity, the optimal “volume of investment” is practically infinite.”

January 19, 2006 @ 5:45 am | Comment

Hey, WHOA, WHOA, dave,

…yeah I ALMOST agree with banning Math, but at least keep his last comments up so that my recent responses will make sense in context. I thought I wrote some good shit about Lewis Carroll etc….
🙂 I mean, Math is a good foil for me to write some “serious” comments in response to, sometimes….most of the time I clown around here, but a REAL clown like Math provokes me to get serious…

…and, actually – as Richard said some days ago, about how he doesn’t ban “Math” because Math is a good exemplar of how bloody stupid the Communist apologists are – ACTUALLY, I’d rather see Math remain unbanned.

He’s a great foil. These threads are NOT really “leased out” to him, because he makes it SO EASY to demonstrate the intellectual poverty of the CCP apologists.

He’s SO bizarre, that he actually provokes some creativity for the rest of us. (See my above comments, which used Math as a foil.) At any rate, he’s NOTHING like that other unmentionable troll of many names.
At least he always comments under the same moniker and he doesn’t play any malicious games here…

Just my opinion. But of course Richard is the benevolent Emperor here, so he has the final word 🙂

January 19, 2006 @ 5:48 am | Comment

@dave…
Actually one of them has a nose. That made me wonder what secret message may be behind it.

January 19, 2006 @ 6:23 am | Comment

Dave, Math and his ilk offer us a birds’-eye view into the psyche of that bizarre phenomenon, the Chinese automaton. Why should I ban him? He helps to prove all the points I hope to make about the CCP sucking the brains out of the Chinese people.

January 19, 2006 @ 7:36 am | Comment

AH, yes, so I see that our benevolent TPD Emperor Richard agrees with what I said about leaving “Math” free and unbanned here.

So that means, now I can have more fun, mocking Math:

ABC, here is my alphabet, dedicated to Math:

A is for the very Human scream, “AiYahh”, whenever anyone was tortured by the Chinese Communist Party.

B is for “Bu Shi”, (sounds like the american word “bullshit”) which NO Chinese citizen is permitted to say against any lies of the Communist Party.

C is for “Corruption” and “Communist”

D is for “Da Dao!” as the Red Guards said whenever they beat up wise old scholars during the Cultural Revolution

E is for “Equality”, but we must abolish that letter because the Communist Party says that it might lead to instability

F is for “Falooon Gooong”, and that is ANOTHER letter which must be abolished, because today, Chinese Constitution lies about “freedom of religion”

G is for “Guo”, and for Chinese Nationalists it means, “We hate Japan” even though they do NOT really love their own country. They know how to hate Japan, but they do not know how to love any country, not even their own.

H is for “Huang”, or “Yellow” in Chinese, like the Yellow River which the Communist Cadres have polluted into piss.

I is for “I hate Japan and my Chinese identity has no other reason to exist”

J is for “Just trust CCTV and the People’s Daily, and do not listen to what the Foreign Devils say”

K is for “KuoMinTang”, who were the main warriors of China against the Japanese invaders, while the Communists sat back and let the KMT be killed in the millions while the KMT defended China against Japan.

L is for the Tang Dynasty poet, Li Bai, whose poems were burned by the Red Guards during Mao’s Cultural Revolution.

M is for Mao, who shit and pissed on the 5,000 year old civilisation of China

N is for Neglect, as the ancient treasures and relics and beauty of China were neglected under the rule of Mao

O is for “Open Society”, which is another letter which the Communist Party must destroy

P is for Pope Gregory, who became the leader of the Catholic Church last year, and ALL the world knew of this news, but it was censored on CCTV because the Communists want to destroy all religions except for their own superstitious cult of Communism

Q is for the Questions which Chinese citizens are NOT allowed to ask in public

R is for “reconstruction of a great civilisation”, which the BEST people of China are trying to do now

S is for “Soong ZuYing”, the mistress of former President Jiang Zemin

T is for TienAnMen Square, and all who were murdered near that place in 1989

U is for “un….”whatever

V is for Veritas (“truth”, in Latin)

W is for “What the hell did you Communists DO in 1989?”

Y is for “Yueh”, the Moon and the Goddess of the Moon, who looks down with compassion on China today, along with her sister, the Chinese Buddhist Saint named Kwan Yin

Z is for “Zao”…….

January 19, 2006 @ 8:44 am | Comment

china hand, it makes no sense to distinguish between corrupt local officials and the big boys in charge. the big boys used to BE the corrupt local officials. how do you think they got to where they are today?

January 19, 2006 @ 10:09 am | Comment

I wouldn’t ban Math. In fact, we should get some more commies in here. The idealist in me still thinks you can reason with them.

January 19, 2006 @ 12:18 pm | Comment

Ah yeeda dah-dah, dah-dah, dah-dah, letters and letters, dahdahdahahdahdah….for eternity….

…meanwhile all that really matters, is individual Human lives.

Oh, but of course, the ONLY purpose for ANY Human life, is to support the COMMUNIST PARTY! Because the COMMUNIST PARTY is GOD!

GOD is the Communist Party, and the Communist Party is God! The individual Human soul has NO value, UNLESS he serves the COMMUNIST PARTY!

And HOW DO WE KNOW that the Communist Party is God? Ah, we know, because the Communist Party TELLS US that it is God! And in China, if you disagree with this, you will be arrested and sent to prison, or shot to death. WHY? Well, simply beccause, the COMMMUNIST PARTY is CORRECT!

The Communist Party is GOD! THAT is why nobody is permitted to speak against the Communist Party! Because the Communist Party IS GOD!

Do not ask questions about this. If you ask questions about the Communist Party-God, then you might cause some instability and then the SUN WILL NOT RISE TOMORROW, if you ask questions about the Communist Party-God!

Just shut up. and do NOT QUESTION, you must NOT ask any questions of the Communist-Party-God! If you ask questions about the Communist God, then the Sun will not rise tomorrow, and there will be instability and chaos!

So, always remember, that the Communist Party is GOD, and if you ever criticise the Communist Party then CHAOS WILL BREAK OUT all over the world!

Because, the Communist Party IS GOD! If the Communist Party is criticised, then the sun will go dark and the world will end!

The Communist Party IS GOD! Just like the Emperors of Feudal China! All you Chinese readers, you must KOWTOW, get on your knees, and bow, you must all bow to the COMMUNIST PARTY, because the Communist Party IS GOD!!!!!

January 19, 2006 @ 12:21 pm | Comment

So the official number is now 87,000 a year. Which makes the actual number, what?, 100,000 to 150,000?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4627602.stm

January 19, 2006 @ 2:50 pm | Comment

to change the subject completely:

The picture that started this thread looks like Los Angeles in hell. God bless the Chinese for their drive and effort, but damn if they aren’t producing some of the most horrific cityscapes on earth.

January 19, 2006 @ 3:15 pm | Comment

Really appreciated the alphabet leson Ivan, but it’s Pope Benedict, surely…?

January 19, 2006 @ 7:27 pm | Comment

Found some good maps showing territorial disputes concerning the Chinese and one showing soheres of influence between China and US-Japan:
http://book-case.kroupnov.ru/pages/library/Grand/part_6.htm

January 19, 2006 @ 10:09 pm | Comment

What’s it like in Beijing at the moment? Anyone there?

January 20, 2006 @ 1:17 am | Comment

I heard on CNN last night they’re being hit by a snowstorm….and it’s colder than hell.

January 20, 2006 @ 1:35 am | Comment

Just as well I’m off to Oz for the holiday…

January 20, 2006 @ 2:29 am | Comment

Compare this with the recent palava over MSN censoring its Space to do the evil bidding of a regime that may or may not even have asked it to do so in the first place:

“Google is defying a request by the US government to hand over data revealing what its users are searching for online. The Bush administration wants a list of requests entered into Google’s online search engine in an unspecified single week. It also wants 1m randomly selected web addresses from Google’s databases.”
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/online/search/story/0,,1691829,00.html

January 20, 2006 @ 6:57 pm | Comment

Oh, and surprise surprise:
Yahoo said it had not disclosed any personal information. “We are rigorous defenders of our users’ privacy,” a spokeswoman said. “In our opinion this is not a privacy issue.” Microsoft said it too had protected users.

January 20, 2006 @ 6:58 pm | Comment

Keir wrote:

Does anyone actually bother to read any of that, or do you, like me, simply scroll down as soon as you reach the first two lines?

I certainly don’t waste my time. But I am glad that they can post here, in contrast to China-based sites (something I am sure is not lost on the likes of Math and HongXing).

I’m just wondering (Richard??) if it’s possible that the poster’s name could PRECEED their comments. Can the formatting template of these comment threads be easily changed?

I waste so much time scrolling up and down to see if I should bother to read a comment or not, if the commenter’s name came first, it would be much more convenient.

On the other hand, the time wasted scrolling is still less than the time wasted reading pointless “automaton” recitations.

January 20, 2006 @ 10:11 pm | Comment

Slim, if you’d like to play with the comment template, I’ll be glad to give you access. (If you promise not to delete my entire blog.) It can be done, but I’m always nervous about screwing with the templates.

January 20, 2006 @ 10:19 pm | Comment

I just read that NYT article on Li Yong, the chinese talk show/game show host that tries to make him out as rebellious. Give me a break, he is typical boring CCTV … there are a lot of other hosts a lot more interesting them him, like Wang Han. This is another one of those articles that tries to make something out of nothing. I really like NYT coverage of some China-related things, but i think they try too hard to fill a quota of China articles sometimes.

January 20, 2006 @ 11:11 pm | Comment

I just created a very unique way to damage Japig’s reputation overseas.

If you are Chinese living overseas, or traveling to a Western country. You should try to do some disgusting and bad things, such as spit on the ground, peek in a woman’s washroom, take so much napkins from fast food stores, etc etc. If people stare at you or try to criticize you, you say “Sorry, I am Japanese” and walk away. If all Chinese people do it regularly overseas, very soon Japigs will have very bad reputation!!!

January 21, 2006 @ 1:02 am | Comment

HongXing-
Thanks to you; with your suggestion and many other Chinese people’s own misconduct of such, the rest of the world will continue to like Japanese more than Chinese.

January 21, 2006 @ 1:13 am | Comment

Wow… what a bunch of knee-jerk fear-mongers.

I don’t know you and I can’t see you. But how many of you actually WANT to see China as a developed country? How many of you are just CCP-bashing to try to stop China’s development? How many of you just want to see China poor and colonialized?

For those of you who answered “yes,” why do you even bother masking such an ulterior motive? Just say what you really think instead of pretending to know how to best govern the Chinese people?

Your old-shibboleths about how the popular support the CCP enjoys is merely manufacturered by state propaganda is illogical upon examination. We are all products of our environment.

A person’s deep values and beliefs constitutes who they are. If the Chinese people support the CCP, that means these are genuine human beings that support the CCP.

There is no “inner democrat” in the breasts of the Chinese people just waiting for you to liberate them. To think otherwise is a fantasy and also offensive to the Chinese people.

It’s like if I said to you, “Your beliefs are just illusions because you lived in such and such a society. In reality, you think exactly the same way as I do, but your illusions are preventing you from seeing that.”

January 21, 2006 @ 2:15 am | Comment

A person’s deep values and beliefs constitutes who they are. If the Chinese people support the CCP, that means these are genuine human beings that support the CCP.

My word, a bit huffy and puffy tonight, aren’t we? Meanwhile, save yourself the self-righteous scolding and go read today’s Times:

Chinese took to the streets to protest land seizures, corruption, pollution and unpaid wages in record numbers in 2005, the national police said Thursday, with mass incidents that involved violent confrontations or attacks on government property surging at the fastest rate.

The number of “public order disturbances” rose 6.6 percent last year, to 87,000. Mass protests that involved “disturbing social order” jumped 13 percent, while those that “interfered with government functions” surged 19 percent, the Public Security Bureau, the national police, told Chinese reporters at a news conference on Thursday that was reported by the New China News Agency.

…Unrest has worsened especially quickly in the last several years because the government has seized millions of acres of rural land, which peasants can farm but not own, to make way for factories and real estate developments. Compensation is very low and many peasants say they have no choice but to protest to win attention for their claims.

The scale of unrest is extraordinary for any country in peacetime, with an average of 240 incidents each day. In 2004, when the country had 74,000 recorded protest events, 3.76 million people were involved, the police said. They were no figures provided for the total number of protesters in 2005.

Yeah, they’re lovin’ it. Look, I lived there and hope to live there again. To say anyone here wants to see China colonized and poor is unacceptable, and I really won’t tolerate it. This site is, more than anything, about the plight of the people who are disenfranchised — the majority. I hate oppression, censorship, torture and murder, and I speak out about it no matter who the perpetrator is – George Bush or the CCP. I know lots of Chinese love the CCP, but a lot hate it with all their hearts. And a lot of those who love it have never seen any other alternative. Throughout history, certain vile regimes have been beloved by their citizens. That doesn’t make them any less vile.

January 21, 2006 @ 5:49 am | Comment

NongXing at his very finest:

If you are Chinese living overseas, or traveling to a Western country. You should try to do some disgusting and bad things, such as spit on the ground, peek in a woman’s washroom, take so much napkins from fast food stores, etc etc. If people stare at you or try to criticize you, you say “Sorry, I am Japanese” and walk away. If all Chinese people do it regularly overseas, very soon Japigs will have very bad reputation!!!

Thanks for making it so easy for us to argue that you’re a total moron.

January 21, 2006 @ 5:58 am | Comment

Seems then that taiwan should have stayed a nationalist dictatorship then. People used to love that in taiwan – there’s an inner bitch in all of us that want dictators to run our lives.

January 21, 2006 @ 8:06 am | Comment

(Scrolling up now to a few days ago):

Ah, yeah Keir, you’re right. I meant Pope Benedict. Dunno why I said “Gregory”, except I was probably thinking – somewhere in my jumbled memories of medieval history – of some former popes named Gregory who were borderline fascists like Benedict the 16th is.

However, to be fair to Pope Ben Ratzinger, at least he carries on the reforms of Vatican Two (1960s) insofar as he says non-Catholics CAN be good people and go to heaven and all that. (Especially Jews – Pope Ben has NOT reversed the old, sick, evil, Vatican libel against Jews. So that is SOME kind of progress.)

We gotta wait for another century or two, before a later Pope says homosexuals can be good Christians.
(That is, homosexuals OTHER THAN the Priests who molest little boys. I’m growling a bit here – Ivan in his furious mode… 🙂

But still, I stand by my main point, about how when Pope John Paul II died last year, it was censored all over Chinese media, and China sent NO ONE to go to the Pope’s funeral – EVEN WHILE A REPRESENTATIVE OF IRAN went! Even the ISLAMIC government of Iran, sent a representative to the Pope’s funeral last year.

ALL world leaders went to the Pope’s funeral last year – almost all countries sent representatives there, except for China. Even the bloody “Islamic Republic Of Iran” , sent representatives to the Pope’s funeral. (Although, there are some precedents for this. Saladin, circa 1100, the chivalrous leader of the Saracen Turks during the Crusades, always treated Christians AND Jews with highest respect.)
But on CCTV there was no coverage of it. In THAT respect, last year, the Islamic Republic of Iran was more civilised than the PRC, when it came to the Pope’s funeral.

Some people – even millions of people in America – did not like Pope John Paul. Fair enough. There were some good reasons not to like him. But that’s beside the point. The POINT is, that the PRC made an ass of itself by refusing to pay any respect to the Pope’s funeral. And by covering it up in the Chinese media while ALL the world knew it as a major story of the death of a great world leader – love him or hate him, he was one of the most important figures of the last century, and the PRC just made an ass of itself by trying to ignore this……

…but of course, in China, there can only be ONE son of God – the Emperor of China, or Mao, or the Communist Party – and China refuses to respect any other religions. Ever.
Vicious, barbarian, superstition, China’s worship of the Emperor, and China’s Communist Party which pretends to be God.

At least the Muslim leader Saladin, and the recent Pope John Paul, acknowledged that there are some other ways of thinking about God. But the CCP does not allow this.
In THIS sense, yes China IS 5,000 years old – China is still stuck in the superstitions of 5,000 years ago – “Chairman Mao is like the Sun!”……

Oh, one more thing on that note: A year ago, a Chinese scholar argued with me about this, by saying,
“Christians say a Human named Jesus was the son of God, so why is it any different when Chinese people think of Mao like almost a god?” A very simple answer: Jesus never had any political power in his lifetime. But Mao did. There is a BIG difference between thinking of a dead man as a God, and treating a LIVING political leader like a God….because a dead man cannot use his admirers in political ways, but a LIVING leader can go crazy and destroy a nation, when people treat him like a living god…..like Mao….

….Jesus has been worshipped as a God for 2,000 years, because he taught peace and he died a humble death. Jesus was called a God AFTER he died as a poor, humble man. But Mao was the opposite. Mao turned himself into a God during his own lifetime, to enjoy the glory of power in this world. Jesus and Mao were entirely opposite to each other.

….which is probably too subtle a point for most Chinese people to understand, but maybe some of them will….

January 21, 2006 @ 9:47 am | Comment

PS to my last comment:

Just to clarify more, how Jesus and Mao are opposites:

In the ancient Roman Empire, the cross – which is now the symbol of Christianity – in the ancient Roman Empire, the cross was a symbol of the worst shame.

To be killed on the cross was the worst, most shameful kind of death, back in those times. Executing people on the cross was the Roman way of shaming them, shaming them SO much that nobody would ever follow anyone who died on a cross.

So, in China in recent times, some equal symbols of the Christian cross would be:

1. The signs which wise old Chinese scholars wore around their necks during the Cultural Revolution, to shame them. (Jesus also had a sign like this on his cross, to mock him and shame him.)

2. Being shot with a bullet in the back of the head.

3. ALL of the signs which millions of Chinese scholars and artists were forced to wear during the Cultural Revolution – all of those signs and foolish hats they were forced to wear, to shame them during the Cultural Revolution: In old Roman times, THAT is what the cross meant.
The cross was a sign of the worst shame.

4. And then, Jesus, who was shamed this way, became worshipped as a God. And that is OPPOSITE to how Mao turned himself into a God in his lifetime. During Mao’s time, the Chinese people who were most like Jesus, were the ones who wore signs of shame, while Mao was treated like a God.

January 21, 2006 @ 10:04 am | Comment

I’m not sure, but I think the Shanghai Dianxin ISP has blocked the PekingDuck site.

I’ve linked the tian’an’men/microsoft photoshop pic and have been unable to access it for a few days. I’ve tried then to access the Pekingduck site without using a proxy and ended up with a page cannot be displayed

*It takes so long to load the page using a proxy…

January 21, 2006 @ 1:09 pm | Comment

Richard, just a quick follow up to my comment earlier.

You mentioned the peasant unrest… what you neglected to mention is that these peasants are pushing for a crack-down on corruption, not the overthrown of the CCP.

FACT: the vast vast majority of people in China do not want some kind of revolution…. they just want reform. I believe in reform too…. corruption is a big problem and must be curbed.

And notice how you start talking again about how those Chinese people who support the CCP is just living in an illusion because they know no other system. This goes RIGHT BACK to my original argument: those who support the CCP are genuine people…. to deny them the legitimacy of their beliefs is to deny them their personhood.

Did I make myself clear?

January 21, 2006 @ 4:47 pm | Comment

Your argument is flawed. The genuineness of the people are not in question here.

Someone raised in an environment of religious fanaticism could be genuine to their belief in the same.

While China has made positive strides recently 40 years later than the Nationalists on Taiwan, the mere fact that the oppressive measures are still in place today indicates that the CCP fears the effects of the people expressing their true and informed opinion.

So they keep the people uninformed by blocking information, and incarcerating anyone that challenges them. Not to mention people who like to stretch in public.

January 21, 2006 @ 5:26 pm | Comment

On n’a pas besoin du gouvernement pour nous dire ce qu’il faut penser et faire quand on massacre son peuple!

A mort les japonais!

January 21, 2006 @ 5:37 pm | Comment

讨论中国应该用中文
还有,一个个也就住在中国几年而已,你懂多少中国?
P都没有.安静点挺好

January 21, 2006 @ 6:33 pm | Comment

hey 中国人,

你的email是china@attack.usa.com. 如果你跟你的朋友们讨论你的战幻，应该用英语。

January 21, 2006 @ 7:03 pm | Comment

Wow, this place is more energized! And, to borrow a word from the folks at Fox News: more Fair and Balanced.

Anyway, davesgonechina, what **** is Õ½»Ã

January 21, 2006 @ 7:10 pm | Comment

Richard, did you delete the Chinese profanity in pin-yin posted last night? That was pretty graphic!

January 21, 2006 @ 7:15 pm | Comment

中国人 不要以为你说中文，你就懂中国。没事少放屁，安静点没人当你死人。

January 21, 2006 @ 7:17 pm | Comment

To the guy upstairs, stay civil. If you have nothing to contribute, use a caulk dispenser to seal your orifices.

January 21, 2006 @ 7:20 pm | Comment

Personally, as a Chinese, I agree what Richard said. The factor is level A never consider level C’s opinion, though on China Constitution, A is supposed to be Representative of C.

January 21, 2006 @ 7:25 pm | Comment

The factor is level A never consider level C’s opinion, though on China Constitution, A is supposed to be Representative of C.

Yes it is a reprensentative of level C. That is the whole reason for the existence of the Chinese Communist Party, that it is ROOTED IN THE FUNDAMENTAL INTERESTS of the working class and farmer’s class. Of course you can say they are not doing a good job, but that is a totally different thing than saying they’ve abandoned their founding principles

January 21, 2006 @ 7:28 pm | Comment

China_hand, you have orificies also. Or I should say “HOLE”? I will treat you as 死人, as well.

January 21, 2006 @ 7:30 pm | Comment

Herein lies the Achilles heel to your whole argument Math. Given the state of China’s Level C, can you honestly say that Level A even remotely represents the interests of Level C? You do the math.

January 21, 2006 @ 7:39 pm | Comment

Richard, did you delete the Chinese profanity in pin-yin posted last night? That was pretty graphic!

I sure did. He spammed the same crap into other threads, and was obviously here to infuriate,not communicate.

January 21, 2006 @ 8:24 pm | Comment

interesting

January 21, 2006 @ 9:11 pm | Comment

can I ask you guys a question: how do you judge Chinese women?

January 21, 2006 @ 9:14 pm | Comment

My god…
I’m reading right now about David irving, Hoocaust denier who is now languishing in an Austrian gaol for his right-wing views and books which he was propogating in Vienna.
Who does this remind you of?:
The man has no real convictions and no consistent ideological programme.
“I ask Irving about his spectacular U-turn on the Hitler Diaries in 1983, when, after first denouncing them as fakes, he changed his mind and endorsed them as genuine in a Sunday Times article a fortnight later. ‘It was just a joke. It was entertainment. All that had nothing to do with historiography,’ Irving grins. ‘It’s not important who wins, but how you play.’
It comes as no surprise that Irving’s view of history is totally devoid of moral considerations. He is too amoral to even comprehend that his statements about the Holocaust may hurt survivors. His view of history is not unlike that of the National Socialists. History, like nature, is red in tooth and claw. The stronger win, and it is only the strong that Irving reserves his admiration for. Someone like ‘Bomber’ Harris. With his first book, the young David Irving drew attention to the horrors of the Allies’ bombing of Dresden in 1945. Yet he admires Sir Arthur Harris as a ‘great man’. ‘I’m referring to him as a commander, like Dönitz,’ Irving exclaims. ‘If you can send 20,000 young men to their deaths each day, then you are a great commander.’ Small wonder that Irving admires Hitler too.”
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1692086,00.html

January 21, 2006 @ 10:00 pm | Comment

Keir, I am totally perplexed. Whoever could you be referring to? Printing total BS for the sake of entertainment, even if it harms peope? Unheard of.

January 21, 2006 @ 10:10 pm | Comment

Ed,

I have not followed all the comments, but at this point, I have to say that your assumption is questionable, or discussusable.

“The genuineness of the people are not in question here.”

That is right.

But that doesn’t mean they know and understand demoncracy and negotiating with goverment well enough yet.

I completely agree that people should be well informed. Which is the first step to make people “smarter”.

But certainly China is not ready for a mass scale political reform yet.

I believe CCP wants a political reform, but it is not a trivial job and CCP does NOT know what to do yet and they are very cautious thus conservative.

See the reports from BBC about Chinese PM Wen’s recent talk targetting at provincial officials? The central goverment is in dilimma right now: on one hand the local goverments are corrupted and the PM can’t stop them; on the other hand, although people’s power is the best (maybe the only) solution to this problem, but the situation, Chinese political system and people’s knowledge and understanding on democracy, or even the law, does not allow this power function properly, either too violent or not enough.

So, here is the roadmap that will function, stablity->(richness + better education +…+ reform step-by-step)->spontanous change all over the country ->a democratic China.

January 21, 2006 @ 11:40 pm | Comment

It looks so funny that you guys talking about China like experts, but turn out to be you guys don’t really know sh!t about it. Stop your imagination please. China has much more for you to learn and appreciate.

Japanese is, in fact, a little fantoccini dominated by the US. They are cowards keep on denying what they have done in World War 2.

They created a “Chinese Threat” propaganda, and show off their powerful military strength at the same time…

On the other hand, you guys think it’s really democratic in the US? LMFAO if you say so!! We are under a “directed” democracy here. The government steals our privacy and lie to us. Guess what, George W. Bush with an MBA invests a lot of dollars in Lockheed Martin who makes F-117 etc. Fighting a war brings him a great fortune you can’t even imagine. Do you think it’s fair to have the soldiers who are mainly poor to middle-class to risk their lives for making someone else worthy? Democracy is just a name. A name to give people a dream, but it never comes true.

All men are created equal, but some men are created more equal than the others.

January 22, 2006 @ 2:25 am | Comment

ABC’s.
It is totally irrational (without other supporting evidence) to believe that A represents C’s today solely because that’s how the CCP was founded. Mass gatherings were not fobidden when the CCP formed. Today they categorically are. That is unless it’s some anti-japanese event.

January 22, 2006 @ 2:29 am | Comment

3Person,

I appreciate your candid response. However, I didn’t say people in China were ready for full democracy today. Some would argue even in the US too many are uninformed today. So what is keeping people from become “smarter” as you mentioned, in China?

All nations go through transitions. We can categorize it as:
Feudal –> Dictatorship –> Party Tutelage–> Representative Government
This is part of SYS’s and Nationalist’s principles of national reconstruction, back when everyone still liked them in China.

Not all countries are ready for democracy, of course. In China, these issues include: 1) People need personal and economic security before they are able to even think about government. 2) governing structure and law limitations do not permit a representative government and 3) people are not well informed, nor able to think critically about their government.

At the same time China’s issues respectively stem from: 1) The C’s being cheated out of the economic development manifesting in the 80,000K annual protests . 2) A political progression system with incentives not aligned with the interests of the people, with laws taking a back seat (incentives are not different than during the great drought when collectives lied about grain production ). 3) Oppression of people’s ability to speak frankly and freely, to access various points of views, or gather and openly discuss with others similar ideas.

All for the sake of “stability.” If you can point out other ways in which China isn’t ready, I’d be happy to discuss.

Taiwan did not transition to a democracy solely because the Nationalists wanted to give up power. Many in (what’s left of) ROC did not feel represented and formed an opposition. The CCP sees “Stability” as maintaining its own control of the country, and would never voluntarily give up power. The people need to advocate for their ability to think freely, and their interests. While corruption will always exist, only when the government has to answer to the people will corruption wane.

January 22, 2006 @ 2:51 am | Comment

Just to clarify more, how Jesus and Mao are opposites:

4. And then, Jesus, who was shamed this way, became worshipped as a God. And that is OPPOSITE to how Mao turned himself into a God in his lifetime. During Mao’s time, the Chinese people who were most like Jesus, were the ones who wore signs of shame, while Mao was treated like a God.

Ivan, do yourself a favor and stop posting this shit, because there is no difference between Christianity and Communism; they are two variants of the same authoritarianism. Both have systems of dogma, objective morals, faith in a transcendent authority, a cell structure, political commissars, centralized institutional authority, censorship and control of thought, and murder of opponents. The Communists just had the advantage of coming to the fore in a time of better tech, so were able to acheive higher death tolls.

Also, while the cross was generally considered a shameful death, be aware that in the Greek fiction of the first and second century, it was normal for the hero to enter the city, be taken for a divine being, be worshipped by crowds, visit the temple, be arrested, tried before the local potentate, and then crucified. Crucifixion was meant to be shameful, but it was also a convention of Greek fiction. It couldn’t have been that shameful. BTW, empty tombs and resurrections were also staples of fiction of the period. Everything that you think is history in the gospels is actually a convention of Hellenistic historical fiction. I suggest starting with a good book like Chaereas and Callirhoe to get a feel for the genre.

The “cross” was not a “symbol” of shame by itself, since it was associated with a number of pre-Christian religions, in many and variant forms. Marking with the sign of the cross was also a feature of the Hebrew religion, as the Old Testament attests.

Michael

January 22, 2006 @ 6:42 am | Comment

Seems Hongxing has invited some of his buddies to join in. Would it be to much to ask you to delete these racist comments, Richard?

January 22, 2006 @ 7:27 am | Comment

China Hand,

Õ½»Ã is just something I made up. How would you say “war fantasies”?

January 22, 2006 @ 2:10 pm | Comment

What exactly are “war fantasies” ???

January 22, 2006 @ 3:07 pm | Comment

the dude’s fake email was china@attack.usa.com. What do you think I mean by “war fantasies”? I mean he entertains the notion, or at least claims to, of china attacking the US. I think this is pretty unlikely, but clearly “中国人“ would think it would be pretty cool. Hence I assume he fantasizes about China kicking America’s ass.

Hence the term “war fantasies”. He lies awake at night pulling the pud imagining George Bush impaled upon his bayonet, and probably with all the homoerotic subtext that implies.

January 22, 2006 @ 3:18 pm | Comment

The Chinese are not the ones with CVBG’s stationed around the pacific with bombers aimed at striking the US.

Your hypocritical garbage is laughable.

Talking about reform out of a concern for fellow man is great. Blind CCP-bashing that ignores and condescends the genuine feelings of the Chinese people is despicable. Imperialist acts intended to keep China’s 1.3 billion people poor and dominated is a causus belli.

January 22, 2006 @ 3:54 pm | Comment

davesgonechina, oh come on, I’m sure he was just joking.

January 22, 2006 @ 3:55 pm | Comment

Talking about reform out of a concern for fellow man is great. Blind CCP-bashing that ignores and condescends the genuine feelings of the Chinese people is despicable.

What are you referring to?

January 22, 2006 @ 4:54 pm | Comment

davesgonechina… the question is then: why do you link everything to homoeroticism?

January 22, 2006 @ 5:04 pm | Comment

t_co, dave has been commenting here for many months. He doesn’t link everything to homoeroticism. In fact, I think this is the very first time! I suspect he was being wryly amusing, though I’m sure it went right over a lot of people’s heads.

January 22, 2006 @ 5:09 pm | Comment

So was I, China Hand.

January 22, 2006 @ 5:18 pm | Comment

“The Chinese are not the ones with CVBG’s stationed around the pacific with bombers aimed at striking the US.”
Perhaps not for want of trying?

January 22, 2006 @ 5:56 pm | Comment

“Imperialist acts intended to keep China’s 1.3 billion people poor and dominated is a causus belli.”

Classic persecution complex; sadly rampant in Chinese society.

It’s quite clear that China is spoiling for a war with someone, peace-loving nation that she is. Remember not to miss the firework display when it all kicks off; it’ll be the last thing you ever see (or any of us for that matter).

January 22, 2006 @ 6:10 pm | Comment

Keir, Stuart:

It is clear from your posting that in your eyes, China is guilty until proven innocent beyond a reasonable doubt.

Why is this so?

Is it because we’re too communist?

Is it because we’re too capitalist?

Is it because we have slanty eyes?

As long as the west applies hypocritical standards and a ‘guilty until proven innocent’ attitude to China, we know that the real agenda was never about the benefit of the Chinese people …. it is about imperialism over developing countries and maintaining the 200 year old western monopoly on power.

Yes, we’re spoiling for a fight with the arrogant imperialists.

The Chinese people are united and determined: nothing will stop us from developing into a modern and advanced nation.

January 22, 2006 @ 7:27 pm | Comment

Zhongguo, I can only speak for myself, but I believe no one here wants to see China colonized or subdued. Some of us just see the mess the CCP has left in its wake and wish for something better for the Chinese people. You can modernize without repressing, you can advance without crushing dissent. Thread closed.

January 22, 2006 @ 8:00 pm | Comment