Wild, rambling, free association of thoughts on a mystery called Barak Obama
BO fascinates me, not because he is the President. (Figures of authority never awe me, especially if they are mediocre). He captures my imagination, not because his full names contain my first name twice. He holds me in thrall simply because of his sensitivity. He has reminded me time and again that to gain respect from others, I must first show respect. Respect has to be earned, not demanded---as some simpletons absurdly insist.
Obama bows because he is sensitive and he is smart, not because he is obsequious.
Here's a man who expressed a desire to become the President when he was still in kindergarten. He studied Political Science and Law. He was smart enough to be chosen the editor of Harvard Law Review. We must deduce that he was proud of his accomplishments. We must guess that he is a proud man, but he bows to monarchs because he is smart and sensitive. He knows what the others think. (I also fancy that I know what others think, but I usually don't give a damn. I am too much of an egotist. I am socially and emotionally retarded. I "do things my way", to borrow a juvenile parlance being bandied around lately).
However, he didn't bow to greed. He didn't go for highly-paid jobs that a person with his resume' could command. He became a community organizer. He had vision.
I always wondered how a freshman Senator could capture the hearts and minds of many of his colleagues so they would support him when he decided to run for the Presidency. There must be something in the way he interacted with them, something I sorely lack.
Any lingering doubt of mine about Obama's intelligence vanished when he offered Hillary Clinton the plum job of Secretary of State. It was a stroke of genius and spoke volumes about the man.
Watching the man speaking on TV while he was campaigning. I could discern the mind and the personality behind the words he chose and the delivery of those words. He came across poised, thoughtful, and respecful of others. I was impressed. Michelle must have been also since she married him although he was younger than her.
Some right wing commentators are going nuts over Obama's penchant for bowing. They opined that as a representative of the American people, Obama should not bow to anybody since Americans don't bow. Those right wingers must have a short memory. American people, like most people, bow to greed, hypocrisy (lecturing others about human rights, but violating rights of minorities and the poor in the past, and rights of detainees in the present), and dishonor (betrayal of one-time allies such as Diem, Noriega, and Saddam).
I hope Obama will bow to reality, to justice, and to American interests. I hope Obama will vigorously help Vietnam in the upcoming confrontattiom between Vietnam and China in the East Sea.
wissai
nov. 16, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Chinese Empire
Empires come and go throughout human history. Everyboby knows that. Most past empires are now second rate, even third rate powers. Even a cursory reading of a single world history textbook would bring this fact to the fore. There is no need for me to mention names of all empires that succumbed to decay and collapse.
What I would like to briefly discuss tonight is that inherent size matters. In the past, empire rose through conquests, but the original country and the people lived there was small in size and number. Although subsequent conquests of neighboring and occasionally far- flung lands expanded the territory, conquered peoples were not assimilated even if the language (Latin, Arabic, English, French, Russian. I don't know much about the case of the Aztecs, the Mayas, and the Incas, so I can't comment) was widely diffused. As a result, when the empire collapsed, conquered peoples regained independence or were part of another emerging empire.
Empires collapsed because of over-extension and lack of money for maintenance due to constant imperial wars. Spain was powerful only for two centurires (16th and 17th) thanks to mineral riches from America, but by 18th century she was exhausted due to Counter-Reformation ventures. Turkey was called a sick man in Europe in 20th century. When WWI ended, she lost all her colonies. Two world wars finished Britain. France, and Germany as empires. In their place, USSR and USA emerged as superpowers, code name for empires. Ineptitude and lack of money shrank the Russian empire. It looks now USA is following her on the decline because of decay, wasteful spending, and heavy indebtedness, Money is the blood and the engine to hold an empire together.
The sick man of Asia in 19th century and the first half of 20th century is now very vigorous. China has been an empire that may prove to be an exception to the rule of impermanence. Her land of origin was big ( north of Yangtze River) to begin with. She has vast natural resources and she has been wildly successful in assimilating conquered peoples. Though the conquered peoples south of Yangtze River still speak their own mutually unintelligible languages which in turn are different from Mandarin, they have "learned" to regard themselves as Chinese through the imposition of written language system and culture from the North. When China was ruled by foreigners ( Mongols and Manchus), she managed to assimilate the conquerors as well because of her numerical superiority and the superiority of her culture.
China is now prosperous, unified, and confident. Naturally she is now resuming the task of expanding her empire. Her target is of course Vietnam, her former colony, and her tributary state since 939 C.E until the French conquered Vietnam by 1884.The invasion is already taking place. Skirmishes have been fought and Vietnam is already losing and has ceded land at the border, most of the Gulf of Tonkin, all of Paracel Islands, and most of Spratly Islands. On top of that Chinese enclaves have been established in Vietnam, off limits even to the local authorities. Not satisfied,some Chinese generals have openly talked about conquering the whole Vietnam. A Vietnamese in Vietnam, who is fluent in Chinese told anh HC via an email that the propaganda machine in China has spread lies about the Vietnamese fishermen, accusing them of violating Chinese territory and stealing fish and sea products that belong to China. As a consequence, the Chinese are eager to teach us "a lesson".
In life, there are trends and patterns. Also, historical forces tend to march on relentlssly. Vietnam is small, weak, disunited internally, exhausted from centuries of civil wars, ruled by an inept, corrupt regime, and thus is a tempting prey for China.Just because we have managed to avoid assimilation until now, that does not mean we can do again this time if we don't prepare ourselves for the struggle which is already under way. Vietnam's Intelligence Agency (Cuc 2) is infiltrated by China. It has accused Vo Van Kiet and now Vo Nguyen Giap of working for the CIA. Dissidents who voiced opposition to China were arrested and imprisoned. Yet more and more domestic Vietnamese intellectuals bravely defy the VCP, demanding it face the China question. These intellectuals risk their lives, their freedom, the well- being of their loved ones because they love Vietnam, because they want to carry out their responsibiliy as the leaders, the engine of change for the survival of our country, our race.
Nobody, no country will fight the fight for us. Countries like the U.S., India, and Australia will only help us if they see we are willing to fight for our freedom, our dignity, our survival.
Overseas Vietnamese intellectuals who live in comfort and safety, please join your brethren at home in the fight, and let them know they are not alone. Write to them. Write to the worldand let the world know China is a threat and a menace to world peace and she must be stopped before she becomes another Fascist Japan of yore.
We all have to die some day. While we are alive, we need to live in a manner that renders our lives meaningful. We can do that by showing to the Chinese we are true descendants of Ngo Quyen, Ly Thuong Kiet, Tran Hung Dao, Le Loi, and Nguyen Hue. We need to show them we are NOT the offspring of Tran Ich Tac, Le Chieu Thong, and Ho Chi Minh.
Viet Nam Muon Nam!
Wissai
Nov. 16, 2009
What I would like to briefly discuss tonight is that inherent size matters. In the past, empire rose through conquests, but the original country and the people lived there was small in size and number. Although subsequent conquests of neighboring and occasionally far- flung lands expanded the territory, conquered peoples were not assimilated even if the language (Latin, Arabic, English, French, Russian. I don't know much about the case of the Aztecs, the Mayas, and the Incas, so I can't comment) was widely diffused. As a result, when the empire collapsed, conquered peoples regained independence or were part of another emerging empire.
Empires collapsed because of over-extension and lack of money for maintenance due to constant imperial wars. Spain was powerful only for two centurires (16th and 17th) thanks to mineral riches from America, but by 18th century she was exhausted due to Counter-Reformation ventures. Turkey was called a sick man in Europe in 20th century. When WWI ended, she lost all her colonies. Two world wars finished Britain. France, and Germany as empires. In their place, USSR and USA emerged as superpowers, code name for empires. Ineptitude and lack of money shrank the Russian empire. It looks now USA is following her on the decline because of decay, wasteful spending, and heavy indebtedness, Money is the blood and the engine to hold an empire together.
The sick man of Asia in 19th century and the first half of 20th century is now very vigorous. China has been an empire that may prove to be an exception to the rule of impermanence. Her land of origin was big ( north of Yangtze River) to begin with. She has vast natural resources and she has been wildly successful in assimilating conquered peoples. Though the conquered peoples south of Yangtze River still speak their own mutually unintelligible languages which in turn are different from Mandarin, they have "learned" to regard themselves as Chinese through the imposition of written language system and culture from the North. When China was ruled by foreigners ( Mongols and Manchus), she managed to assimilate the conquerors as well because of her numerical superiority and the superiority of her culture.
China is now prosperous, unified, and confident. Naturally she is now resuming the task of expanding her empire. Her target is of course Vietnam, her former colony, and her tributary state since 939 C.E until the French conquered Vietnam by 1884.The invasion is already taking place. Skirmishes have been fought and Vietnam is already losing and has ceded land at the border, most of the Gulf of Tonkin, all of Paracel Islands, and most of Spratly Islands. On top of that Chinese enclaves have been established in Vietnam, off limits even to the local authorities. Not satisfied,some Chinese generals have openly talked about conquering the whole Vietnam. A Vietnamese in Vietnam, who is fluent in Chinese told anh HC via an email that the propaganda machine in China has spread lies about the Vietnamese fishermen, accusing them of violating Chinese territory and stealing fish and sea products that belong to China. As a consequence, the Chinese are eager to teach us "a lesson".
In life, there are trends and patterns. Also, historical forces tend to march on relentlssly. Vietnam is small, weak, disunited internally, exhausted from centuries of civil wars, ruled by an inept, corrupt regime, and thus is a tempting prey for China.Just because we have managed to avoid assimilation until now, that does not mean we can do again this time if we don't prepare ourselves for the struggle which is already under way. Vietnam's Intelligence Agency (Cuc 2) is infiltrated by China. It has accused Vo Van Kiet and now Vo Nguyen Giap of working for the CIA. Dissidents who voiced opposition to China were arrested and imprisoned. Yet more and more domestic Vietnamese intellectuals bravely defy the VCP, demanding it face the China question. These intellectuals risk their lives, their freedom, the well- being of their loved ones because they love Vietnam, because they want to carry out their responsibiliy as the leaders, the engine of change for the survival of our country, our race.
Nobody, no country will fight the fight for us. Countries like the U.S., India, and Australia will only help us if they see we are willing to fight for our freedom, our dignity, our survival.
Overseas Vietnamese intellectuals who live in comfort and safety, please join your brethren at home in the fight, and let them know they are not alone. Write to them. Write to the worldand let the world know China is a threat and a menace to world peace and she must be stopped before she becomes another Fascist Japan of yore.
We all have to die some day. While we are alive, we need to live in a manner that renders our lives meaningful. We can do that by showing to the Chinese we are true descendants of Ngo Quyen, Ly Thuong Kiet, Tran Hung Dao, Le Loi, and Nguyen Hue. We need to show them we are NOT the offspring of Tran Ich Tac, Le Chieu Thong, and Ho Chi Minh.
Viet Nam Muon Nam!
Wissai
Nov. 16, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Visualizations, Insights, and Convictions
It could be the flowering of the intellect after years of absorption of facts and knowledge. The flowering manifested itself in a keen and cogent analysis of pertinent facts and a synthesis of the facts to get at a theoretical framework, a narrative to explain the facts. It could be an explosion of the mind before it completely disintegrates just as what happened to Nietzsche's mind prior to his going completely insane.
Somebody asked about visualization today. You gave him a succinct answer. You failed to disclose that you have been preoccupied with the issue of visualization all your life. All big accomplishments from humans came from visualizations, insights, and convictions. It ranged from a master archer visualized his arrow flying through the air and he was riding with the arrow and together he and the arrow hit, embrace, and being one with the target. He lived with the arrow, the bow, and the target. All his waking moments were consumed with the visualizatiuon. It came to various stories about religious figures supremely feeling that they were the ones who could bring understanding and answer to the big questions to their fellow men. It was part of the lore of scientists and artists who had the convictions that they possessed the talent, the wherewithal to realize their undying dream, the dream that kept awake at night.
Visualization, if proper channelled, can open doors to wonders and discoveries of the anwsers to the unknown, the seeming mysteries of life, of the universe.
wissai
nov. 20, 2009
Somebody asked about visualization today. You gave him a succinct answer. You failed to disclose that you have been preoccupied with the issue of visualization all your life. All big accomplishments from humans came from visualizations, insights, and convictions. It ranged from a master archer visualized his arrow flying through the air and he was riding with the arrow and together he and the arrow hit, embrace, and being one with the target. He lived with the arrow, the bow, and the target. All his waking moments were consumed with the visualizatiuon. It came to various stories about religious figures supremely feeling that they were the ones who could bring understanding and answer to the big questions to their fellow men. It was part of the lore of scientists and artists who had the convictions that they possessed the talent, the wherewithal to realize their undying dream, the dream that kept awake at night.
Visualization, if proper channelled, can open doors to wonders and discoveries of the anwsers to the unknown, the seeming mysteries of life, of the universe.
wissai
nov. 20, 2009
The enigma of Chinese modernization
When China Rules the World: The End of the Western World and the Birth of a New Global Orderby Martin JacquesAllen Lane $69.95
TWO THOUSAND AND NINE has been a momentous year for the world, but especially for China. Late last year, with the Olympics barely over, the global financial crisis delivered a body blow to its economy. Facing the disastrous decline of export markets and the jobs they supported, the government engineered a major stimulus package, and the country now seems to have staged a miraculous recovery. And while economists continue to debate the dimensions and downstream costs of the policies behind the upturn, China has been taking a great propaganda windfall from the financial embarrassment of many western states, not least the United States. Even Australia, which suffered less than most, has owed its resilience primarily to China and – if you believe the media – has found itself on the back foot in a whole series of its dealings with that country.
As China moves inexorably from its backburner status to budding superpower (as reflected in President Obama’s recent visit to Beijing, where he received less in the way of concessions than his predecessors), there is a clear need for expansive, well-written accounts of China’s intentions and capabilities. Extracting his own advantage from the situation, veteran editor and researcher Martin Jacques brings considerable powers of persuasion to the task.
Jacques’s fluency is enviable – so much so that some criticisms of the book seem partly motivated by envy. When China Rules the World has been criticised for being repetitive, but this feature makes it an attractive candidate textbook (provided it was available in paperback) for a semester course on “China in the World.” The canvas sketched by the book is generous, obliging students to get a range of big China issues under their belts; a little repetition only helps the process. The thesis that “China is the elephant in the room that no one is quite willing to recognise” is perhaps the key to the book, and is indeed a likely quote to set as an “International Politics 101” exam question. The word “discuss” would, however, appear next to it: to get a pass, the candidate would need to put that quote in the crosshairs of some criticism.
Reviewing the book for the Spectator, Jonathan Mirsky listed some major errors of fact, and attacked many of the book’s concessions to prevailing, and self-serving, Chinese prejudice. Somewhat more restrained were the objections of Will Hutton, who debated with Jacques in the pages of the Guardian. Another writer charged Jacques with “building a case by cherry-picking the evidence.” But his treatment of secondary literature seems to me to be reliable, not to say valuable, so that charge seems somewhat wide of the mark. Many of the political and economic facts Jacques recounts seem, in fact, to run over familiar ground, and are as uncontroversial as they are well-written.
Some of the harsher criticisms seemed to be triggered by emotional reactions to the atmospherics and presentation of the book, rather than by what is actually at stake. Thus the teasing title, When China Rules the World, seems more like a publisher’s publicity ploy than one of the author’s stronger theses. When China rules the world, it turns out, it won’t actually rule the world: “China is likely to operate both within and outside the existing international system,” writes Jacques, “seeking to transform that system while at the same time, in effect, sponsoring a new China-centric system which will exist alongside that system and probably slowly begin to absorb it.”
China thus reinvents its traditional identity as a civilisation-state rather than a nation-state, exerting influence and extracting compliance with its norms, but showing little interest in expanding its borders. More military capacity may change this, Jacques concedes, but this is not one of the major scenarios scouted.
Another key argument is that the challenge China poses is less to do with its authoritarian political system than with its inability to deal with its sense of historical identity without reverting to an historical doctrine of superiority over all other civilisations in the world. “The problem with western commentary on China,” writes Jacques, “has been its overwhelming preoccupation with China’s polity, in particular the lack of democracy… [whereas] the most difficult question posed by the rise of China is not the absence of democracy but how it will handle difference.”
This argument has a lot to recommend it. Barack Obama’s visit this month drew a badly thought-out and patronising statement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the effect that as a descendent of slaves, Obama would surely appreciate China’s position on Tibet, which President Lincoln, as a foe of disunion, would have supported as well. It would have been more appropriate to reflect on what Obama himself focused on in a strong speech delivered in Tokyo on the eve of his arrival in Shanghai – namely, that having spent important years of his life in Indonesia, he has a good grasp of Asian-Pacific political culture. China’s difficulty in accepting the idea of a black president does not, however, equate to a belief that China is superior to the United States. Regardless of the identity of the US president, America is a fundamental point of reference in Chinese thinking in scores of areas. For the rest of the world, the problem is often less about China’s amour-propre than its fixation on American models of modernity.
This is a matter for judgement, but the questions about modernity go deeper. Jacques argues that China can modernise without westernising – or, in his own words, “Chinese modernity will be very different from western modernity and China will transform the world far more fundamentally than any other new global power in the last two centuries.” This is the burden of chapter five, “Contested Modernity,” which is central to the book.
With his supporting arguments about Chinese culture, about China as “civilisation-state” rather than a nation-state, Jacques places himself on contested ground. His definition of western modernity is based on an inadequate critique of values and, in its own way, is paradoxically Eurocentric. Concerned to knock the west, and above all the United States, off its pedestal, he fails to take adequate stock of the fact that the value systems that evolved there were the results of just the same processes of sifting and elective affinity that occurred in China as well.
In consequence of this, Jacques’s account of Chinese modernity is somewhat overdrawn. Modernity is after all not a floating signifier, a convenient shorthand for “whatever is going on now.” Even if we allow for variant national encodings of modernity, to qualify means drawing a line, at some point, under feudal relations of dependency, like slavery and serfdom; limiting the powers of monarchs under the rubric of popular sovereignty; and affirming the moral autonomy of the individual.
It would be wrong to think that China failed completely to register the impact of this sea change in ideas running from the Reformation, via the Enlightenment, to the Industrial Revolution. So eager were China’s revolutionaries to overthrow “feudalism” that they accepted Stalin’s dogma of “five stages of social development,” discarding the established view of traditional Chinese historiography that feudalism in the strict sense (control over territory granted in return for a promise of service) had been extinguished following the unification of the Warring States by the Qin emperor.
Freedom, democracy and individualism have had their famous and passionate advocates in China. The earliest Marxists, like Chen Duxiu (1879–1942) and Li Dazhao (1883–1927), clearly believed in these ideals, though they believed that realising them required taking a radical rather than a gradual approach. The disappearance of these ideas in the 1950s had little to do with their being driven out of the marketplace by more popular or more culturally attuned rivals, and much to do with a conscious policy of intellectual cleansing by Mao and his acolytes. Even at the level of popular culture, we can’t be sure how far these ideas may have advanced in the absence of the specific pressures of very recent Chinese history.
Jacques’s partial view of Chinese debates on modernity and universal values points the way to a wider discussion. No matter how exceptional, how path-dependent, China’s trajectory has been, its modernity retains a family resemblance to so-called “western” modernity, not least to the latter’s uncertainties. In fact Jacques smoothes the image of “western modernity,” leaving out the huge indeterminacies and unresolved issues that have agitated the twentieth century.
Take social inequality. The west is deeply conflicted about what to do about inequality, and many attitudes in China, including attitudes to inequality, are the result, not of the traditional “essence” of Chinese culture – of what Jacques terms its “DNA” – but of decisions to follow one or another suggested western solution. The idea of equality of opportunity is one on which many formerly competing systems of thought have begun to converge, with the remaining differences of opinion mainly over the speed and the arc of change. But again contra Jacques, China by no means stands aloof from this trend, claiming a unique and exceptional Chinese solution. On the contrary, equality of opportunity is a point of intellectual convergence in China as well, and was the explicit core of what many in party policy circles understood to be the operational meaning of “social harmony.”
Re-emerging inequality is widely acknowledged, not least in China itself, as the greatest of the drawbacks of the reform era (1978–). The breakdown of the reform consensus, signalled by fierce polemical exchanges between “liberal” and “new left” intellectuals in the 1990s, was the first act in this process of acknowledgement, followed a decade later by the acceptance into official discourse of the language of social justice.
Inequality is a factor for stability in many societies – for example, in India, where caste inequalities have been capable of maintaining equilibrium for centuries – but this is unlikely to be the case in contemporary China, where economic transition produces so much uncertainty. Indeed, the intractable processes that generate inequality under policy uncertainty are more potent drivers of political change than purely political interests, such as competition between elites. It is true that degrees of citizenship vary independently of western liberal political values like democracy, liberty and human rights. Nazi Germany was, after all, able to enhance the citizenship of the German populace. But this is precisely the point: one can have modernity without Anglo-American liberalism, but without citizenship the term loses any meaningful reference. A huge amount of discourse in China accepts that without enhanced citizenship there is no way out of the inequality quagmire.
A great deal of the culture produced in China since the European collision in the early nineteenth century is culture of ressentiment – a state fuelled by feelings of weakness or inferiority that produce a “rejecting/justifying value system, or morality” that “attacks or denies the perceived source of one’s frustration.” Much of what Jacques identifies as Chinese modernity corresponds to this projected image. It is accurately and lucidly described in the book, but is stripped of many of its internal divisions and paradoxes, presented as the whole – and, worse, as China’s cultural “DNA.” An entire flank of Chinese modernity, running from Lu Xun to Qin Hui and other critical intellectuals, is concerned to confront this “justifying value system” and the collective self-deceptions it tends to induce.
I don’t have space to repeat the arguments of Qin and kindred spirits here, but the implications for the global politics of China seem clear: China has constructed a story about its independence from world currents of thought, partly based on historical fact but partly on self-serving myth. Until it confronts its repressed urge to negate western value systems simply because they are western – not realising that they represent alternate possibilities within universally human thought – and then goes on to solve the governance problems stemming from its self-generated uncertainty and inequality, China will be an enigma to the outside world. It will be unable to generate either sustainable public goods or genuine soft power, and it will continue to export uncertainty and arouse unwanted reactions. There is indeed an elephant in the room, but China is as capable of blindness to it as any other observer. •
David Kelly is Professor of China Studies in the China Research Centre at the University of Technology Sydney.
TWO THOUSAND AND NINE has been a momentous year for the world, but especially for China. Late last year, with the Olympics barely over, the global financial crisis delivered a body blow to its economy. Facing the disastrous decline of export markets and the jobs they supported, the government engineered a major stimulus package, and the country now seems to have staged a miraculous recovery. And while economists continue to debate the dimensions and downstream costs of the policies behind the upturn, China has been taking a great propaganda windfall from the financial embarrassment of many western states, not least the United States. Even Australia, which suffered less than most, has owed its resilience primarily to China and – if you believe the media – has found itself on the back foot in a whole series of its dealings with that country.
As China moves inexorably from its backburner status to budding superpower (as reflected in President Obama’s recent visit to Beijing, where he received less in the way of concessions than his predecessors), there is a clear need for expansive, well-written accounts of China’s intentions and capabilities. Extracting his own advantage from the situation, veteran editor and researcher Martin Jacques brings considerable powers of persuasion to the task.
Jacques’s fluency is enviable – so much so that some criticisms of the book seem partly motivated by envy. When China Rules the World has been criticised for being repetitive, but this feature makes it an attractive candidate textbook (provided it was available in paperback) for a semester course on “China in the World.” The canvas sketched by the book is generous, obliging students to get a range of big China issues under their belts; a little repetition only helps the process. The thesis that “China is the elephant in the room that no one is quite willing to recognise” is perhaps the key to the book, and is indeed a likely quote to set as an “International Politics 101” exam question. The word “discuss” would, however, appear next to it: to get a pass, the candidate would need to put that quote in the crosshairs of some criticism.
Reviewing the book for the Spectator, Jonathan Mirsky listed some major errors of fact, and attacked many of the book’s concessions to prevailing, and self-serving, Chinese prejudice. Somewhat more restrained were the objections of Will Hutton, who debated with Jacques in the pages of the Guardian. Another writer charged Jacques with “building a case by cherry-picking the evidence.” But his treatment of secondary literature seems to me to be reliable, not to say valuable, so that charge seems somewhat wide of the mark. Many of the political and economic facts Jacques recounts seem, in fact, to run over familiar ground, and are as uncontroversial as they are well-written.
Some of the harsher criticisms seemed to be triggered by emotional reactions to the atmospherics and presentation of the book, rather than by what is actually at stake. Thus the teasing title, When China Rules the World, seems more like a publisher’s publicity ploy than one of the author’s stronger theses. When China rules the world, it turns out, it won’t actually rule the world: “China is likely to operate both within and outside the existing international system,” writes Jacques, “seeking to transform that system while at the same time, in effect, sponsoring a new China-centric system which will exist alongside that system and probably slowly begin to absorb it.”
China thus reinvents its traditional identity as a civilisation-state rather than a nation-state, exerting influence and extracting compliance with its norms, but showing little interest in expanding its borders. More military capacity may change this, Jacques concedes, but this is not one of the major scenarios scouted.
Another key argument is that the challenge China poses is less to do with its authoritarian political system than with its inability to deal with its sense of historical identity without reverting to an historical doctrine of superiority over all other civilisations in the world. “The problem with western commentary on China,” writes Jacques, “has been its overwhelming preoccupation with China’s polity, in particular the lack of democracy… [whereas] the most difficult question posed by the rise of China is not the absence of democracy but how it will handle difference.”
This argument has a lot to recommend it. Barack Obama’s visit this month drew a badly thought-out and patronising statement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the effect that as a descendent of slaves, Obama would surely appreciate China’s position on Tibet, which President Lincoln, as a foe of disunion, would have supported as well. It would have been more appropriate to reflect on what Obama himself focused on in a strong speech delivered in Tokyo on the eve of his arrival in Shanghai – namely, that having spent important years of his life in Indonesia, he has a good grasp of Asian-Pacific political culture. China’s difficulty in accepting the idea of a black president does not, however, equate to a belief that China is superior to the United States. Regardless of the identity of the US president, America is a fundamental point of reference in Chinese thinking in scores of areas. For the rest of the world, the problem is often less about China’s amour-propre than its fixation on American models of modernity.
This is a matter for judgement, but the questions about modernity go deeper. Jacques argues that China can modernise without westernising – or, in his own words, “Chinese modernity will be very different from western modernity and China will transform the world far more fundamentally than any other new global power in the last two centuries.” This is the burden of chapter five, “Contested Modernity,” which is central to the book.
With his supporting arguments about Chinese culture, about China as “civilisation-state” rather than a nation-state, Jacques places himself on contested ground. His definition of western modernity is based on an inadequate critique of values and, in its own way, is paradoxically Eurocentric. Concerned to knock the west, and above all the United States, off its pedestal, he fails to take adequate stock of the fact that the value systems that evolved there were the results of just the same processes of sifting and elective affinity that occurred in China as well.
In consequence of this, Jacques’s account of Chinese modernity is somewhat overdrawn. Modernity is after all not a floating signifier, a convenient shorthand for “whatever is going on now.” Even if we allow for variant national encodings of modernity, to qualify means drawing a line, at some point, under feudal relations of dependency, like slavery and serfdom; limiting the powers of monarchs under the rubric of popular sovereignty; and affirming the moral autonomy of the individual.
It would be wrong to think that China failed completely to register the impact of this sea change in ideas running from the Reformation, via the Enlightenment, to the Industrial Revolution. So eager were China’s revolutionaries to overthrow “feudalism” that they accepted Stalin’s dogma of “five stages of social development,” discarding the established view of traditional Chinese historiography that feudalism in the strict sense (control over territory granted in return for a promise of service) had been extinguished following the unification of the Warring States by the Qin emperor.
Freedom, democracy and individualism have had their famous and passionate advocates in China. The earliest Marxists, like Chen Duxiu (1879–1942) and Li Dazhao (1883–1927), clearly believed in these ideals, though they believed that realising them required taking a radical rather than a gradual approach. The disappearance of these ideas in the 1950s had little to do with their being driven out of the marketplace by more popular or more culturally attuned rivals, and much to do with a conscious policy of intellectual cleansing by Mao and his acolytes. Even at the level of popular culture, we can’t be sure how far these ideas may have advanced in the absence of the specific pressures of very recent Chinese history.
Jacques’s partial view of Chinese debates on modernity and universal values points the way to a wider discussion. No matter how exceptional, how path-dependent, China’s trajectory has been, its modernity retains a family resemblance to so-called “western” modernity, not least to the latter’s uncertainties. In fact Jacques smoothes the image of “western modernity,” leaving out the huge indeterminacies and unresolved issues that have agitated the twentieth century.
Take social inequality. The west is deeply conflicted about what to do about inequality, and many attitudes in China, including attitudes to inequality, are the result, not of the traditional “essence” of Chinese culture – of what Jacques terms its “DNA” – but of decisions to follow one or another suggested western solution. The idea of equality of opportunity is one on which many formerly competing systems of thought have begun to converge, with the remaining differences of opinion mainly over the speed and the arc of change. But again contra Jacques, China by no means stands aloof from this trend, claiming a unique and exceptional Chinese solution. On the contrary, equality of opportunity is a point of intellectual convergence in China as well, and was the explicit core of what many in party policy circles understood to be the operational meaning of “social harmony.”
Re-emerging inequality is widely acknowledged, not least in China itself, as the greatest of the drawbacks of the reform era (1978–). The breakdown of the reform consensus, signalled by fierce polemical exchanges between “liberal” and “new left” intellectuals in the 1990s, was the first act in this process of acknowledgement, followed a decade later by the acceptance into official discourse of the language of social justice.
Inequality is a factor for stability in many societies – for example, in India, where caste inequalities have been capable of maintaining equilibrium for centuries – but this is unlikely to be the case in contemporary China, where economic transition produces so much uncertainty. Indeed, the intractable processes that generate inequality under policy uncertainty are more potent drivers of political change than purely political interests, such as competition between elites. It is true that degrees of citizenship vary independently of western liberal political values like democracy, liberty and human rights. Nazi Germany was, after all, able to enhance the citizenship of the German populace. But this is precisely the point: one can have modernity without Anglo-American liberalism, but without citizenship the term loses any meaningful reference. A huge amount of discourse in China accepts that without enhanced citizenship there is no way out of the inequality quagmire.
A great deal of the culture produced in China since the European collision in the early nineteenth century is culture of ressentiment – a state fuelled by feelings of weakness or inferiority that produce a “rejecting/justifying value system, or morality” that “attacks or denies the perceived source of one’s frustration.” Much of what Jacques identifies as Chinese modernity corresponds to this projected image. It is accurately and lucidly described in the book, but is stripped of many of its internal divisions and paradoxes, presented as the whole – and, worse, as China’s cultural “DNA.” An entire flank of Chinese modernity, running from Lu Xun to Qin Hui and other critical intellectuals, is concerned to confront this “justifying value system” and the collective self-deceptions it tends to induce.
I don’t have space to repeat the arguments of Qin and kindred spirits here, but the implications for the global politics of China seem clear: China has constructed a story about its independence from world currents of thought, partly based on historical fact but partly on self-serving myth. Until it confronts its repressed urge to negate western value systems simply because they are western – not realising that they represent alternate possibilities within universally human thought – and then goes on to solve the governance problems stemming from its self-generated uncertainty and inequality, China will be an enigma to the outside world. It will be unable to generate either sustainable public goods or genuine soft power, and it will continue to export uncertainty and arouse unwanted reactions. There is indeed an elephant in the room, but China is as capable of blindness to it as any other observer. •
David Kelly is Professor of China Studies in the China Research Centre at the University of Technology Sydney.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Five Factors That Lead to Social Decay
Five Factors That Can Lead To Social Decay
Sometime ago, U2 made a perceptive remark along the line that a person's views on life can be affected by certain books he has read ( I quoted from memory). That remark has stayed with me since I agreed with it.
A person's education is largely shaped by what he has been exposed and digested. We learn mostly by reading. A person who reads serious, informative, thought-provoking materials tends to develop an appreciation for knowledge and truth and can distinguish cant from reality. Education is a lifelong process. Thus, a person who maintains an intellectual curiosity and a thirst for knowledge is likely to surpass one who wrongly thinks that education stopped on the day he received a diploma in his hands.
The above paragraph serves as a lead-in to the five factors that Jared Diamond, a man with many intersts, has listed in his latest book and now are referenced in a book which brought together in sharp focus things I have hazily and lazily thought of. I am listing the factors here so we can see how the upcoming collapse of Vietnam can come about and maybe those who still care about the distant land where we grew up and used to call it home, will do something to avert the collapse which leads directly to the disappearance of that land as a sovereign nation
1. A failure to understand and to prevent causes of environmental damage.
2. Climate change.
3. DEPREDATIONS BY HOSTILE NEIGHBORS.
4. The inability of friendly neighbors to continue trade.
5. How society itself deals with problems raised by the first four factors. A common failing involved in this factor is the dislocation between the short-term interests of elites and the longer-term interests of the society the elites dominate and exploit (read: in Vietnam, the VCP does not give a damn about the well- being of the general public. The VCP only cares to hold on to power so it can amass wealth and then passes on the power and wealth to their children. A new, perverted form of monarchy and its new class of mandarins called dang vien).
wissai
Sometime ago, U2 made a perceptive remark along the line that a person's views on life can be affected by certain books he has read ( I quoted from memory). That remark has stayed with me since I agreed with it.
A person's education is largely shaped by what he has been exposed and digested. We learn mostly by reading. A person who reads serious, informative, thought-provoking materials tends to develop an appreciation for knowledge and truth and can distinguish cant from reality. Education is a lifelong process. Thus, a person who maintains an intellectual curiosity and a thirst for knowledge is likely to surpass one who wrongly thinks that education stopped on the day he received a diploma in his hands.
The above paragraph serves as a lead-in to the five factors that Jared Diamond, a man with many intersts, has listed in his latest book and now are referenced in a book which brought together in sharp focus things I have hazily and lazily thought of. I am listing the factors here so we can see how the upcoming collapse of Vietnam can come about and maybe those who still care about the distant land where we grew up and used to call it home, will do something to avert the collapse which leads directly to the disappearance of that land as a sovereign nation
1. A failure to understand and to prevent causes of environmental damage.
2. Climate change.
3. DEPREDATIONS BY HOSTILE NEIGHBORS.
4. The inability of friendly neighbors to continue trade.
5. How society itself deals with problems raised by the first four factors. A common failing involved in this factor is the dislocation between the short-term interests of elites and the longer-term interests of the society the elites dominate and exploit (read: in Vietnam, the VCP does not give a damn about the well- being of the general public. The VCP only cares to hold on to power so it can amass wealth and then passes on the power and wealth to their children. A new, perverted form of monarchy and its new class of mandarins called dang vien).
wissai
Love for Vietnam
Love for Vietnam
A stirring quote, largely modified. The power of language. Language is nothing but thought articulated. Powerful thought demands expression in perfect clarity. When that happens, magic occurs and transformation takes place.
"The power of love is always stronger than the power of selfishness. It cannot be suppressed.
It is about sacrifice for the others, for our fellow countrymen who share the same tongue, the same songs and poems, the same history of triumphs and sorrows.
It is about honoring the sacred, preserving the heritage we have inherited from our forefathers.
Blind and relentless and persistent, love constantly is here to remind us that Vietnam is real, and not just a distant memory.
Vietnam will endure because most Vietnamese love Vietnam and will fight and die for it, just like our forefathers did."
wissai
nov. 12, 2009
A stirring quote, largely modified. The power of language. Language is nothing but thought articulated. Powerful thought demands expression in perfect clarity. When that happens, magic occurs and transformation takes place.
"The power of love is always stronger than the power of selfishness. It cannot be suppressed.
It is about sacrifice for the others, for our fellow countrymen who share the same tongue, the same songs and poems, the same history of triumphs and sorrows.
It is about honoring the sacred, preserving the heritage we have inherited from our forefathers.
Blind and relentless and persistent, love constantly is here to remind us that Vietnam is real, and not just a distant memory.
Vietnam will endure because most Vietnamese love Vietnam and will fight and die for it, just like our forefathers did."
wissai
nov. 12, 2009
On Fools and Sages, Cowards and Heroes
Fools and Sages, Cowards and Heroes, Below and Above.
I always maintain that the below is unable, incapable, ill-equipped to comprehend the above while the above understands the below.
Likewise, cowards cannot understand why people willingly enter into harm's way to protect the country they love, the land on which they grew up. Cowards are sub-humans. They are like animals, propelled and driven to live at all costs. They are willing to kiss ass, lick boots, and sell out their fellow countrymen so they can live. They have a slave mentality. They can never understand the meaning of the statements such as : "it's much better to die with honor than to live in infamy" , " I would rather be a demon in the land of the South than to be a king in the land of the North", and "Today is a beautiful day to die." (Sitting Bull).
Likewise, fools are only capaple of thinking that when a person posts his views in the Internet, that person is looking for praise and approval. Fools always suffer from self-projections. They can never comprehend that a person writes because he follows the universal human desire for self-expression and sharing, and not necessarily coveting flimsy praises. Fools of course are beside themselves when a writer analyzes himself and touches upon his own strengths and foibles. With their puny minds, fools think the writer engages in self-praise. I suppose fools have never read any of Nietzsche's writings although they occasionally quote Nietzsche. Nietzsche spoke highly of himself all the time, but that did not mean he was a mere blowhard. The guy just had a lot of self-confidence and was not shy in thinking out loud of what he thought of himself.
Today a fourth grade teacher's blast of Obama over his apology to the Muslims was posted on the Internet. Obama was way too smart for the teacher to understand him. The below can't understand the above. That is why the teacher teaches at fourth grade level. That is why Obama taught constitutional law at University of Chicago and moved on to become the President of the United States.
A man wants to sing his own songs. A dog likes to bark to get attention and to assert itself. A parrot loves to repeat what othes say.
Fools are like dogs and parrots.
wissai
nov. 12, 2009
I always maintain that the below is unable, incapable, ill-equipped to comprehend the above while the above understands the below.
Likewise, cowards cannot understand why people willingly enter into harm's way to protect the country they love, the land on which they grew up. Cowards are sub-humans. They are like animals, propelled and driven to live at all costs. They are willing to kiss ass, lick boots, and sell out their fellow countrymen so they can live. They have a slave mentality. They can never understand the meaning of the statements such as : "it's much better to die with honor than to live in infamy" , " I would rather be a demon in the land of the South than to be a king in the land of the North", and "Today is a beautiful day to die." (Sitting Bull).
Likewise, fools are only capaple of thinking that when a person posts his views in the Internet, that person is looking for praise and approval. Fools always suffer from self-projections. They can never comprehend that a person writes because he follows the universal human desire for self-expression and sharing, and not necessarily coveting flimsy praises. Fools of course are beside themselves when a writer analyzes himself and touches upon his own strengths and foibles. With their puny minds, fools think the writer engages in self-praise. I suppose fools have never read any of Nietzsche's writings although they occasionally quote Nietzsche. Nietzsche spoke highly of himself all the time, but that did not mean he was a mere blowhard. The guy just had a lot of self-confidence and was not shy in thinking out loud of what he thought of himself.
Today a fourth grade teacher's blast of Obama over his apology to the Muslims was posted on the Internet. Obama was way too smart for the teacher to understand him. The below can't understand the above. That is why the teacher teaches at fourth grade level. That is why Obama taught constitutional law at University of Chicago and moved on to become the President of the United States.
A man wants to sing his own songs. A dog likes to bark to get attention and to assert itself. A parrot loves to repeat what othes say.
Fools are like dogs and parrots.
wissai
nov. 12, 2009
Dutch demagogue Geert Wilders
I assume all of you are still intellectually vigorous and curious, despite your advanced age, and can still exercise the thing called faculty of reason and see the speech for what it is: a piece of trash because it is full of distorted facts and half-truths. I highly recommend you go to library, check out some books on history and religion, and then form your own opinions instead of relying on what Wilders tells you. Laziness and intellectual sloth and lethargy lead directly to being brainwashed.
I am sick and tired of pro-Israel Christian bigots like Wilders and his ilk. Wilders conveniently glossed over the following facts (the list is by no means exhaustive):
1. Christian and Zionist attacks on Muhammad (Mohammed) and Islam are increasingly virulent while Muslims have been commanded to respect Jewish prophets, including Jesus, and the Muslims have followed the command. Apparently Christians like Wilders and his ilk cannot follow the teachings of their "Savior".
2. Jews have the Torah (Old Testament) and Christians have the New >> Statement. So Muhammad gave his followers a book of their own, the Koran. Compared with the other two, the Koran contains fewer assertions that fly in the face of common sense and scientific knowledge.
3. Jihad is more than a call to war.
4. As I once mentioned, Muhammad killed the members of two Jewish tribes because they broke their covenant with Muhammad and tried to kill him. Ever since he proclaimed that the archangel Gabriel had revealed to him God's words, Muhammad's life was in constant danger. It was a testament of his political, military, and administrative skills that he escaped death and became a figure of reverence and affection, even by non-Muslims like myself. Buddha was left alone by Hindu politicians because he didn't agitate for political changes. He conversed with all kinds of people and aroused no enmity. In contrast, Jesus was killed, but then miraculously he didn't die, his tomb was empty, and he was allegedly to rise up to Heaven and sit by the right side of the Father. But is he not God himself or Son of God or God in the flesh? I am so confused. The concept of Trinity overtaxes my puny mind and my imagination. I am incapable of understanding and following the labyrinth logic put forth by Christian theologians and apologists. Politics and religions are intertwined. A religious figure often engages in acts which can be called political. Thus, we could call Jesus a politician. I wonder what and how Hien Le would think of Jesus because he espouses a view that killed politicians are stupid.
5. Jewish brutality towards Palestinians has been well-documented. It has been a stain on her image in the world and is likely a factor in her eventual doom. In addition, her brutality makes the Nazis' own brutality against her "understandable" .
6. Wilders didn't explain why there are so many Muslims in Europe in the first place: hangover from colonial times, source of cheap labor, declining birthrate of Christian societies (selfishness and rise of materialism) concomitant with high birthrate of Muslim immigrants.
7. The U.S. is not in position to help Europe combat Islam. She is almost broke in her ventures in imperial wars. If she does not reverse course, she will be doomed. Read Empire of Illusion for more information of how corporations ruin America.
8. Jewish financiers control Congress, financial institutions, and media. America has been fighting wars for Israel.
wissai
Nov. 13, 2009
P.S. This piece of writing was an exercise in polemic and logic. It should not be construed as an attack on any religion; rather, it was an attack on mushy, fuzzy, hazy, lazy thinking. There are good and bad people in any religion. I seriously doubt if religion has any serious influence on the character and morality of people. As for certain infamous Christian converts, unwittingly they have been a source of endless amusement to me.
Clarification:
Muhammad did not die in battle, but rather suddenly of illness. That gave rise to a current conspiracy theory advanced by the enemies of Islam that he was poisoned by a widow of a man whom he had killed in battle. None of the three history books I have read remotely hinted at this dark tale. I wonder how a man who had so many enemies would be so careless that he allowed a widow of his enemy to get that close to him so she could poison him. As for his alleged pedophilia, only one of his wives was a teenager when she married him. He was monogamous with his first wife who was 15 years his senior who bore him four (from my memory) daughters. Only after his first wife died, did Muhammad practice polygamy, mostly for political alliance. From my memory, he had fewer than ten wives, not a harem as some Christians and Zionists would like us to believe. He never had a reputation as a lecher. Rather, he was a principled, disciplined, religious man, much respected during his times and revered after his death. People would not respect nor revere a lecher. The man had my respect and admiration for being well-rounded, compared to the founders of other religions. All the personal and unfair attacks on Muhammad currently undertaken by Christian bigots and Zionists inflame the anger of Muslims and are counterproductive. Nothing the enemies of Islam say would weaken the love and reverence the Muslims have for the founder of their faith, just as nothing would dissuade Christians from believing in the "divinity" of Jesus. The fact that Muhammad claimed to have a much more modest connection to God and his command that his followers should have respect for Jews and Christians endeared himself to me. He stated he was a mere messenger. I personally don't think he was a messenger of anybody. He was a man of his times. He incorporated the preachings of Jewishand Christian into his own views. He made up the story about Gabriel to lend legitimacy to his views. The bottom line is that his views and claims were not THAT wild and woolly compared to the other two Abrahamaic faiths and were quite egalitarian. Unfortunately, Christianity has viewed Islam with extreme prejudice and has been bent to exterminate it. Radical Islam has many causes, and one of the causes is the rightful fight for survival. Other causes are reactions to colonial and current economic exploitation, bolstering effete ruling cliques, Christian relentless ridicule of Muhammad and Islam. We should remember that countries in Europe (Albania, Bosnia) Africa (Egypt), the Middle East (Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey) used to be predominantly Christian before mass conversions and adoption of Islam as Arabic and later Islamic armies expanded into Christian lands. The same thing occurred when European colonialism expanded the rise and appeal ofChristianity in 18th and 19th centuries. Wars in China, Korea, and Vietnam in the 20th century expanded American Protestanism. Currently the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have seen a surge of American missionary work in these countries under the guise of aid and charity. Religion, politics, economics, and war are inseparable bed partners. Religion is never pure and high-minded as it claims.
Politics and religions are intertwined. A religious figure often engages in acts which can be called political. Thus, we could call Jesus a politician.
First, please note that I used the conditional verb “could”, not another qualifier like “absolutely” or “definitely” because I showed deference to a possibility that I could be all wet and wrong in my assessment of the acts of Jesus.
Second, please further note the term “politics” and its adjective “political” have expanded in meaning and application, and no longer limited to the strict construction of activities that aim at seizing political power. They have come to include activities that bring about social changes through changing the behavior of the people. So, when I wrote that Jesus engaged in acts which could be deemed political in nature, I had in mind the latter meaning, and not in the meaning that Jesus was a career politician running for public office. I am no Bible scholar. My knowledge of the life of Jesus is scanty, but I recall that Jesus was quite militant in his views and not shy in expressing them. He was often referred to as a rebel. He was also militant in his acts. If I am not wrong, he chased the moneylenders out of the temple. He was a social activist, looking for social changes. Thus, in my views he acted as if he was a politician. As long as a person is not a hermit, his acts, in one way or another, have political import. Politics occurs in a group.
Third, I have a lot of respect and admiration for Jesus, a man with much love for his fellow men, especially the downtrodden. He preached love, compassion, understanding (cf. throwing the first stone) and forbearance (cf. turning the other cheek). His untimely death at a young age affected me. I don’t subscribe to his otherworldly views and I definitely don’t view him “divine”. I recognize he was absolutely a bigger man than I am, a man with a far bigger heart.
Silence could be misconstrued as agreement, so I would like to go on record and say that I never said that I was a “learned man”. I did state that I read some books and I do care about facts and knowledge and I don’t take a back seat to anybody in thinking in a logical, fact-filled manner. I am not a shy man. I wish I could practice forbearance. I know I have an unsavory tendency of returning insolence with bites and barbs of my own. I wish I were like like who could converse with all kinds of people without arousing enmity. I am imperfect. I am a work in progress.
Wissai
Nov.14, 2009
I am sick and tired of pro-Israel Christian bigots like Wilders and his ilk. Wilders conveniently glossed over the following facts (the list is by no means exhaustive):
1. Christian and Zionist attacks on Muhammad (Mohammed) and Islam are increasingly virulent while Muslims have been commanded to respect Jewish prophets, including Jesus, and the Muslims have followed the command. Apparently Christians like Wilders and his ilk cannot follow the teachings of their "Savior".
2. Jews have the Torah (Old Testament) and Christians have the New >> Statement. So Muhammad gave his followers a book of their own, the Koran. Compared with the other two, the Koran contains fewer assertions that fly in the face of common sense and scientific knowledge.
3. Jihad is more than a call to war.
4. As I once mentioned, Muhammad killed the members of two Jewish tribes because they broke their covenant with Muhammad and tried to kill him. Ever since he proclaimed that the archangel Gabriel had revealed to him God's words, Muhammad's life was in constant danger. It was a testament of his political, military, and administrative skills that he escaped death and became a figure of reverence and affection, even by non-Muslims like myself. Buddha was left alone by Hindu politicians because he didn't agitate for political changes. He conversed with all kinds of people and aroused no enmity. In contrast, Jesus was killed, but then miraculously he didn't die, his tomb was empty, and he was allegedly to rise up to Heaven and sit by the right side of the Father. But is he not God himself or Son of God or God in the flesh? I am so confused. The concept of Trinity overtaxes my puny mind and my imagination. I am incapable of understanding and following the labyrinth logic put forth by Christian theologians and apologists. Politics and religions are intertwined. A religious figure often engages in acts which can be called political. Thus, we could call Jesus a politician. I wonder what and how Hien Le would think of Jesus because he espouses a view that killed politicians are stupid.
5. Jewish brutality towards Palestinians has been well-documented. It has been a stain on her image in the world and is likely a factor in her eventual doom. In addition, her brutality makes the Nazis' own brutality against her "understandable" .
6. Wilders didn't explain why there are so many Muslims in Europe in the first place: hangover from colonial times, source of cheap labor, declining birthrate of Christian societies (selfishness and rise of materialism) concomitant with high birthrate of Muslim immigrants.
7. The U.S. is not in position to help Europe combat Islam. She is almost broke in her ventures in imperial wars. If she does not reverse course, she will be doomed. Read Empire of Illusion for more information of how corporations ruin America.
8. Jewish financiers control Congress, financial institutions, and media. America has been fighting wars for Israel.
wissai
Nov. 13, 2009
P.S. This piece of writing was an exercise in polemic and logic. It should not be construed as an attack on any religion; rather, it was an attack on mushy, fuzzy, hazy, lazy thinking. There are good and bad people in any religion. I seriously doubt if religion has any serious influence on the character and morality of people. As for certain infamous Christian converts, unwittingly they have been a source of endless amusement to me.
Clarification:
Muhammad did not die in battle, but rather suddenly of illness. That gave rise to a current conspiracy theory advanced by the enemies of Islam that he was poisoned by a widow of a man whom he had killed in battle. None of the three history books I have read remotely hinted at this dark tale. I wonder how a man who had so many enemies would be so careless that he allowed a widow of his enemy to get that close to him so she could poison him. As for his alleged pedophilia, only one of his wives was a teenager when she married him. He was monogamous with his first wife who was 15 years his senior who bore him four (from my memory) daughters. Only after his first wife died, did Muhammad practice polygamy, mostly for political alliance. From my memory, he had fewer than ten wives, not a harem as some Christians and Zionists would like us to believe. He never had a reputation as a lecher. Rather, he was a principled, disciplined, religious man, much respected during his times and revered after his death. People would not respect nor revere a lecher. The man had my respect and admiration for being well-rounded, compared to the founders of other religions. All the personal and unfair attacks on Muhammad currently undertaken by Christian bigots and Zionists inflame the anger of Muslims and are counterproductive. Nothing the enemies of Islam say would weaken the love and reverence the Muslims have for the founder of their faith, just as nothing would dissuade Christians from believing in the "divinity" of Jesus. The fact that Muhammad claimed to have a much more modest connection to God and his command that his followers should have respect for Jews and Christians endeared himself to me. He stated he was a mere messenger. I personally don't think he was a messenger of anybody. He was a man of his times. He incorporated the preachings of Jewishand Christian into his own views. He made up the story about Gabriel to lend legitimacy to his views. The bottom line is that his views and claims were not THAT wild and woolly compared to the other two Abrahamaic faiths and were quite egalitarian. Unfortunately, Christianity has viewed Islam with extreme prejudice and has been bent to exterminate it. Radical Islam has many causes, and one of the causes is the rightful fight for survival. Other causes are reactions to colonial and current economic exploitation, bolstering effete ruling cliques, Christian relentless ridicule of Muhammad and Islam. We should remember that countries in Europe (Albania, Bosnia) Africa (Egypt), the Middle East (Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey) used to be predominantly Christian before mass conversions and adoption of Islam as Arabic and later Islamic armies expanded into Christian lands. The same thing occurred when European colonialism expanded the rise and appeal ofChristianity in 18th and 19th centuries. Wars in China, Korea, and Vietnam in the 20th century expanded American Protestanism. Currently the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have seen a surge of American missionary work in these countries under the guise of aid and charity. Religion, politics, economics, and war are inseparable bed partners. Religion is never pure and high-minded as it claims.
Politics and religions are intertwined. A religious figure often engages in acts which can be called political. Thus, we could call Jesus a politician.
First, please note that I used the conditional verb “could”, not another qualifier like “absolutely” or “definitely” because I showed deference to a possibility that I could be all wet and wrong in my assessment of the acts of Jesus.
Second, please further note the term “politics” and its adjective “political” have expanded in meaning and application, and no longer limited to the strict construction of activities that aim at seizing political power. They have come to include activities that bring about social changes through changing the behavior of the people. So, when I wrote that Jesus engaged in acts which could be deemed political in nature, I had in mind the latter meaning, and not in the meaning that Jesus was a career politician running for public office. I am no Bible scholar. My knowledge of the life of Jesus is scanty, but I recall that Jesus was quite militant in his views and not shy in expressing them. He was often referred to as a rebel. He was also militant in his acts. If I am not wrong, he chased the moneylenders out of the temple. He was a social activist, looking for social changes. Thus, in my views he acted as if he was a politician. As long as a person is not a hermit, his acts, in one way or another, have political import. Politics occurs in a group.
Third, I have a lot of respect and admiration for Jesus, a man with much love for his fellow men, especially the downtrodden. He preached love, compassion, understanding (cf. throwing the first stone) and forbearance (cf. turning the other cheek). His untimely death at a young age affected me. I don’t subscribe to his otherworldly views and I definitely don’t view him “divine”. I recognize he was absolutely a bigger man than I am, a man with a far bigger heart.
Silence could be misconstrued as agreement, so I would like to go on record and say that I never said that I was a “learned man”. I did state that I read some books and I do care about facts and knowledge and I don’t take a back seat to anybody in thinking in a logical, fact-filled manner. I am not a shy man. I wish I could practice forbearance. I know I have an unsavory tendency of returning insolence with bites and barbs of my own. I wish I were like like who could converse with all kinds of people without arousing enmity. I am imperfect. I am a work in progress.
Wissai
Nov.14, 2009
Significance of the visit of two war vessels in Da Nang, Vietnam
Significance of the visit of the USS BLue Ridge and the USS Lassen
The message from the U.S. to China was unmistakable and crystal clear when it decided to send, not one, but two war vessels on a friendly visit of the port city of Da Nang, a city not far from the contested Spratly Islands, and a city where the first U.S. Marines landed on March 8, 1965 to take part in the Vietnam War.
The message was: the Americans are back to Vietnam, as friends as before, and this time as friends of the united Vietnam. Not only we are back as friends, we are also back symbollically as native sons since the commander of one war vessel is a native-born Vietnamese. So, watch out, rapacious Chinks. You mess with Vietnam means you mess with the mighty U.S. 7th fleet. We may be tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we still have more than enough resources to deal with a belligerent upstart like you. Also, the East Sea is not yours. It belongs to countries like Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, Brunei, and Malaysia. These are our friends and we are here to help them against your acts of bullying. Remember, this is not the first time we sent war vessels to Vietnam on a friendly visit. Also, our friends and allies, India and Australia have sent their most modern war vessels to visit Vietnam. We and our allies are going to stop your dream of expansion before it goes out of hand.
You read us loud and clear, chop suey eaters?
Wissai
Nov. 7, 2009
The message from the U.S. to China was unmistakable and crystal clear when it decided to send, not one, but two war vessels on a friendly visit of the port city of Da Nang, a city not far from the contested Spratly Islands, and a city where the first U.S. Marines landed on March 8, 1965 to take part in the Vietnam War.
The message was: the Americans are back to Vietnam, as friends as before, and this time as friends of the united Vietnam. Not only we are back as friends, we are also back symbollically as native sons since the commander of one war vessel is a native-born Vietnamese. So, watch out, rapacious Chinks. You mess with Vietnam means you mess with the mighty U.S. 7th fleet. We may be tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we still have more than enough resources to deal with a belligerent upstart like you. Also, the East Sea is not yours. It belongs to countries like Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, Brunei, and Malaysia. These are our friends and we are here to help them against your acts of bullying. Remember, this is not the first time we sent war vessels to Vietnam on a friendly visit. Also, our friends and allies, India and Australia have sent their most modern war vessels to visit Vietnam. We and our allies are going to stop your dream of expansion before it goes out of hand.
You read us loud and clear, chop suey eaters?
Wissai
Nov. 7, 2009
On China's Threat to World Peace
As China relentlessly rises in importance in world trade and starts flexing her muscles in the spheres of economics (jointly called for the abolition of the American dollar as the world currency of reserve), diplomacy (expansion of influence in Africa, Latin America, Iran, Sri Lanka, and Myanmar), and military (building up armed forces, asserting herself and starting challenging Japan in East Asia and the U.S. in Southeast Asia, especially in the East Sea--the so-called South China Sea) while blithely and brazenly suppressing human rights and civil liberties at home and encouraging its proxy and satellite state, Vietnam, to do the same, many people (including yours truly) wonder if the emergence of China as a world power constitutes a threat to world peace--not unlike the rise of Nazi Germany in the 1930's and the rise of Japan throughout the first three decades of the 20th century after the defeat of Russia in the 1904-1905 Russo-Japanese War.
The following observations of mine are impressionistic and simplistic due to the contraints of time and my indolent nature. The observations are the result of a preoccupation of analysis and synthesis of news reports and an exercise in transmitting thoughts via written symbols.
With the defeat of Spain in 1898, the United States emerged as a world power and an empire in her own right. She went on acquiring territories ceded by Spain. Her stature was enhanced and solidified with the victories in WW I and WW II. The 20th century was called the American century. American influence on world affairs was far and wide. She has military bases in all corners of the world, including in some countries that used to make up the Soviet Union. However, as all empires go, the American empire may prove to be the shortest-lived in the annals of human history.
Just as the Suez Canal Crisis in 1956 marked the decline of Britain as a key player on world stage, the first cracks in the American Empire appeared in 1968 during the height of the so-called Vietnam War. The siege of Khe Sanh and the Tet Offensive weakened the resolve of the American public and they started clamoring in earnest for the withdrawal of the American forces. Nixon was elected on the promise to bring American troops home and to bring "Peace with Honor" to the region. Nixon sent Kissinger to China for secret talks. Vietnamization of the war was introduced. It was nothing but an euphemism for the withdrawal of the American troops and the disengagement of America from the war. When peace finally came in 1975, it didn't come with honor for America's erstwhile ally, Republic of Vietnam. Loss of prestige and loss of respect for America (starting with the use of napalm and defoliant Agent Orange, war crimes commiited against civilians) appeared in world stage when it was clear that America didn't honor her commitment to her ally.
At home, after the Vietnam War, long bouts of self-doubt set in and more fissures appeared. Illicit drug use, unresolved racial tensions, break down in public education system, break down in infrastructures, alliance of insurance companies, pharmacuticals, and health professionals at the expense of the American public. Meanwhile, money was spent in fighting imperial wars all over the world: Nicagarua, El Salvador, Lebanon, Somalia, and now Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan in the misguided war against Islam, euphemistically called "war against terrorism", a war instigated and plodded on and encouraged by Zionists, Christian zealots and bigots, and the Chinese, a war that America cannot win, a war that will bleed America dry and exhausted and too poor to fight against her true enemy, the Chinese.Ironically enough, it was America headed by its myopic, profit- now oriented CEOs that was largely responsible for the rapid rise of China and the concomitant decline of America. It has been said farmers are the most patriotic class because their livelihood depends on the very land upon which they live. The merchants, on the other hand, have been noted for their lack of allegiance to fixed boundaries. Merchants go where the money is and they favor free trade. The opening of China to the outside world for free trade has benefiited China more than the United States. American manufacturers shipped factories to or established factories in China to take advantage of low labor cost. While some American companies increased their revenues due to their presence in the vast Chinese market, the manufacturing jobs in America took a big hit while CEOs enjoyed obscene salaries. The middle class in America is shrinking and suffering.
Militarily, the United States is still a formidable force, but we wonder how long she has the money to do R and D so she can maitain her edge while her economy is in shambles: her manufacturing base is eroding; she has problems competing in the industry she pioneered-- automobile; her financial system needs a complete overhaul to prevent a repeat of the crisis that brought her almost on her knees; she has become a nation of debtors, borrowing money from overseas, especially China to maintain her standard of living.
The collapse of the Soviet Union led to a talk among cognoscenti about a world with the United States being the sole superpower. Such exalted view of the U.S. proved to be pre-mature when the subsequent decades revealed that the U.S. was not a vigorous nation, but a country on a decline, economically, morally, and culturally. Obama was elected to arrest the decline and perhaps to reverse the fortunes, but he is running into resistance from intransigent and uncaring interests.
Power, like air, dislikes vacuum. While the U.S. dallies about the world, wasting money, resoucrs, and goodwill in imperial wars, and dithers on domestic reforms, China is using the surplus money gained in exports to build up her infrastructure, to invest in education and R&D, and to modernize her armed forces. The technology transfer resulting from the joint ventures she has with technologically countries is making her stronger and more confident with each passing day. The China today is the China of boundless energy, optimism, and confidence, a far cry from the United States of America. China brazenly adopted the absurd "cow's tongue" doctrine, claiming that her territory extends southward from the Hainan Island like the tongue of a cow. Chinese cows, based on a diet of grandeur and naked ambition, must have long tongues indeed since China claims most of the East Sea, leaving Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, Brunei, and Malaysia narrow stretches of waters near their coastlines. China recently confronted an American vessel, claiming it violated China's newly claimed maritime waters. China is also building its first aircraft carrier.
Alarmed by China's belligerence, all countries in Southeast Asia and Australia have inreased their defense expenditures. Since Vietnam is very likely the first target of Chinese expansionism, the U.S., India, and Australia have recently sent their most modern destroyers on "friendly visits" to the ports of Vietnam as a veiled warning to China. These three countries are also helping Vietnam modernize its navy and train its personnel.The East Sea, in the eyes of the alert and the informed, is the hot spot right now, After the Shanghai Exposition in 2010, war can erupt at any time, very likely between China and Vietnam, because of the intransigence and belligerence of China. The big question for the Vietnamese worldwide is whether the U.S, along with India, and Australia have the will to stop Vietnam from becoming a province or the euphemistically- sounding "Autonomous Region of Vietnam" of China.
China is a threat to world peace. She has encouraged another satellite state of hers, North Korea to do saber-rattling with nuclear weapons and missiles tests in order to distract the U.S.Domestically, she has brutally persecuted the Falung religious sect, shot down unarmed student demonstrators in Tiananmen Square, violently suppressed the dissidents in Tibet and Xinjiang, the two regions she brazenly took by force in 1949.All these acts of brutality and barbarity were committed without arousing worlwide protests and condemnations. The world continues merrily trading with her, attracted by her vast domestic market and inexpensive consumer products. This gives them a feeling of entitlement that their time has come and the 21st century belongs to them.
They will go on taking islands, mountains, lands, and maritime waters belonging to other peoples and races until they meet real resistance.
Wissai
Nov. 7, 2009.
The following observations of mine are impressionistic and simplistic due to the contraints of time and my indolent nature. The observations are the result of a preoccupation of analysis and synthesis of news reports and an exercise in transmitting thoughts via written symbols.
With the defeat of Spain in 1898, the United States emerged as a world power and an empire in her own right. She went on acquiring territories ceded by Spain. Her stature was enhanced and solidified with the victories in WW I and WW II. The 20th century was called the American century. American influence on world affairs was far and wide. She has military bases in all corners of the world, including in some countries that used to make up the Soviet Union. However, as all empires go, the American empire may prove to be the shortest-lived in the annals of human history.
Just as the Suez Canal Crisis in 1956 marked the decline of Britain as a key player on world stage, the first cracks in the American Empire appeared in 1968 during the height of the so-called Vietnam War. The siege of Khe Sanh and the Tet Offensive weakened the resolve of the American public and they started clamoring in earnest for the withdrawal of the American forces. Nixon was elected on the promise to bring American troops home and to bring "Peace with Honor" to the region. Nixon sent Kissinger to China for secret talks. Vietnamization of the war was introduced. It was nothing but an euphemism for the withdrawal of the American troops and the disengagement of America from the war. When peace finally came in 1975, it didn't come with honor for America's erstwhile ally, Republic of Vietnam. Loss of prestige and loss of respect for America (starting with the use of napalm and defoliant Agent Orange, war crimes commiited against civilians) appeared in world stage when it was clear that America didn't honor her commitment to her ally.
At home, after the Vietnam War, long bouts of self-doubt set in and more fissures appeared. Illicit drug use, unresolved racial tensions, break down in public education system, break down in infrastructures, alliance of insurance companies, pharmacuticals, and health professionals at the expense of the American public. Meanwhile, money was spent in fighting imperial wars all over the world: Nicagarua, El Salvador, Lebanon, Somalia, and now Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan in the misguided war against Islam, euphemistically called "war against terrorism", a war instigated and plodded on and encouraged by Zionists, Christian zealots and bigots, and the Chinese, a war that America cannot win, a war that will bleed America dry and exhausted and too poor to fight against her true enemy, the Chinese.Ironically enough, it was America headed by its myopic, profit- now oriented CEOs that was largely responsible for the rapid rise of China and the concomitant decline of America. It has been said farmers are the most patriotic class because their livelihood depends on the very land upon which they live. The merchants, on the other hand, have been noted for their lack of allegiance to fixed boundaries. Merchants go where the money is and they favor free trade. The opening of China to the outside world for free trade has benefiited China more than the United States. American manufacturers shipped factories to or established factories in China to take advantage of low labor cost. While some American companies increased their revenues due to their presence in the vast Chinese market, the manufacturing jobs in America took a big hit while CEOs enjoyed obscene salaries. The middle class in America is shrinking and suffering.
Militarily, the United States is still a formidable force, but we wonder how long she has the money to do R and D so she can maitain her edge while her economy is in shambles: her manufacturing base is eroding; she has problems competing in the industry she pioneered-- automobile; her financial system needs a complete overhaul to prevent a repeat of the crisis that brought her almost on her knees; she has become a nation of debtors, borrowing money from overseas, especially China to maintain her standard of living.
The collapse of the Soviet Union led to a talk among cognoscenti about a world with the United States being the sole superpower. Such exalted view of the U.S. proved to be pre-mature when the subsequent decades revealed that the U.S. was not a vigorous nation, but a country on a decline, economically, morally, and culturally. Obama was elected to arrest the decline and perhaps to reverse the fortunes, but he is running into resistance from intransigent and uncaring interests.
Power, like air, dislikes vacuum. While the U.S. dallies about the world, wasting money, resoucrs, and goodwill in imperial wars, and dithers on domestic reforms, China is using the surplus money gained in exports to build up her infrastructure, to invest in education and R&D, and to modernize her armed forces. The technology transfer resulting from the joint ventures she has with technologically countries is making her stronger and more confident with each passing day. The China today is the China of boundless energy, optimism, and confidence, a far cry from the United States of America. China brazenly adopted the absurd "cow's tongue" doctrine, claiming that her territory extends southward from the Hainan Island like the tongue of a cow. Chinese cows, based on a diet of grandeur and naked ambition, must have long tongues indeed since China claims most of the East Sea, leaving Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, Brunei, and Malaysia narrow stretches of waters near their coastlines. China recently confronted an American vessel, claiming it violated China's newly claimed maritime waters. China is also building its first aircraft carrier.
Alarmed by China's belligerence, all countries in Southeast Asia and Australia have inreased their defense expenditures. Since Vietnam is very likely the first target of Chinese expansionism, the U.S., India, and Australia have recently sent their most modern destroyers on "friendly visits" to the ports of Vietnam as a veiled warning to China. These three countries are also helping Vietnam modernize its navy and train its personnel.The East Sea, in the eyes of the alert and the informed, is the hot spot right now, After the Shanghai Exposition in 2010, war can erupt at any time, very likely between China and Vietnam, because of the intransigence and belligerence of China. The big question for the Vietnamese worldwide is whether the U.S, along with India, and Australia have the will to stop Vietnam from becoming a province or the euphemistically- sounding "Autonomous Region of Vietnam" of China.
China is a threat to world peace. She has encouraged another satellite state of hers, North Korea to do saber-rattling with nuclear weapons and missiles tests in order to distract the U.S.Domestically, she has brutally persecuted the Falung religious sect, shot down unarmed student demonstrators in Tiananmen Square, violently suppressed the dissidents in Tibet and Xinjiang, the two regions she brazenly took by force in 1949.All these acts of brutality and barbarity were committed without arousing worlwide protests and condemnations. The world continues merrily trading with her, attracted by her vast domestic market and inexpensive consumer products. This gives them a feeling of entitlement that their time has come and the 21st century belongs to them.
They will go on taking islands, mountains, lands, and maritime waters belonging to other peoples and races until they meet real resistance.
Wissai
Nov. 7, 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)