Category: Chinese Communist Party

Grave Danger Posed by China’s Trojan Horse – One Belt One Road

I have written before here about the grave danger posed by China’s One Belt One Road initiative – it is China’s Trojan Horse in Europe, Communist Chinese lucre a smokescreen for the Chinese Communist Party’s power grab, continuing battle with the U.S. for influence, and for the Communist Party’s hegemonic designs.

Greece fell prey to China because it has been the EU’s pauper, and bristled at its treatment at the hands of German/EU austerity in response to Greece’s uncontrolled spending. Hence, China’s offer of billions to Greece was most opportune for the Chinese Communist Party and welcome for Greece – and as usual, any money China “invests” has strings – strings to support its totalitarian system, its political evil, and its continuing assault on Western democracy and any kind of freedom.

In an article published in the Taipei Times on Monday, January 8, 2018 on p. 5 (Europe Wary of ‘One Belt One Road’), the article notes “The former NATO chief said that Greece — a major recipient of Chinese largesse — had in June last year blocked an EU declaration condemning Chinese rights abuses.” Here is the rub – take money from China, kneel to Uncle Xi and his political agenda. The march of the Chinese Communists begins with the infection wrought from within its Trojan Horses. Greece bent over for Uncle Xi. More to come in Europe.

I for one don’t trust France’s Macron to resist China’s Trojan Horse offerings, trading access to a fake Chinese market (there is no Chinese market except for Chinese companies so long as foreign companies are required to partner with Chinese local partners, themselves Communist Party Trojan Horses) for softness on Communist China’s political demands and violations of human rights and every other fundamental French principle. France has been perennially rushing to China to get better market position and to tell the Emperor Xi his clothes are most lovely. I haven’t trusted President Trump with such issues either, the bright light of China’s phantom market a very juicy mirage hard to resist. Trump also is not so enamored with Democracy as he is with Businessocracy, and evening out the playing field with Communist China is a priority – but even that comes with risks of Trojan Horses. There is also the North Korea chess game that China has been playing with the U.S. for 25 years, and playing it very well against the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations, and continuing with the current administration, though Trump’s unpredictability and bullish attitude has China unnerved. The EU’s stance on North Korea and Iran is disappointing – appeasement at its worst.

Europe does not have the backbone to resist Communist China’s hegemony and political moves, because Europe has no stomach for conflict (its foreign policy is basically “appease, appease, appease”) and is so eager to jump on any advantage over the US with Chinese trade when there are conflicts, such as North Korea or the South China Sea. We do not see Europe sending carriers to the region or supporting the US in its opposition to North Korea’s nuclear ambitions (only softness, weakness and more appeasement). The same can be said of Iran, where Europe has lined up with China and Russia in failing to comprehend the value of a strong hand against a rogue enemy like Iran. Europe’s suicidal embrace of the enemies of democracy is both surprising and disgusting, turning my stomach every time I see it (note the loving comments made yesterday by High Representative of the European Union (EU) for Foreign Affairs and Vice-President of the European Commission Federica Mogherini about Cuba and dictator Raul Castro, like the words of a lover). Consequently, I have no faith that Europe can resist Communist China’s quest to plant as many Trojan Horses as possible around Europe. Let’s remember that Europe failed to act to stop the conflagration in Syria, instead following Obama’s Oppeasement policy there, and the result was millions of refugees flooding Europe, something that will change adversely European culture, society and politics for many generations. Already many people are fearful of travel to Europe, caring about where it is safe…

One Belt, One Road will look bright and shiny to the EU’s infrastructure starved members. But the cost of that infrastructure is political suicide and being indebted to Communist China, a tyrant who demands obedience to its “life with Chinese characteristics.”

The Press Must Be Free – With Responsibility for Reporting Facts, Unless in Editorials

In an article that ran from AP in the Taipei Times on Jan. 1, 2018 (“Journalists came under further threat from governments last year”), it is reported that the press is under assault around the world. This has been true for a very long time, in particular among the world’s worst despotic governments, Communist China, Russia, Iran, Turkey, and in other Capitals of such ilk. The article goes on to complain about President Trump. Freedom of the press is sacred in America, always has been, always will be. But in the U.S. at present there is war between left leaning and conservative news organizations, and the current government, signified by manipulation of stories on all sides.

For instance, it is naive to believe that a “philanthropist” like George Soros, with billions of dollars at his disposal and a socialist agenda, does not use the press (like Bloomberg, and Project Syndicate (a supposedly charitable foundation which is instead simply a pro-socialism organization dedicated to promoting socialism and mass migration in the US, and in Europe, on the general theory that tens of millions of migrants who are unfamiliar with free capitalistic systems, such as in the US, would support highly leftist views)) to manipulate the news to suit his agenda. I have complained about Soros-promoted articles (under Project Syndicate) on these very pages because of the canard they continuously promote that America is evil and China is blissful. What’s that about? Free speech is free speech. They have the right to write it, we have the right to criticize it.

That said, of course governments cannot arrest journalists for speaking opinions, and those arrests are the hallmark of totalitarian regimes, like in China, Russia, Turkey (not a democracy these days), Iran or many other tyrannies. The free press is the foundation of freedom and holding the government and its parties and their members accountable for their policies and actions. The more vibrant the press is, the less likely a government can violate the law. In the US, the Constitution and its law fully supports the freedom of speech, whether by the press or anyone else.

In a democracy, when journalists have the right to speak their opinions, and when they promote opposition to the government, of course the government can respond with criticism, not arrests. This article reports Trump is sowing distrust in the media for claiming unfair treatment, but when 80% of the media focus only on leftist criticism of the government there is already distrust because it is one-sided.

In the US, the press is wide ranging, very free, and there is no threat of arrest for writing articles. I am truly sick and tired of ultra-left press like CNN, Washington Post, NY Times, Newsweek complaining about the President criticizing them for “fake news”, when 75% of their coverage is aimed at what many people consider matters of their the reporters’ opinion, not fact.

Reporting in the United States has essentially stopped, and it has been replaced by opinion reporting, which means that there is very little reporting the facts that lets the people decide their own opinion and more of reporters reporting their own opinions, as though that is news – it isn’t. Reporters cannot help inserting their opinions in almost every story. My Blog is an opinion blog, it doesn’t pretend to be reporting. CNN cannot say that, yet almost every article is dripping with opinions, almost as though its reporters have not been schooled in the art of objective reporting. There seem to be no ideals except “kill the other side at all costs”.

Truthfully, I don’t care what their opinion is, I only want the facts, just the facts. People have become so lazy, they want to be told what to think. Editorials are for that, not news articles. And most of the time, Trump’s argument is that reporters, trying to avoid opinionizing, instead report only those facts that support what their opinion would be, essentially showing half the story.

I’ll give you an example. Yesterday, in the Huffington Post, there was an article entitled “Trump Terminated All Members Of HIV/AIDS Council Without Explanation”. The title is designed to heap infamy on the President for supposedly being against the HIV/AIDS Council. But that’s not true. While the bulk of the article is criticism for the firings, in the middle of the article the following sentence is thrown in: “Also of note, during the Obama administration, nearly all of George W. Bush’s appointees were eliminated prior to new appointees being named.” In other words Obama did the same thing, because it is normal for a new President to get rid of the predecessor’s appointees and appoint his/her own members. In fact, the article also states: “One of those members ― Gabriel Maldonado, CEO of the Riverside, Calif.-based LGBT and HIV/AIDS group Truevolution ― told the Washington Blade, however, that “it is common for appointees to be terminated and for folks to kind of want their own people in.” So what’s up with the completely misleading title of the article, and what is Huffington Post trying to pull? This is a very small example of manipulating the media to promote a “fake” critique – you could call this “fake” news. This is basically using freedom of the press to “hide the ball” and sell propaganda for a social agenda, not reporting what happened. I don’t blame Trump for sacking Obama’s appointees. It is totally normal for a President to do. There are plenty of other things to blame him for. But the Huffington Post is guilty of misrepresenting the truth by omission when they know most people read the headline, not the article, especially scrolling through Yahoo News, where the article appeared near the top. It is disingenuous at best, blatant fraud at worst.

I can only name a few reporters out of thousands who have a reputation for being completely honest in their reporting. Truly. That is a very sad fact. I don’t want to know a reporter’s political choices. Objective reporting is a lost art. Reporters should be required to attend the Walter Cronkite School of Objectivity.

Australia is Walking a Fine Line between America and Communist China – a Dangerous Game

“America will lose, and China will win. America will cease to play a major strategic role in Asia, and China will take its place as the dominant power.” This is from a White Paper published from Australia. Whoever said this is a flaming idiot. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy from people who are either sinophiles or interested in China’s ephemeral (and largely non-existent) markets, all subject to Communist China’s vast manipulation and regulation, peremptory, if necessary for the Party’s benefit. This fatalistic approach in Australia has caused it to adopt a basically very troubling suicidal trajectory for some time.

Referring to a well-written article by Sushil Seth, a commentator in Australia, which appeared in the Taipei Times on December 30, 2017, p. 8 (“Counterbalancing Chinese Leverage”), I have the following observations.

President Obama withdrew the United States from world leadership because he is a weak, insipid, feckless and appeasing idiot (and of course he is the most admired man according to Newsweek because everyone just loves a sensitive, kind, understanding America – until they need someone to defend them, then they want the American juggernaut at their side). He was most uncomfortable being the world’s most powerful man, and his mistaken belief that he could extend an open hand to the world’s worst regimes, betray our closest allies, and sing Kumbaya backfired, and in the horrible vacuum he left, Russia and China leapt in. It will take some years to get that back.

Let me be very clear about one thing. Donald Trump’s presidency is the child of President Obama’s failures. Trump would never have succeeded if Obama has not driven the US bus so far to the left and so far from its role in the world that it disappeared over the horizon. Now we are dealing with that. But for all of his own idiosyncrasies, and they are many, Trump’s unpredictability does have an advantage (similar to Ronald Reagan’s “power”) to intimidate and in some sense have an effect on rogues, who would be far more comfortable getting up in Obama’s face, than Trump’s, because they knew Obama would never pull any trigger, and they also deeply fear that Trump is just itching to pull any trigger (not that he will).

Congress is 100% behind the US presence in Asia, and while the American president traditionally pussyfoots around with Russia and Communist China, the Congress never does. It supports Taiwan by vast majorities, and would also support Australia and Japan and Korea to the same extent. However, Australia has elected leaders who have been vastly at odds with American policies, and that has caused some dissonance. Australia is playing perhaps a dangerous game of both sides, feasting at Communist China’s trough, and expecting the US to protect it within America’s enormous penumbra.

Like it or not, the US is the only country in the world that can contain the likes of Communist China and Russia, North Korea and Iran and Syria, and Turkey, and the Arab world, and all of the other hot spots which pop up all over at any given time. For some reason I cannot understand, Australia has spent ten years pushing America away, and then complains that the US is not engaged in Asia. Huh? You cannot have it both ways. Australia is our deep ally, our long time friend, our brother in arms (sigh, sister, trans, whatever other words are necessary now). We hope for Australia to stop pushing the US away in order to feast in China, because the longer any country feasts there, the deeper into China’s trap they fall. It would behoove Australia to make up its mind what it is doing. If Australia thinks that a full blown democracy can become the ally of the world largest and most dangerous totalitarian government, good luck. You don’t stand a chance, because China’s trojan horse is already parked in Sydney and it has begun to manipulate the environment from within. You can do business with the Chinese Communist Party, you can trade with them, you can even smile with them, but you can never ever, ever, ever trust them.

The U.S. is not going anywhere. We are the only hope to help solve some of the world’s worst dilemmas. Europe is hopelessly indecisive and completely based on appeasement, which as we have seen, is useless against evil regimes, who simply lie, sign and breach (e.g. N. Korea, Iran, Communist China (already breaching the 50-year agreement with the UK regarding Hong Kong, as though Great Britain would do anything about it)).

I can tell you that out of 330 million people in the US, there are no more than a handful who believe “America will lose, and China will win”

These are tough times. Tough times call for resolute actions. Who else is going to be resolute? We’ve always relied on Australia to be right there by our side. We hope for that to continue for a long, long time as we love our friends from down under.

Letter to Europe Upon Betrayal of the US and Israel – What the Hell is Wrong with You?

Dear Europe,

I will use polite language. What the Hell is wrong with you? Have you learned absolutely nothing in the last 100 years? What does it take for you to actually learn from a disaster? Have you learned absolutely NOTHING about the failure of appeasement as a strategy?

I hearken back to a notable statesman from your past who was one of the few Europeans who actually understood the danger and refused to yield. When Hitler rose up, Europe quivered and quaked, moaned, whined and appeased, appeased, appeased. And 50 million died, including 6 million Jews exterminated. Appeasement, appeasement, appeasement. It is the ONLY policy in Europe that keeps coming back despite the historical fact that no evil regime backs down because of appeasement – ever.

Consequently, Chamberlain appeased, and begged, Hitler built a monster war machine, France submitted to Vichy, the rest of Europe yielded, and tens of milions died. Consequently, only Winston Churchill’s backbone drove the war effort against the German machine. Appeasement merely encouraged Hitler and threw gasoline on the fire. Have you learned NOTHING??

More recently, kneeling beside President Obama, the spineless American President, you basically invited Iran to become a nuclear nation, and helped the UN join Obama in his betrayal of the American legislature and appeasement of Iran, which included billions of dollars, which has financed its hegemony and terrorist efforts throughout the Middle East.

You joined the idiotic Agreed Framework with North Korea in 1994, agreed to by another master of appeasement, Bill Clinton, even though the agreement was breached while the ink was drying. And now North Korea has nuclear weapons and missiles because you constantly did nothing, because you are incapable of acting. Have you learned NOTHING??

Now, instead of actually joining forces with the US in Syria (France’s debacle, among many in that region of the world) and wiping out Assad and ISIS, Europe twiddled its thumbs, whined and moaned about the conflict, and now basically by appeasing Assad, Russia, Iran and who knows who else, the many millions of displaced refugees have changed the very nature of Europe (and not from a good standpoint) and within a few decades, the Europe we know will have changed completely. Have you learned NOTHING??? NOTHING???

Now, when the American President had the “temerity” to actually speak the truth about Jerusalem, that it was (and has been since 1,000 B.C.) the capital of Israel, Europe wrung its hands, wept, moaned, tutted, shook its head, and actually betrayed the United States and Israel in the United Nations Security Council by appeasing the Palestinians. French President Macron actually used the word “appeasement” in his response to the American President’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Europe collectively moaned that this changed U.S. policy. Of course it did not. The policy was stated in the law from 25 years ago that mandated the U.S. Embassy be moved to Jerusalem. All of the intervening Presidents appeased the Palestinians. And the result??? Peace? No. Discussions? No. Movement by the Palestinians? No. Cessation of terrorism? No. Improvement in the lives of Palestinians? No. Education ? No. Jobs? No. Infrastructure? No. Bombs? Yes. Rank, genocidal Antisemitism? Yes.

When I taught negotiation skills in Asia for over ten years, I always mentioned the difference between American and European negotiation strategies. American negotiators negotiate to prevail. European negotiators negotiate to please (otherwise called “appeasement”). This is nowhere more apparent than in the 100 years of appeasement of evil that Europe has engaged in over and over and over and over and over. Having no stomach for conflict, Europe is an easy mark for butchers like Hitler.

The Palestinians only understand one thing – an ultimatum, something they never ever ever ever get from the UN, from Europe, and from spineless American presidents, such as Carter, Clinton, Obama. Yielding to the Palestinians has NEVER yielded any progress in peace. It has only emboldened the Palestinians to commit more murder and mayhem in Israel, to teach their children in school to hate Jews and that all of the Jews in the world must be destroyed. Sadly (and sickly) these feelings are not alien to Europe, which has practiced Antisemitism for the last 1,000 years, or more.

Europe, all of it, and in particular France and England, betrayed the United States and Israel yesterday in the Security Council (did they think Obama was still President, and Oppeasement was the order of the day?) Have you learned NOTHING???? NOTHING at all????

Europe has been appeasing China and its so-called fake One-China Policy, which is actually China’s excuse to try to destroy democracy on its doorstep, and Europe appeases China, and turns the other way, and ignores Taiwan. Does appeasement help? No, it only gives greedy European capitals Kommunist Kash.  And Europe condemns Israel, when Europe itself is corrupt and bereft of ethics. Europe is such an easy mark. What the Hell is wrong with you? Have you learned NOTHING???

The Palestinians want genocide against Israel and Jews everywhere. Is Europe insane?? Does it pretend that looking the other way will make it go away? or that it will lead to a resolution, peace? What the Hell is wrong with you? Have you learned abolutely NOTHING??????

Let me put it to you straight. Israel will prevail. When Jews say “Never again” they mean NEVER AGAIN. Appeasement is ridiculous, nearly wiped out the Jewish race, and resulted in tens of millions of deaths. Europe has been appeasing over and over and over and over for 100 years. What the Hell is wrong with you??? Have you learned NOTHING????

We will do this with you or without you. The way things are going, you will be gone in a few decades, as you appease yourselves out of existence. Have you learned NOTHING? What the Hell is wrong with you??

Fondly,

The Truth Today is Very Popular – How About some Diplomatic Truth? Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel, and Taiwan is not Part of China, and is Independent and Democratic!

For 50 years, the international community, including the impotent United Nations, has pretended the historical connection of 3,000 years between Jerusalem and Israel dating back to King David did not exist. The diplomatic convenience of appeasement, an act of allowing a lie to be treated as the truth, did nothing for peace.

For 50 years, the international community, including the impotent United Nations, has pretended that the historical separation since 1895 between China and Taiwan did not exist, and has been willing to pretend Taiwan is part of China, for “diplomatic purposes” (read this as “greed”). The diplomatic convenience of appeasement, an act allowing a lie to be treated as the truth, did nothing for peace, and has allowed China to grow in belligerence and hegemony, threatening the world with totalitarianism, “socialism with Chinese characteristics”.

Previous international policy on the Palestinians has failed miserably. In 1995, Congress passed the Embassy Act directing the US embassy be moved to Jerusalem, the capital of Israel. President Clinton failed to sign the law, and it went into effect without his signature, his having failed to return it to Congress during the permitted time. However, Clinton, Bush and Obama all suspended the law for the past 25 years. Now, President Trump has actually complied with the law, saying out loud what has been true for 3,000 years.

Let the Palestinians and the rest of the world face the truth, the fact that Jerusalem and Israel are inextricably connected as they have been since King David declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel around 1,000 B.C. Appeasement has no chance of success, and hopefully the days of appeasing the Palestinians is over. Threatening violence in the middle-east because of this decision is nonsense. It is already burning in chaos with internecine conflict between Shia and Sunni, and many other peoples and sects clamoring for influence, territory and wealth for greedy leaders. Israel has nothing to do with this never-ending conflagration. All Israel ever did was turn a desert into an oasis, something the Palestinians should take note of, if they could put down their AK-47s, suicide belts and bombs, and Jew-hating long enough.

Let the world start acknowledging the truth that the Emperor Xi is naked, that he has no new clothes, that this is the truth, and that Taiwan is a free, independent, democratic nation of peace.

I hope today is the first day of the rest of our lives accepting the truth in diplomacy instead of decades of diplomatic lies and appeasement of evil. Let’s hope the American President’s fulfillment of his promise to the people of Israel is the beginning of “telling it like it is” and starting to get things done in solving the world’s worst conflicts. After the past 8 years of Obama’s polite appeasement and giving evil a pass in the name of false “peace”, it took less than 11 months and a little New York chutzpah to move America in the right direction. I hope it is just the beginning, and that China is next on the list to get a wake up call to something called “the truth”.

The Pyongyang Shuffle Redux

The Chinese Communist Party’s strategy of playing the White House and the EU for suckers is in full swing with attempts to resume the six-way talks with North Korea once again, only this time after North Korea violated every single other agreement, developed long range missiles and a hydrogen bomb all because Obama and the West did nothing about it, except take away Kim Junior’s allowance. This was Obama’s solution to every single international problem (sanctions, or lifting them) and I can’t think of a single example of it working, and in fact it made each situation worse (Russia with Crimea, Ukraine, or Iran, Cuba, N. Korea, Syria, etc.) because it left the actions with little downside and emboldened each horrible regime to double down on infamy.

We imagine Chinese Premier Li Keqiang is on his way to North Korea, riding the secret train, and right now we are back in the midst of the Pyongyang Shuffle Redux, a dance choreographed by the CCP and Kim Jong-il, and now Kim Jong-un, which has been the number one hit in China and North Korea for the past 20+ years.

Oh, to be a fly on the wall when the two “leaders” meet (Li has been diminished as Xi has been elevated, and Kim Junior leads by exterminating all perceived enemies, it seems, including family members).

Kim: (to Li, while watching some old Elvis movies): “Congratulations on sixty-eight years of absolute power. It is almost as long as my family’s 69 years of absolute rule.”

Li: “Thank you. One party rule is definitely the way to go, especially when your family or your best friend runs the party (they both laugh). Now, as for the purpose of my visit, we want you to try to be nice for a change.”

Kim: “I’m always nice.”

Li: “Yes, well, the Americans don’t understand that. We want you to offer them something. A meeting perhaps in exchange for movement on your nukes. Give Tillerson something he can work with.”

Kim: “I’m not giving up the nukes.”

Li: “I know that, you know that, but they don’t know that, and we like it that way. As long as they think you are being genuine, we will have this very useful leverage over them. It’s called ‘six-way talks’, but we know it’s ‘four plus two talks’. As long as they don’t know that, it’s better. If you play along with us, we will take care of you, as always.”

Kim: “Yes, and along those lines, I need some more beluga. And lots more of that Dom Perignon you sent last time, the limited edition – though I hear there’s a nice Perrier-Jouet limited edition for a mere fifty thousand Euros – you can have someone stop off in Epernay next time you’re scamming the Europeans. And duck – fat, juicy duck, and lots of it. You know what I like.”

Li: “Anything for your people?”

Kim: “Oh, them. You can also send along some trainloads of rice and cabbage. The people love rice. You can never have enough rice – or kimchee.”

Li: “Okay. So, this is how it works. Right now, the world is anticipating this trip of mine. I will go out there, and face the cameras, and put on a look of serious contemplation, like this (makes a stern face – Kim laughs). Then I will tell the reporters with a straight face that we have made some progress towards denuclearizing the Korean peninsula, talk about peace in Asia, common goals, blah blah blah. Maybe I will call it a breakthrough, give a little gift to Trump.”

Kim: “But we’ll know better (chuckling).”

Li: “Right. Do you want to stand next to me?”

Kim: “No, not this time. We can find some old footage. I put on a lot of weight with that champagne and caviar diet, and I look fat and a little puffy and weak. I can’t appear to be the powerful juggernaut I am commanding a two million man army if I weigh more than 150 kg and have trouble walking. It’s okay. It’s part of my enigmatic personality if I don’t appear. The people accept my lofty nature.”

Li: “Okay then. So, we offer them some movement, and then let’s plan to string out these latest talks until after Trump’s next State of the Union address in late January, 2018. That’ll give him something to brag about, and soften him up on human rights, democracy, Taiwan and Tibet, and other areas, like trade. We can make some good progress in our plans. Then, say March, you can pull out, or fire some missiles or anything to justify breaking away from the talks, and we will start all over again. Just don’t hit anything with the missiles.”

Kim: “Can I hit something uninhabited? It’s getting boring spending all this money to sink my missiles in the ocean. The boys need something to encourage them.”

Li: “Not at this time. It’s a delicate balance with all those American ships and the aircraft carrier parading around in our sea just off our coast. And don’t get too close to Guam. Ever. This guy in the White House is not the same as Obama, who wouldn’t hurt a fly. Trump is just itching to roll out some nukes. We don’t need that right now.”

Kim: “Okay, okay. I get the point. You know how to make me happy. What will your position be in March?”

Li: “Mock surprise and horror of course. But don’t worry, it’s only for show. I’ll send along some nice dumplings and a few hundred fat ducks on the next train, and see if I can get someone to stop off in Epernay. And maybe some Krug 1995.”

Kim: “There’s one other thing. My son.”

Li: “What about your son?”

Kim: “Well, that’s the thing. I’m not finished making sons yet, so I don’t know. But when I do know, I need your promise you will support him in all that he asks. He will need to consolidate his internal power. I will have taught him to play this little game of ours. At this rate, it can keep going for at least another 30 or 40 years years. By the way…”

Li: “Yes..?”

Kim: “I’ve got a little something going on the side with that nice fellow, the Ayatollah. Quite a little supply thing going on. It’s good cash right now. Any problems?”

Li: “No, not at all. But do understand that at the U.N. we will sound upset. But we won’t vote upset. Don’t worry. And stop using ships that can be tracked.”

Kim: “Okay. That guy is always begging for a nuke. ‘Give us one, even a little one, something nuclear, anything…’ He won’t take no for an answer.”

Li: “Well, you can give him something very small, but make it defective, and you can blame it on the sand or Israel. This nuclear intrigue gives us more leverage over the Americans, but we need to control the Iranians in different ways. They copied this game from you and play it well, and we go along with them on watering down the Americans’ sanctions, but they don’t listen to us like you do – they don’t like champagne and caviar, and they don’t want nukes just to play – they want to actually use them. You at least understand us. The Iranians hate us, and love us at the same time. Actually, they call us ‘infidels’ behind our backs, but they buy our weapons every day, anyway. As long as we can use them to make the Americans sweat without risking nuclear war, we’re happy.”

Kim: “Yes, well, they are all westerners as far as I’m concerned. Maybe they will kill each other off. Here, have some more kimchee, and a Big Mac. Wash it down with this Moet you sent me for my birthday.”

Li: “Don’t mind if I do.”

Stay tuned for more of the Pyongyang Shuffle as the saga continues.

Chairman Xi’s Chinese Dream – Only the Manual Can Discern the Truth

Regarding an article which appeared in the Taipei Times on Tuesday, Oct. 24th on P. 8 entitled “‘Chinese Dream’ will become a nightmare”, and with a nod to Chen Fang-ming (陳芳明), who wrote the article, confusion regarding Xi Jinping’s real motivations and intent can be discerned from reference to the Chinese Communist Party Manual of Commonly Misunderstood Terms (the “Manual”), which is essential when attempting to parse CCP policies, statements and doctrine. Now that Xi has become Chairman Xi, and venerated to the status of Mao, it becomes important to understand Xi’s true intentions.

First, the article refers to a proposal by the Chairman/ President/Leader/Commander/Icon/Top Guy/Numero Uno Xi Jinping called his “Chinese dream”, a slogan which came with the goals (according to the article) of “prosperous, strong, democratic, civilized, harmonious, free, fair, abide by the rule of law, patriotic, just, honest and friendly”, words which are uncommon normally having anything to do with the Chinese Communist Party run government in Communist China, possibly the world’s worst and most repressive totalitarian regime.

Referring then to the Manual, we can more easiliy understand what Xi meant when he talked about these goals in the context of his “Chinese dream”. Xi has used the word ‘democracy’ before, but clearly he is referring to the definition of “democracy” in the Manual, which is “democracy with Chinese characteristics”. In the Manual, the definition of “democracy with Chinese characteristics is “the right to vote for the Chinese Communist Party slate of candidates in the order provided, a right given to only those members of the Party given permission to attend and vote according to Party directions at the National Congress held every 5 years”. There is another second definition, written in smaller print that says that the definition of democracy in the Manual is “2. No democracy – see Freedom”

Going on then to the definition of ‘freedom’ in the Manual, we find some help in understanding Xi’s animus. “Freedom” is defined in the Manual as “The right and legal obligation to obey each and every order, rule, regulation, law, statute, directive, policy and dictate of the Chinese Communist Party and each and every of its representatives at all times and in all places, failure to follow which is punishable by any means dictated by the Party.” That clears that up, doesn’t it? The Manual offers a secondary definition as follows “Freedom – 2. No freedom”.

Now we are getting a better idea of just what Xi meant by his liberal pronouncement for the future of Communist China.

As to “prosperity”, there can be no question that China has been more prosperous than at any time in the history of the Chinese Communist Party, in large part because it abandoned ‘communism’ and adopted “communism with Chinese characteristics”. In the Manual, ‘communism with Chinese characteristics’ is defined as “not communism per se, but rather allowing free enterprise under strict control by the Party, and all enterprises subject to control by the Party to the greatest extent possible, and otherwise open to free exchange of capital subject to Party rules and regulations, violation of which are punishable by death”. Basically this is capitalism with Chinese characteristics, otherwise known as “prosperity” for Party members, until the Party decides a member is too powerful, and then prosecution for corruption is required.

As for “strong”, the Chinese Communist Party is certainly set to become stronger under “Chairman” Xi, considering the power the Communist Party has accumulated, and Communist China itself has become stronger partly because it has been devoting double digit parts of its GDP to its military, partly because through espionage it keeps stealing technology and advances from others (mostly the US). Also, as liberal democracies in Europe have become weaker and more reliant on Chinese Kommunist Kash, Communist China has become stronger through weakening resistance to China’s temptations, large bucks and its enormous supposedly “open” markets. However, in the Manual, “open markets” has been defined as “segments of the Chinese economy open to foreign entities under strict regulation by the Party, and only when a local Chinese partner participates in at least 50% ownership of the entity, such Chinese partners subject to absolute control by the Party”. Also, though the Manual is silent, it is well-known that the Party philosophy on local partners is they have 3 years from acquiring their interest in the foreign business to steal all available IP, set up backdoor avenues for walking products and technology out the back door, and to acquire complete control of the business, or set up a competing entity which can take over the business that is left when the foreign owner runs away.

As for civilized, I presume Xi is referring to the Party no longer starving its citizens or murdering them in public. However, all that the Party has done is taken these tools inside, where all options are available to the Party to ensure compliance with any of its dictates. Being one of the worst human rights violators in the world, Beijing has a long way to go to reach “civilized”. In the manual “civilized” is defined as “The Party rules require the government to conduct its security processes in a civilized manner, especially during official secret arrests, torture, and blackmail.” It’s not much, but it’s an improvement.

Xi loves using the term “harmonious”, but the true nature of this concept is set out in the Manual, where “harmonious” is defined as “every citizen following the Party’s instructions in every aspect of life in Communist China obediently, and making sure not to criticize the Party or the government under any circumstances.” It is easy to see how wonderful it is for China to be harmonious for Chairman Xi.

As for “fair” and “abide by the law”, we need to jump around a bit to understand this core principle of the Communist Party. First, “justice” in China is defined as “any ruling made by a Court with the approval of the Party shall be considered full justice.” Though you have to dig through the Manual to find it, “justice process” (also called due process in the Manual) is defined as “having the absolute right as a citizen in the People’s Republic of China to be subjected to the Party’s justice through the rulings made by judges in the Party’s courts with the abolute directives of the Party”. It reads a little differently than other common views of due process. There is a footnote under the entry for “due process” as follows: “2. Due Process – no due process”. Actually, as Xi knows, there can be no due process without an independent judiciary, but as the Manual identifies in the definition of “Court”, there is no independent judiciary in China (in the Manual “Court” is defined as “the tribunal dealing with legal matters subject to the directives of the Party to do justice as the Party shall see fit.” Gotta love dictators. They really know how to get results.

As for honest, the Manual defines honest as follows: “Honest: The truth is what the Party says is the truth. Honesty is absolutely keeping to the truth as mandated by the Party in all things, no matter how ridiculous it seems, upon pain of death.”

As for “friendly”, there is a reference in the Manual as follows: “friendly: see Taiwan”. Under the entry for “Taiwan”, for some reason, it says only: “Grrrrrrrrr.” There is a secondary entry under Taiwan that says “Taiwan: 2. Chinese Taipei, Taiwan, China, China, China, China”.

As we can see, Xi’s Chinese Dream is really not much of a dream, unless you define dream to include nightmare. In the Manual, “Chinese dream” is defined as “the Party becoming the most powerful government in the world, adopting the slogan ‘My name is Chairman Xi, Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!'”

 

 

The Problem for Taiwan and Israel is not China or the Arab World – It’s European Appeasement…Again….Will They Never Learn?

In an article by Alexander Gorlach, which appeared in the Taipei Times on Saturday, October 21st on Page 8 entitled “Taiwan, China: the European view” Mr. Gorlach states: “Declining support for the values of Western liberal democracy across the world in recent years, which not only led to the Brexit vote but also to a rise in mostly far-right xenophobic movements, does not serve as a breeding ground for compassion and action for a far-away nation such as restricted Taiwan.”

This is a somewhat delusional statement. To think that “liberal democracy”, particularly European liberal democracies, are either compassionate of foreign struggles for democratic evolution or capable of taking action to actually support and protect foreign democracies, is laughable, at best. Two examples which immediately come to mind are Taiwan and Israel, two of the smallest and brightest stars in the celestial glow of democracy, both completely abandoned by those useless “European liberal democracies”.

The height of liberal democracy might be considered the administration of the recent liberal God, President Obama, whose foreign policy doctrine of Oppeasement basically betrayed all of the American allies, most pointedly Israel and Taiwan, and allowed the world to erupt into flames, and evil dictators around the world to hastily move with aggression (and celebrate) while he danced and sang Kumbaya, and said to Putin, “be my guest” as he sped by into Syria to take over the fight there, but on behalf of Assad, not the opposition, betrayed by Obama over and over. Obama did nothing for Taiwan. European democracies have their lips pressed too hard to Daddy Xi’s buttocks to even notice Taiwan, welcoming the One Belt One Road honey trap (extolled on these very pages in article after article by George Soros’ ultra liberal Project Syndicate) with open arms, rubbing their hands together and chortling at the prospects of Kommunist Kash filling their coffers.

In 70 years, the US is the only ally with the guts to pass law after law in favor of Taiwan and keep China at bay. NATO couldn’t without the US, the European powers cannot and will not, nor will the UN. This trend has nothing to do with the death of liberal democracy, but in fact is the direct result of liberal democracy’s tendency to retreat in the face of danger or conflict, and prefer to “negotiate” rather than confront (e.g. totally misunderstanding evil such as N.Korea, and rather than employing an enormous stick and a teeny carrot and a kick in the teeth, are on their knees holding a gigantic carrot and a toothpick, begging Kim to come to the table and talk (and doing the same with Iran, which is an order of magnitude more dangerous)), having NOT learned the lessons from World War II of the dangers of APPEASEMENT and the unquenchable hunger of evil regimes for more power, more land, more death, more everything. Actually, in the case of Israel, its biggest problem is not the Arab nations that surround it (who know they cannot defeat Israel) but rather liberal democracies in Europe, which have done everything in their power to destroy Israel by being weak in convictions, weak in morality, weak in policy, weak in support, weak in their faux liberal democratic ideals.  The same can be said for Taiwan, which cannot rely on liberal democracies around the world for support, except the United States Congress.

China is not a problem of Trump’s making, nor is Iran or N. Korea or the Middle East. These are problems left on the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office by Blinking Barry and his Oppeasement policy on the way out. President Trump has extraordinarily difficult tasks ahead undoing the damage done by Obama in eight years of weakness and betrayal, and in this instance specifically to Taiwan and Israel.

I am skittish about President Trump’s meeting with Xi. Not because Trump is not a liberal, but because he is not the brightest bulb in the marquee of life, and while China has always played three dimensional chess, Trump is having difficulty with checkers because there are two colors. However, I have less fear of Trump meeting Xi than Obama, who bowed to the Chinese leader on several occasions and projected such a weak image of the US, that China has become far more belligerent and aggressive than before Obama’s era of Oppeasement.

When you show me liberal democracies growing spines, I will listen to this “European View” drivel. In the meantime, so long as they appease evil around the world, I will ignore them as the weak, timid, fearful, feckless, useless regimes they are, pretending to be important, while planning the next business trip to Tehran or Beijing. (“hey, China is not so bad, just because the Communist Party is the worst totalitarian regime in the history of the world – they have pandas and lots of money, we just have to say “One China” and keep Taiwan out! And if we sell jets and missile and nuclear technology to Iran, of course they won’t bomb us – they’ll bomb them (Israel)!”).

The Chinese Communist Party Emperor’s New Clothes – Buck Naked and Waiting for the Truth from the World

Taiwan is completely independent, it is just mildly schizophrenic, because one very small side of it (the die-hards of the Chinese Nationalist Party (a/k/a KMT)) keeps mistaking itself for Communist China.

We are in fact stuck in the fairy tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes”, and in this tale, the entire world, fearful that the Chinese Communist Party will bar them from selling their goods at the Communist Party kasbah, is willing to tell the CCP that the “Emperor’s” new clothes are delightful, and anything else it wants to hear, including that they believe Taiwan is not independent and is a part of Communist China (nudge nudge, wink, wink). In fact, as we know, the Emperor is buck naked, and the Chinese Communist Party is simply delusional if it thinks Taiwan’s full-fledged democracy is going to go back to the stone age of tyranny (Japan for 50 years and the KMT for 50 years), except this time with Communist China’s communist dictatorship.

Oh. And no one believes Taiwan is actually part of Communist China. They just say that so they can sell their whatever to China, or buy China’s really cheap stuff, get Kommunist Kash from it, or avoid China squeezing off their oxygen because they made the mistake of telling the truth.

We are waiting for the day the rest of the world actually has the guts to tell the Emperor that he is naked, and Taiwan is a great independent democratic nation of 23 million fantastic people who are not communists. Only when the world has the courage of its convictions and stands up as one to tell this to the Emperor’s face will the world be free from Communist China’s blackmail, propaganda, prevarication, and bullying, and the people of China free from the Chinese Communist Party’s 70 years of suffocating tyranny.

Gay Rights in Modern Society and the Democratic Debate: A Reply to Marco Chu’s Article “No space for ‘pluralism’ on equality committee”

Marco Chu wrote an article in the Taipei Times on Wednesday, July 25, 2017 P. 8 entitled “No space for ‘pluralism’ on equality committee”  http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2017/07/26/2003675304/1

Here is some tough love, Marco.

Sorry Marco, while I completely agree with you that it is right that LGBTQ people are entitled to the same protections in law as a consequence of their inherent gender identity, and I agree that gay people are entitled to be free of discrimination and are entitled to live openly as they choose according to their gender identity, I completely disagree with how you arrive at that conclusion and your typically “progressive” selectivity of ideas and controversies as “enlightened”, and for lack of another term the opposition to those ideas as “evil”.

You have not said anything in your Taipei Times article that has not been hashed out for the past umpteen years in the United States, which, unlike Taiwan, is 80% or more Christian, and where religion is as much a part of daily life as is freedom of religion and freedom of speech, and all of the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution, which, by the way, have been heavily litigated for two hundred years.

You go off on a tangent that cannot be accepted, the notion that progressive ideas are somehow entitled to uber-protection and “golden” treatment because….because….well, because they are progressive! That is nonsense.

First, were a poll taken with secret ballots, you would find an overwhelming opposition in Taiwan to some of the LGBTQ issues you have mentioned, including “marriage”. However, since the Constitution is the Constitution and since it has been ruled by Taiwan’s highest legal authority that it allows gay marriage, but that the Government should determine how and when to implement that, debate is now forthcoming. Taiwan is a very traditional culture, with a very progressive epicenter, but those traditions are very strong among a majority of the population. Come back in another generation and the poll would likely change. Such is democracy, and such is human nature, where people are more careful and conservative in middle aged and older generations. Your notion that anyone in opposition to LGBTQ issues should be excluded from the discussion – well, there is a word for that – it is called “tyranny”. You are suggesting that only the LGBTQ voices can be considered in this debate (which takes away the very notion of a debate), and that anyone who opposes does not deserve to be heard.

In the US, the opposition usually takes the form of religious dogma. In Taiwan, it is likely the opposition is deeply rooted in ancient traditions and culture, just as Taiwan independence is naturally accepted among younger generations and harder to accept among the older blue-trained generations saturated with KMT dogma.

Progressive ideas do not necessarily smell better because they are progressive. This is a slippery slope. Some of the statements made in the article are somewhat dangerous.

1. The parallels offered (White Terror and human rights committee) are patently ridiculous and the parties taking part in the debate about LGBTQ are nothing like those named (“military personnel and police who tortured”) and comparing several million amah, who are likely not in favor of gay marriage to secret police is somewhat preposterous, don’t you think? (“Amah (Grandma), it is normal today, it is okay for a girl to dress like a boy, or for that boy next door to wear a dress, and for girls to marry girls and for men to marry men.” “No! Marriage has always been for a man and a woman, no one else, period. You need to see a doctor. Didn’t your parents teach you anything?” Tell me this conversation has not been had at least twenty million times in Taiwan).

2. “If the DPP government accepts religious extremists who have been discriminating against those who are not heterosexually inclined, even taking the lead in oppressing, attacking, ostracizing and cursing gay people, on the committee — imagining that this is diversity — it would not just be wrong” Basically, it is the progressive play book to say that anyone who opposes a liberal or progressive idea is an “extremist”. But this is patently false. There is a huge, huge portion of the population who are in the middle, not deep left and not deep right. Those people are ordinary everyday people who believe in their traditions, go to work, go to school, bai bai when necessary, and live their lives without “oppressing, attacking or ostracizing” anyone. They just disagree with you. Saying these people have no voice in the debate, is tyranny. Of course they should have a voice. They are a majority of the people the government represents.

Ahhh….this is the point. The progressive idea is so golden, it must be shoved down the throats of the populace because it is an enlightened position with which no one can disagree without being crazy or evil. Sorry, Marco. That just doesn’t work. And the people on the committee don’t have to be the extremists you mention, not on either side, LGBTQ or its opposition. You see, you want the extreme pro-LGBTQ voice to be represented, but not any other. Do you see the hypocrisy there? Do you understand that when far far far left ideas become like this, they become far far far right? Like Nicolas Maduro, in Venezuela, who is so far to the left, that he has crossed over into the far right, as a dictator, a socialist dictator.

3.”If a church or religion does not accept gay marriage, it can refuse to conduct same-sex weddings. That is religious freedom and cultural diversity, so while it might not be right, it cannot be criticized.” And yet, in the US, the movement has been to force religious groups, under Obama’s administration, to accept these ideas as givens, without any right to refuse to accept. In the US right now, a baker cannot refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding. There are huge numbers of people who oppose that. (Personally I think it is ridiculous, a cake is a cake and you are in business, so bake the damn cake already, but it is an explosive issue.)

What I mean is that it is a slippery slope and once you accept one position, you will end up accepting all of it, eventually. Progressives will call this “progress”. Conservatives will call this “revolution”.  Aren’t both voices entitled to be heard in the debate? Is that not what “free speech” is all about?

4. “The state should stand up for minorities and protect them from prosecution [sic] rather than dance to the oppressors’ tune while calling it ‘pluralism.'” Again, characterizing the opposition as “oppressors” certainly is a strong indication of the writer’s refusal to accept any other dissenting voice, and adopting the progressive play book in labeling opposition as “evil” as opposed to simply a contrary position. The progressive’s BM always smells like roses to the progressive.

Finally, I understand disappointment with the DPP for it not pushing through the changes that the LBGTQ community hoped would be made. Some changes have begun. To suggest the government has a duty to ignore the populace of the country and to cater to only some of its supporters also smacks of tyranny. Again, that is the tyranny of the left, that is the march towards dictatorship. If you listen to the verbiage of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela and Hugo Chavez before him, you would hear the same progressive mumbo jumbo and the translation of the mumbo jumbo equals “I am your dictator, viva la revolution”. To stand up and argue that only your voice counts in a democracy is wrong.

Yes, pluralism has its dangers. The UN is an excellent example. In the UN a majority of countries often vote against history, fact and logic, because they have the votes for it. So they can vote that there is only one China and that includes Taiwan, even though Taiwan has been de facto independent for 70 years and Communist China has no dominion over Taiwan whatsoever, or that Jerusalem has no connection whatsoever to the Jews and wipe out 3,000 years of Jewish history, simply because there is a plurality. So too, in Iran and some eastern European countries, and in Russia, the leadership has actually said “We have no gays here” reflecting a plurality. That is either because they are hiding or were killed. Pluralism has its dangers too.

Stability requires deliberate action, and deliberate action requires deliberation, which by its very nature requires consideration of all sides in an issue or debate. By arguing the opposition has no voice, a beautiful thing called democracy becomes dictatorship.

There is nothing wrong with, as the DPP has said, promoting reconciliation. There is nothing wrong with considering opposing voices. “Considering” them and “obeying” them are completely different. Rejecting opposition is included within “considering” opposition. The writer’s fear of those opposing voices does not place sufficient faith in the process under the system of government Taiwanese have chosen. The alternative is the Communist Chinese way, where the supreme leader makes the decision, no debate, next case.

The LGBTQ revolution has already taken hold around the world. If you turn on the TV in the U.S., every other TV show involves LGBTQ issues, characters are in every movie, every TV show, on the news, in public life everywhere. While many in the US oppose this, there is not very much that can be done to stop it. It has taken hold in Taiwan too, in many ways. The culture is still a conservative culture. Only time will tell the extent to which the concepts are acceptable. As younger people step into positions of power, the nature of how these issues are decided will likely change. Many times sea change takes time. It requires patience (not less pressure, but patience).