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”.

Appeasement is not a Viable Strategy with North Korea, as 25 Years of it has Shown

An article appeared in the Taipei Times on Sunday, October 29, 2017 on p. 6 regarding the North Korean crisis entitled Talking Must be the Only Answer by Ian Inkster  http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2017/10/29/2003681233/3

Mr. Inkster very instantly and blithely dismisses the most important concept identified by President Trump, that “the US has been talking to North Korea, and paying them extortion money, for 25 years,” at the outset of Inkster’s article.  President Clinton made the horrific mistake of trusting North Korea in 1992, and the agreement with North Korea was violated by North Korea before the ink was dry. Years of Chinese prevarication, talking, and “statesmanship”, as Mr. Inkster lovingly suggests, in particular over the past 8 years by the great statesman President Obama, produced nuclear weapons, long range missiles and a hydrogen bomb. So much for statesmanship. As I mentioned before in my blog post, and here, and in others, President Reagan scared the Iranians so much they released the hostages they had held for a year within hours of his inauguration, after years of wimpiness from President Carter. Curiously we find ourselves in a similar position, with 8 years of extraordinary wimpiness from President Obama followed by a very loose and sometimes scary but apparently resolute cannon (despite not being the brightest bulb in the marquee of life).

Mr. Inkster refers to the Cuban Missile Crisis. He must have viewed it as a young teen through the foggy mist across the pond. From here, in New York, a hop, skip and jump from Washington, I saw and felt President Kennedy’s “bluster”, which Mr. Inkster says Kennedy did not display, but his spine, and his temerity, his willingness to meet move with move and show of strength with show of strength, and the backdoor channel ready to receive a message of contrition from Khrushchev is what made the Russians back down and get the missiles out of Cuba, not “statesmanship” alone. In those days, the US had 16 times as many nuclear weapons as the Soviets, and Khrushchev knew it. Were Kennedy instead Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama, Cuba would be a colony of the Soviet Union with nuclear missiles on our doorstep. Make no mistake. Kennedy played chicken well, and Khrushchev blinked, and then a basis for resolution was found. Junior knows the score. He is crazy but he is not an idiot. He looks for weakness and tries to exploit it. But like a rat, he has no desire to die.

In Europe, the strategy for everything has always been, compromise, compromise, compromise. Even with Hitler. Even with Russia. Even with Iran. Even with N. Korea. Particularly with China. It is this unwillingness to show strength to achieve compromise that has always led to horrible deals. I am not surprised by this (and Europe had a willing partner in Obama, whose foreign policy was taken directly from Europe’s playbook, which is why his foreign policy was reviled in the US, and loved abroad).

As soon as Trump spoke his mind (and the more unhinged he sounds, the better at present for strategic purposes) the European members of NATO were on their hands and knees begging for talks with N. Korea. To what end? To what compromise? To give a lunatic encouragement? Let an insane regime have a hydrogen bomb? There will be no resolution to this situation unless NATO grows a spine and plays its part (which is not begging, but rather trying to convince junior that Trump would love to test the US arsenal), and when North Korea weighs its options well, it will find a way to save face and back down.

And the answer is not relying on China. China has been playing the North Korea game for 25 years, playing every President and every administration and Europe for fools, just as the Palestinians have. It is a farce. Bullies only understand one thing. A punch in the nose, or the very real threat of one. Tea on the veranda is not the approach.

 

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).

There are still “communist sympathizers” who believe China is their Eden…it is hard to believe, I know

I was reading posts regarding Communist China, and came across a post entitled “Is the People’s Republic of China a Force for Good?” https://wordpress.com/read/blogs/9954326/posts/12507, a post addressing an article discussing the People’s Republic of China’s influence in Australia.

The post is basically more than an apology for the People’s Republic of China, but actually a celebration of its communist roots and a system of government far “superior” to Western “bourgeois democracies”.  As soon as people start using “bourgeois”, I start getting nervous. I wrote a comment on the post, and you can read the original post yourself to see the depths to which an apologist for totalitarianism will go to justify it (even as against those evil human rights proponents such as Liu Xiaobo calling for democracy, because they are committing “treason”). As soon as people start saying it is treasonous to call for human rights, due process and democracy, you have reached that Twilight Zone called Communist China.

Here is my comment on the post in full. I am not sure it will be published there:

“I suppose it is ironic this was posted on June 4th, the day on which the rest of the world remembers Tienanmen Square’s massacre, another dark day in the totalitarian history of murder and oppression in The People’s Republic of China, which is basically the most horrendous “communist” dictatorship, in this case run by the Chinese Communist Party. The only tie remotely between communism and the People’s Republic of China is that it is both a totalitarian nightmare, like every communist regime in history, and the state owns and controls everything, including speech, thought and actions. To pretend, like some book group discussing the writings of Marx, that the PRC is some benign and beneficial nation of peace and harmony requires checking one’s brain and entire nervous center before waking. China is not “cooperating” with the West, it is co-opting the West with its basic capital, which is blackmail, propaganda and prevarication, undertaken under the guise of trade and economic development, using such projects as the One Belt One Road (One Noose One Way), which is a web of influence which will allow China to affect the thinking and policies of all the nations involved and affected. China has corrupted the United Nations into becoming a Communist China mouthpiece and automaton. If people with the principles discussed here reject Liu Xiaobo in favor of Xi Jinping, I really don’t know what to say, except trying having a discussion about Liu in a coffee shop in Beijing and see how long before you end up in jail. And that is free speech with Chinese characteristics. By the way, this website is not available in the PRC, and “Communist Heaven” is actually a room without light in a special corner of Hell.”