The Hostile Forces of Beijing(scholars-stage.org)
scholars-stage.org
The Hostile Forces of Beijing
https://scholars-stage.org/candlelight-vigils-and-hostile-forces/
130 comments
You have to understand that after the cultural revolution, most all Chinese understand that internal rebellion can be very bad (leading to mass famine and death). Hence they largely support strong government regulation, even on speech. Americans think individual independence is a noble "Western value" because the Revolutionary War worked out fine for us. But these experiences each lead to biased extrapolations from the past. For the future, the specific conditions matter for individualism versus collectivism.. on which is the better path.
Arguably a more Chinese-style philosophy is prudent now as the world becomes a smaller place. Chinese people have sustained for thousands of years on the same land, without needing to rely on continuously invading new territory. Now the whole Earth is settled, we need to learn how to live together. Not that China is perfect, but we certainly have much to teach each other, and the Chinese have been the better listener so far.
That ignores the massive expansion into Central Asia (Tibet, Turkestan, Badhkashan, Altai), Mongolia, Borneo, the Yenisei Basin, Yunnan, Kachin, the Miao/Viet/Tai/Hmong frontier, and Formosa/Taiwan that the Qing Dynasty (which itself is Manchu, not Han) lead. Modern China is very much a reflection of that mass expansion.
Also, Chinese are not homogenous. Ignoring the 20th century Han social construct, there have always been distinct ethnic and cultural differences among differing "Chinese" ethnic groups like Cantonese, Teochew, Hokkien, Hakka, Guangzhong, etc that were erased during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.
Also, Chinese are not homogenous. Ignoring the 20th century Han social construct, there have always been distinct ethnic and cultural differences among differing "Chinese" ethnic groups like Cantonese, Teochew, Hokkien, Hakka, Guangzhong, etc that were erased during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.
Except CCP/PRC resolved 12/14 land border disputes inherited from ROC, most of which involved ceding more territory during settlement. That's the opposite of expansion, and TBF hard to find another country that has voluntarily ceded more land under bilateral negotiations. PRC territory literally contracted under westphalian framework that these narratives are measured against.
No offense but I think you are completely ignoring the intent of my comment. I am not talking about post-Xinhai Revolution China. I am just showing that the idea of stable singular borders within the modern concept of "China" are a newish construct - new in the sense that it's not some 2,000 year old history but a result of the expansion that the Qing Dynasty, and that the idea of a singular "Han" or Putonghua speaking ethnicity are a social construct that was developed in the 20th century.
Also, if you want to go the route that you are arguing, then there's a reason why Mongolia, Tibet, East Turkestan, etc fought for differing levels of sovereignity in post-Xinhai China, or that ethnic Manchus made a faustian pact with the Japanese occupation to create Manchuko. Ironically, Mao and Zhou Enlai were much more open to minorities compared to post-1980s PRC politicans.
But then again, why am I arguing with a sock puppet account based on your comment history. Either you are a very hypernationalistic commentator, or an astroturfer at worst. @Dang, thoughts about the paradox of tolerance?
Also, if you want to go the route that you are arguing, then there's a reason why Mongolia, Tibet, East Turkestan, etc fought for differing levels of sovereignity in post-Xinhai China, or that ethnic Manchus made a faustian pact with the Japanese occupation to create Manchuko. Ironically, Mao and Zhou Enlai were much more open to minorities compared to post-1980s PRC politicans.
But then again, why am I arguing with a sock puppet account based on your comment history. Either you are a very hypernationalistic commentator, or an astroturfer at worst. @Dang, thoughts about the paradox of tolerance?
Agreed there is nuance, but the Han dynasty had similar borders 2000 years ago.
The Great Wall helped, it wasn't the easiest thing to move around.
The Great Wall helped, it wasn't the easiest thing to move around.
Within "core" China yes, but that was questionable tbh. Most borders for nations before the 19th century are more hypothetical than reality. Without innovations like the telegraph, railroad, canned goods, etc, power projection outside of a core area was heavily hypothetical.
Hell, at one point in the late 18th and early 19th century, the village my family is from would have technically been Qing AND Sikh AND Dogra. Borders are artificial constructs that have historically been more fantasy than reality (at least until the late 19th to mid 20th century)
Hell, at one point in the late 18th and early 19th century, the village my family is from would have technically been Qing AND Sikh AND Dogra. Borders are artificial constructs that have historically been more fantasy than reality (at least until the late 19th to mid 20th century)
I don't really find their modern day philosophy (in terms of a society/country) all that enlightening. The earth is full so we should tolerate governments like the CCP/CPC? China's style of government is dysfunctional and dystopian, not prudent.
From my viewpoint China never expanded not because they were chill people, they could not even repel foreign invaders, let alone expand an empire.
Totally agree we should work together on this planet, but with a dictator like Xi in power that wont happen.
From my viewpoint China never expanded not because they were chill people, they could not even repel foreign invaders, let alone expand an empire.
Totally agree we should work together on this planet, but with a dictator like Xi in power that wont happen.
> The earth is full so we should tolerate governments like the CCP/CPC?
Careful with that kind of rhetorics. The world may start asking the same question regarding the 15% of world's population who act like they are the enlightened masters of the world questioning whether they should "tolerate" something on the other side of the globe.
Even now there isn't much tolerance towards American or French governments, who actually do evil shit far from their national borders.
> Totally agree we should work together on this planet, but with a dictator like Xi in power that wont happen.
Meh, how about instead each of us minds our OWN business? There is no way one can be actually responsible about things one is not accountable for.
Afghanistan is a perfect illustration of that - not just recent evacuation while leaving a shit ton of modern weapons, but all the way back to the days when the US had been nurturing mujahideen to create problems for the Soviet Union, which gave the rise of what we now know as islamic fundamentalist extremism (Taliban, Al-Qaeda, ISIS and such)
Careful with that kind of rhetorics. The world may start asking the same question regarding the 15% of world's population who act like they are the enlightened masters of the world questioning whether they should "tolerate" something on the other side of the globe.
Even now there isn't much tolerance towards American or French governments, who actually do evil shit far from their national borders.
> Totally agree we should work together on this planet, but with a dictator like Xi in power that wont happen.
Meh, how about instead each of us minds our OWN business? There is no way one can be actually responsible about things one is not accountable for.
Afghanistan is a perfect illustration of that - not just recent evacuation while leaving a shit ton of modern weapons, but all the way back to the days when the US had been nurturing mujahideen to create problems for the Soviet Union, which gave the rise of what we now know as islamic fundamentalist extremism (Taliban, Al-Qaeda, ISIS and such)
> Chinese culture has sustained for thousands of years on the same land, without needing to rely on invading new territory.
You should probably brush up on your asian history - there was incredible amount of conquest wars in what became modern China with casualties rivaled only by ww1/2
You should probably brush up on your asian history - there was incredible amount of conquest wars in what became modern China with casualties rivaled only by ww1/2
I very much prefer living in a country where I can go where I want without asking to government or say almost what I want without risking to go an education camp. So no thank you, current chinese is not my way and never will.
It's ironic to criticize the way the Chinese handled terrorism concerns against Muslim Uyghurs in Xinjiang, when the US War on Terror didn't just dehumanize and supress American Muslims-- it killed about 1 million people across the globe.
This is a case of "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"
We can all criticize Xinjiang, but not to justify cultural superiority, if anything it works the other way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_terror
This is a case of "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"
We can all criticize Xinjiang, but not to justify cultural superiority, if anything it works the other way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_terror
Where did I say my culture is superior? I'm talking about individual freedom and my preference about it, nothing else. I prefer to be a free individual.
So please don't change topic.
Which part of history does Genghis Khan fit into your narrative? He died in 1227, having killed between 4 million to 60 million people...
The part where Chinese civilization built the largest wall in human history to defend from the civilization that produced Genghis.
Defensive, not offensive!
Defensive, not offensive!
Um... Ghenghis Khan was Mongolian. Mongolians are not in any way at all related to the Chinese people/Han people.
"Genghis Khan himself was technically not ethnic Han, but he and mainly his successors saw themselves as legitimate Chinese emperors by establishing the Yuan Dynasty."
I guess you can try to argue some kind of blood purity, but I suspect you'll find yourself in bad company rather quickly on that one...
I guess you can try to argue some kind of blood purity, but I suspect you'll find yourself in bad company rather quickly on that one...
[deleted]
China is unique in that their biggest acquisitions of land came from being conquered and then assimilating their conquerors (Mongol and Manchu).
It would be erroneous to say that later events retroactively made Genghis Khan Chinese.
It would be erroneous to say that later events retroactively made Genghis Khan Chinese.
This is plainly, a lie. Here's a list of Chinese territorial acquisitions since the communists rose to power:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_changes_of_the_Peo...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_changes_of_the_Peo...
Actually that link's numbers show that China's area hasn't changed by even 1%.
In particular, the largest listed conflict: 1962, China won the military victory of Sino-Indian War but withdrew to the pre-war boundaries.
In particular, the largest listed conflict: 1962, China won the military victory of Sino-Indian War but withdrew to the pre-war boundaries.
Just to be clear, and correct me if I'm wrong: is your argument that because China's acquisition of territory amounts to a small percentage of their previous territory in quantity, that it is not something serious?
Does that mean that the China's intended colonization of Taiwan (in China's constitution), of which its territory is approximately 0.4% the size of China's current territory, would not be something serious?
I'd appreciate a bit of clarity on exactly what you're arguing here.
Does that mean that the China's intended colonization of Taiwan (in China's constitution), of which its territory is approximately 0.4% the size of China's current territory, would not be something serious?
I'd appreciate a bit of clarity on exactly what you're arguing here.
Does Chinese history show they are any more immune than others to our weaknesses in living together?
China is about 10x older than the US. We're like a six year old thinking they knowing better than grandpa.
Oh I see you are comparing countries not cultures. In that case US is older.
The Europeans are not obsessed with taking down China, nor are Europeans ardent individualists as Americans are. Chinese and America have a bigger cultural gap than Europe and China in this respect.
As a Chinese-speaking European, I'm getting the impression that you're using faraway places you know little about as convenient projection surfaces for an ideal contrast with the things you dislike about America.
Dislike of America's recent history of conquest turns thousands of years of warfare on what is now Chinese territory into thousands of years of living on the same land without any invasions.
Dislike of American individualism turns Europeans into... I'm actually not sure whether you associate any specific qualities with not being ardent individualists.
Anyways, I'm quite annoyed by this, so consider yourself officially taken down.
Dislike of America's recent history of conquest turns thousands of years of warfare on what is now Chinese territory into thousands of years of living on the same land without any invasions.
Dislike of American individualism turns Europeans into... I'm actually not sure whether you associate any specific qualities with not being ardent individualists.
Anyways, I'm quite annoyed by this, so consider yourself officially taken down.
American Individualism is a well studied value w.r.t Europeans,
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2011/11/17/the-american-w...
Of course generalizing like this about groups is a cloudy lens at best but it's the premise of OP and may predict voted policy of respective countries.
That said, it's been a number of years since I lived in Switzerland and I see things have changed measurably regarding official EU policy on Chinese trade, https://wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93European_Union_rela...
Of course generalizing like this about groups is a cloudy lens at best but it's the premise of OP and may predict voted policy of respective countries.
That said, it's been a number of years since I lived in Switzerland and I see things have changed measurably regarding official EU policy on Chinese trade, https://wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93European_Union_rela...
I find this perspective pretty amusing. The United States is in fact more than 3 times older than China (i.e. the PRC). The idea that modern China is wise because its ancestors were ruled by Chinese emperors seems to me basically the same as saying the west is wise because its ancestors ruled by Roman emperors. But I guess historical myths and culture are quite powerful ideas for many people.
This is the same logic hawkish American Republicans use when they say they are defending Western Values against the Chinese. What are those values? Where do they come from? Most rural Americans from Alabama who say these things haven't been to England or Germany, and if they did, they sure wouldn't recognize "their culture". Heck, they don't even need to travel to Europe.. try NYC!
I don’t really understand your point. Are you comparing hawkish nationalist Americans to hawkish nationalist Chinese?
No, but they are not comparable because Chinese are not hawkish by any American definition.
In your view, what is "hawkish by an American definition?"
Some research on the subject: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10670564.2019.15...
Five surveys of Chinese citizens, netizens, and elites help illuminate the attitudes that the Chinese government grapples with in managing international security policy. The results suggest that Chinese attitudes are more hawkish than dovish and that younger Chinese, while perhaps not more nationalist in identity, may be more hawkish in their foreign policy beliefs than older generations.
Some research on the subject: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10670564.2019.15...
Five surveys of Chinese citizens, netizens, and elites help illuminate the attitudes that the Chinese government grapples with in managing international security policy. The results suggest that Chinese attitudes are more hawkish than dovish and that younger Chinese, while perhaps not more nationalist in identity, may be more hawkish in their foreign policy beliefs than older generations.
The febrile public comments about Taiwan recently suggest they are just as hawkish
I wonder if the people who get these Security Commission briefings believe the bullshit about "hostile external forces" or if they all know it's just a pretend boogeyman and the population unrest happened because they don't tolerate the government's behavior.
Then again a lot of American reddit/Twitter users screamed "Russian bot!" when they see things they didn't like. Some of it maybe were Russian bots, but imagine if all the Russian interference disappeared, would all the anti-American commenters disappear off the Internet?
Then again a lot of American reddit/Twitter users screamed "Russian bot!" when they see things they didn't like. Some of it maybe were Russian bots, but imagine if all the Russian interference disappeared, would all the anti-American commenters disappear off the Internet?
How could you NOT think it was bots, esp. knowing what we know now about ChatGPT?
Nation-state level actors could and almost certainly do have similar options at their fingertips, on top of having enough cash to pay a legion of folks to troll. We know they exist -- they have names like 50 Cent Army (or Mechanical Turk, or "online marketing firm").
Nation-state level actors could and almost certainly do have similar options at their fingertips, on top of having enough cash to pay a legion of folks to troll. We know they exist -- they have names like 50 Cent Army (or Mechanical Turk, or "online marketing firm").
>if the people who get these Security Commission briefings believe the bullshit about "hostile external forces"
They do and should. West working hard to deny that foreign coordination occurs - the magnitude of impact is subject to debate - but telegram group like @actionshanghai with 100s of particapants coordinating live SH protests with foreign journalists (including FLG/Epoche) and trained aggitators providing support were real. And within MSS ability to monitor / prosecute. Western influence OPs in PRC is as real as CCP influence ops abroad that warrants crackdown. CCP did not crack down on foreign NGOs and purge CIA network for shits and giggles. It was forgone some protestors would be naive enough to work with "hostile external forces" and would get slapped hard by state security, hence handful of arrests versus thousands. There's been surprising tolerance for protests so far, but also good reason not to tolerate protestors' behaviours that effects national security. The fact group is begging for attention on youtube good sign they're the kind of naive libtards that thinks it's fine to work with hostile external forces who has some ability to impact, i.e. media who manufactures consent vs internet trolls. Otherwise they'd receive the basic tea invite + self criticism ceremony and can move on with their lives like thousands of others.
They do and should. West working hard to deny that foreign coordination occurs - the magnitude of impact is subject to debate - but telegram group like @actionshanghai with 100s of particapants coordinating live SH protests with foreign journalists (including FLG/Epoche) and trained aggitators providing support were real. And within MSS ability to monitor / prosecute. Western influence OPs in PRC is as real as CCP influence ops abroad that warrants crackdown. CCP did not crack down on foreign NGOs and purge CIA network for shits and giggles. It was forgone some protestors would be naive enough to work with "hostile external forces" and would get slapped hard by state security, hence handful of arrests versus thousands. There's been surprising tolerance for protests so far, but also good reason not to tolerate protestors' behaviours that effects national security. The fact group is begging for attention on youtube good sign they're the kind of naive libtards that thinks it's fine to work with hostile external forces who has some ability to impact, i.e. media who manufactures consent vs internet trolls. Otherwise they'd receive the basic tea invite + self criticism ceremony and can move on with their lives like thousands of others.
Just another reminder that if you are in any way doing business in China, you are helping the despots who made disappear Cao Zhixin and all her fellow vigil attendees, violently overthrew Tibet, broke every international agreement on Hong Kong, and are this minute militarily threatening Taiwan.
It might cost more, but it is worthwhile to do business elsewhere.
It might cost more, but it is worthwhile to do business elsewhere.
> Just another reminder that if you are in any way doing business in China, you are helping the despots
That may be true, but don't forget that you're helping ordinary people like Cao Zhixin as well. When you're buying stuff made in China, only a small part of the money you pay is captured as taxes by the government; the rest goes to other people, improving their livelihoods.
Of course the same is true when you buy things made in other countries; it'll just be a different group reaping the benefits. So bettering people's lives is not a good reason to prefer products made in China, but it's also not a good reason to avoid them either.
That may be true, but don't forget that you're helping ordinary people like Cao Zhixin as well. When you're buying stuff made in China, only a small part of the money you pay is captured as taxes by the government; the rest goes to other people, improving their livelihoods.
Of course the same is true when you buy things made in other countries; it'll just be a different group reaping the benefits. So bettering people's lives is not a good reason to prefer products made in China, but it's also not a good reason to avoid them either.
It isn't about the flow of money, it is about the flow of power.
Even if some of your purchase winds up in the pockets of ordinary Chinese, it does nothing to help them get out from out from under autocratic rule.
That's the point — the Great Experiment failed. It would be fantastic to free the billion++ people of China, and we thought that open exchange would do it, but it only empowered their rulers and now threatens us. The best we can do is to strongly oppose that government and the society running under it (and yes, that this will end up benefiting others in other countries who are already overlooked, that is also a good thing).
Even if some of your purchase winds up in the pockets of ordinary Chinese, it does nothing to help them get out from out from under autocratic rule.
That's the point — the Great Experiment failed. It would be fantastic to free the billion++ people of China, and we thought that open exchange would do it, but it only empowered their rulers and now threatens us. The best we can do is to strongly oppose that government and the society running under it (and yes, that this will end up benefiting others in other countries who are already overlooked, that is also a good thing).
I’m as anti-CCP and pro “buy local” as they come (or at least pretty far down the path)
But they’ve kind-of won… I just can’t feasibly avoid China with my pocketbook every single day.
I have no idea where to get a (usable) phone / computer that isn’t touching on them at some level. That company down the street that sells me a beer and a burger, well I guarantee they’ve got an add of Made in China.
They’ve sadly outplayed us (or our shit heel political and business elite) to the point of overly tight integration.
But they’ve kind-of won… I just can’t feasibly avoid China with my pocketbook every single day.
I have no idea where to get a (usable) phone / computer that isn’t touching on them at some level. That company down the street that sells me a beer and a burger, well I guarantee they’ve got an add of Made in China.
They’ve sadly outplayed us (or our shit heel political and business elite) to the point of overly tight integration.
>>I have no idea where to get a (usable) phone / computer
Samsung is Korean, and does much of their production in Vietnam, none in China AFAICT. They have a pretty broad line from premium down to good enough value that I've seen my provider offering multiple models for free (as in beer) with the phone plan. You can certainly get an older/refurb premium model for cheap.
Yes, they have outplayed us so far, but that tide is changing fast. Obviously, the big govt & biz players must drive it, but we can do our part.
Yes, there's a billion civilians unwillingly living under CCP's despotism, but the best we can do for them now is to not do things that support that system.
The Great Experiment has utterly failed. The generous idea that open trade and exchange would bring open democratic systems turned out to be false, it only empowered the autocrats, who are now on the expansion warpath (see Ukraine and Straits of Taiwan, this minute).
Obviously we can't yet be absolutist about it, but just making the effort on everything we buy, try to shift it to a substitute from ANYWHERE else. If you can, great, and if not, next time there probably will be one.
Samsung is Korean, and does much of their production in Vietnam, none in China AFAICT. They have a pretty broad line from premium down to good enough value that I've seen my provider offering multiple models for free (as in beer) with the phone plan. You can certainly get an older/refurb premium model for cheap.
Yes, they have outplayed us so far, but that tide is changing fast. Obviously, the big govt & biz players must drive it, but we can do our part.
Yes, there's a billion civilians unwillingly living under CCP's despotism, but the best we can do for them now is to not do things that support that system.
The Great Experiment has utterly failed. The generous idea that open trade and exchange would bring open democratic systems turned out to be false, it only empowered the autocrats, who are now on the expansion warpath (see Ukraine and Straits of Taiwan, this minute).
Obviously we can't yet be absolutist about it, but just making the effort on everything we buy, try to shift it to a substitute from ANYWHERE else. If you can, great, and if not, next time there probably will be one.
[deleted]
Meh, Chinese labor is already more expensive than equivalent Mexican labor (at least from an American perspective). They're running on inertia at this point. Might take a decade or two to relocate the industrial plant, but it'll shift on cost alone given enough time.
Replacing complex industrial centers is FAR more difficult, and costly to customers, than swapping out workers in one country for another.
Lower wages were an advantage. But the Chinese have leveraged that into other lasting advantages. Not just inertia.
Lower wages were an advantage. But the Chinese have leveraged that into other lasting advantages. Not just inertia.
[deleted]
America just moved their slavery elsewhere and got the CCP to administer it. Out of sight, out of mind, get me my iphone while the plebs desperately jump out 5th story factory windows.
Give us an alternative to our Chinese-made computers, smart phones, etc. that isn't "don't get them," because that's kind of absurd in the modern era. If you have an alternative I'm all ears.
You're destroying the world and exploiting communities every time you turn on a light switch or ride motorized transport. Every package you order online is part of the problem. Should I give you a high-minded lecture with no alternatives as well?
You're destroying the world and exploiting communities every time you turn on a light switch or ride motorized transport. Every package you order online is part of the problem. Should I give you a high-minded lecture with no alternatives as well?
And in some regions of 18th century America there was no reasonable immediate alternative to survive without buying goods produced by negro slaves, so it would have been pointless to point out the situation.
I'm a bad guy too. happier? Maybe the world would be a better place with more high minded lectures now and again, so I'm all ears.
I'm a bad guy too. happier? Maybe the world would be a better place with more high minded lectures now and again, so I'm all ears.
I don't mind being told I'm doing something bad but critique without a solution is pointless. It's easy to tear folks down, it's hard to build. You're taking the easy route while looking down on us as if you don't willingly participate in suffering for the same reasons we do. It's not morally permissible, but let's not pretend you're 1) any better or 2) proposing any meaningful solutions.
If you asked me the solution it starts with the most influenceable and likely allies, such as Uyghurs, who already have armed groups that have a chance of extracting at least one, two people from this kind of tyrannical relationship with the CCP. I don't think the picture starts with saving everyone exploited but rather just one, two persons at a time and let the witnesses decide how to proceed.
Currently they are a designated terrorist organization so if I gave you any actionable advice I would end up in jail. Perhaps the first step is an American may be to solicit these self defense organizations to be removed from the designated list so an American may even discuss what could be done without suffering a long prison sentence.
Currently they are a designated terrorist organization so if I gave you any actionable advice I would end up in jail. Perhaps the first step is an American may be to solicit these self defense organizations to be removed from the designated list so an American may even discuss what could be done without suffering a long prison sentence.
I am clearly talking about our consumption habits. Not how to start/assist an armed revolution.
When I wanted ISIS gone I flew to Iraq and joined the YPG. I don't think any amount of not buying oil would have solved the problem.
It's fine if you want to box things into consumption, but don't ask for some kind of solution and just shit on it and think you're not a hypocrite for doing the exact thing you accuse me of, which is critiquing with no solution.
It's fine if you want to box things into consumption, but don't ask for some kind of solution and just shit on it and think you're not a hypocrite for doing the exact thing you accuse me of, which is critiquing with no solution.
Unfortunately there is little to no real ethical consumption under the current economic systems of the world (at least in the developed world). E.g. my mere existence in the USA funds the actions of the federal government and military. It is not my intention to legitimize actions you speak against (I.e. “there are none without sin” is not an invitation to sin your heart out). I just want to remind everyone that even true statements and facts can nevertheless be used as propaganda (I.e. focus on the bad things our enemies our doing, not that we are doing). I have no doubt that on the Chinese equivalent of hacker news there are people saying that doing any business in the USA is helping the US imperial war machine that has violently over thrown many governments, disappears people into Guantanamo Bay, etc.
The opening wage gap since the 70s have pathed the way for this. Raising wages could have paid for free produced products, but the haves decided that freedom for the have-nots has a price point.
You'd have to be out of your mind to think the US government/military does even 1% as much bad stuff as the CCP/PLA does.
Are you joking? Do you mean "to its own citizens"? I just don't see how you can claim the US military has done less than 1% of the "bad stuff" the CCP does considering they haven't invaded dozens of countries like the US. Can you explain your comment?
As long as you ignore the absolute chaos and mayhem caused by the US in the middle east for the past 2-3 decades... sure?
All of this except Julian Assange, ethnic cleansing of Yemenis, Palestinians, threatened ICC, flattened Iraq & Libya, ongoing looting of Syria, etc. Barely scratching the surface.
There are no "good guys". The world is not divided into good vs. evil, as much as our Western worldviews are conditioned that way. There is zero moral difference between supporting businesses backed by Beijing or Washington.
There is a moral benefit to not being wildly xenophobic on the internet, however.
There are no "good guys". The world is not divided into good vs. evil, as much as our Western worldviews are conditioned that way. There is zero moral difference between supporting businesses backed by Beijing or Washington.
There is a moral benefit to not being wildly xenophobic on the internet, however.
You really think there is zero difference between Beijing (or Moscow, or Tehran) v Washington?
Try going to live there and hold up a protest sign against whatever is the biggest anti-govt issue of the day. In any of the first three, you'll end up in jail for a fortnight to a decade, depending on the climate. In Washington, The worse you'll get is a "move along" if you are blocking traffic.
Or try being a neighboring country, like Taiwan. Right this minute, China is threatening it with its air force, navy, and army all harassing or doing target practice in it's direction. Hong Kong has lost ALL of the freedoms that were internationally agreed. All other neighbors are under varying degrees of threat & coercion. Meanwhile, Mexico, Caribbean islands, or Canada have trivial border checks and even Cuba have zero worries of any invasion.
The world really is divided between autocracy and democracy.
It may or may not be "good vs evil", but there is an absolutely critical difference. There are people who want to live a self-determined life free of coercion, and want a government determined by the people and not some tyrant. There are others who want to on a local level, be the bully and steal your lunch money, and on a geopolitical scale, rule and take everything.
This is a fight everywhere from the local level to be free, to the national level where abusers, bullies, crooks, and autocrats try to take over the reigns of democracy (and they recently succeeded in Hungary, Turkey), and internationally where the autocracies like China, Russia, Iran, NK, etc. are in expansionist.
Vladimir Lenin had a term for people who didn't understand the difference — "Useful Idiots". People who don't get it, and will happily do things helpful to their autocratic intentions, out of what they think are good intentions. You are in this territory, and should stop deluding yourself.
Try going to live there and hold up a protest sign against whatever is the biggest anti-govt issue of the day. In any of the first three, you'll end up in jail for a fortnight to a decade, depending on the climate. In Washington, The worse you'll get is a "move along" if you are blocking traffic.
Or try being a neighboring country, like Taiwan. Right this minute, China is threatening it with its air force, navy, and army all harassing or doing target practice in it's direction. Hong Kong has lost ALL of the freedoms that were internationally agreed. All other neighbors are under varying degrees of threat & coercion. Meanwhile, Mexico, Caribbean islands, or Canada have trivial border checks and even Cuba have zero worries of any invasion.
The world really is divided between autocracy and democracy.
It may or may not be "good vs evil", but there is an absolutely critical difference. There are people who want to live a self-determined life free of coercion, and want a government determined by the people and not some tyrant. There are others who want to on a local level, be the bully and steal your lunch money, and on a geopolitical scale, rule and take everything.
This is a fight everywhere from the local level to be free, to the national level where abusers, bullies, crooks, and autocrats try to take over the reigns of democracy (and they recently succeeded in Hungary, Turkey), and internationally where the autocracies like China, Russia, Iran, NK, etc. are in expansionist.
Vladimir Lenin had a term for people who didn't understand the difference — "Useful Idiots". People who don't get it, and will happily do things helpful to their autocratic intentions, out of what they think are good intentions. You are in this territory, and should stop deluding yourself.
I am familiar with all of these pro-Washington talking points, yes. This sounds like a Biden stump speech.
The world is obviously not divided into "good" and "evil", or even the poorly-defined "democracy" and "autocracy". That is a childish belief, like believing in Santa. The United States has engaged in horrendous atrocities, consistently, since its founding, including the largest ethnic cleansing program in human history that later inspired the Holocaust.
The world is obviously not divided into "good" and "evil", or even the poorly-defined "democracy" and "autocracy". That is a childish belief, like believing in Santa. The United States has engaged in horrendous atrocities, consistently, since its founding, including the largest ethnic cleansing program in human history that later inspired the Holocaust.
> Or try being a neighboring country, like Taiwan
The US does not recognize Taiwan as a country
> Cuba have zero worries of any invasion
Because the US already invaded Cuba and occupies Guantanamo Bay there, despite the Cuban government demanding the US leave for over 60 years (incidentally the US "renditions" and tortures Arabs in Guantanamo Bay in a manner that is against even US law).
The US does not recognize Taiwan as a country
> Cuba have zero worries of any invasion
Because the US already invaded Cuba and occupies Guantanamo Bay there, despite the Cuban government demanding the US leave for over 60 years (incidentally the US "renditions" and tortures Arabs in Guantanamo Bay in a manner that is against even US law).
>>The US does not recognize Taiwan as a country
Not officially, but in every way but officially
>>the US already invaded Cuba and occupies Guantanamo Bay there
That should not make Cuba feel less worried, but more, but the fact is, that over six decades later, the US has done nothing of the sort. Meanwhile, just look at what China has done to Hong Kong and Taiwan in the last year. Or the cultural genocide of Tibet and the Uighers.
Again, while absolutely no country is perfect, if you are trying to equate the nations defending democracy vs autocratic countries, you are either deeply misinformed or are deliberately lying.
(and no, just because you can point out that what you said is an isolated fact does not mean you aren't lying, misleading is another form of lying, whether you are doing it intentionally or merely because you are deliberately or gullibly misinformed).
Not officially, but in every way but officially
>>the US already invaded Cuba and occupies Guantanamo Bay there
That should not make Cuba feel less worried, but more, but the fact is, that over six decades later, the US has done nothing of the sort. Meanwhile, just look at what China has done to Hong Kong and Taiwan in the last year. Or the cultural genocide of Tibet and the Uighers.
Again, while absolutely no country is perfect, if you are trying to equate the nations defending democracy vs autocratic countries, you are either deeply misinformed or are deliberately lying.
(and no, just because you can point out that what you said is an isolated fact does not mean you aren't lying, misleading is another form of lying, whether you are doing it intentionally or merely because you are deliberately or gullibly misinformed).
> the fact is, that over six decades later, the US has done nothing of the sort
Bay of Pigs invasion? Cuban missile crisis blockade? I could go on...
Bay of Pigs invasion? Cuban missile crisis blockade? I could go on...
That is why I mentioned six decades later. That was one bad incident, was not a US military operation, it done by Cuban exiles (yes, launched from and partially financed by the US) and as I said, zero similar has been done in over six decades. Contrast with China just in the last year, and Russia in the last hour.
If you had a clue about actual history, you might know that the issue in the Cuban Missile Crisis, the blockade was NOT against Cuba, it was against Russian military gear, specifically nuclear missiles which could strike the entire East and Gulf coasts with near-zero warning. Kennedy announced the quarantine on October 22 and warned that U.S. forces would seize “offensive weapons and associated matériel” that Soviet vessels might attempt to deliver to Cuba. That is NOT an action against Cuba, but against the Soviets, who were using Cuba as a military base with it's permission.
Again, this attempt at false equivalence is nonsense.
You are either playing the role of a Useful Idiot, cluelessly spreading misleading arguments supporting authoritarian states, or are knowingly and willfully doing so. Which is it?
If you had a clue about actual history, you might know that the issue in the Cuban Missile Crisis, the blockade was NOT against Cuba, it was against Russian military gear, specifically nuclear missiles which could strike the entire East and Gulf coasts with near-zero warning. Kennedy announced the quarantine on October 22 and warned that U.S. forces would seize “offensive weapons and associated matériel” that Soviet vessels might attempt to deliver to Cuba. That is NOT an action against Cuba, but against the Soviets, who were using Cuba as a military base with it's permission.
Again, this attempt at false equivalence is nonsense.
You are either playing the role of a Useful Idiot, cluelessly spreading misleading arguments supporting authoritarian states, or are knowingly and willfully doing so. Which is it?
US soldiers are occupying Eastern Syria and facilitating the theft of oil and other resources to--among other places--northern Iraq, which the US also aggressively invaded much less than 60 years ago.
You are not well informed.
You are not well informed.
The situation is a hell of a lot more complex, and is certainly not driven by "theft of oil".
Yes, the US are in territory formerly ruled by the Syrian dictatorship. The US are:
1) opposing Russia (remember Syria is a client state of Russia, another autocracy, & Assad survived protests from his people only due to Russian intervention),
2) keeping a lid on ISIL resurgence, and
3) supporting the Kurds who have lived in that area for centuries and have been seeking to maintain self-determination, despite having been overrun by multiple dictators.
The IS destroyed most of the oil infrastructure when they were there. The US helped defeat them. To the extent that the US has helped rebuild the infrastructure, yes, the Kurds are benefiting, and yes, their territory also extends into northern Iraq. The Kurds have a better claim to any of these resources than either the dictatorial regimes of Assad/Putin, or of ISIL.
You think that we should simply withdraw and leave the Kurds to whichever of two murderous regimes, Assad/Russia or ISIL, can murder them and take the oil first? Or are you just taking cheap shots mischaracterizing the situation?
Even a casual glance at the situation shows that someone should be in there helping the Kurds, and keeping the lid on authoritarian regimes. I'd be happy if they can do it alone, or if someone else could help in our place.
But again, it is key to be better armed, prepared, and allied than authoritarians if democracy is to survive. The Kurds are key regional allies (and the US under Trump did screw the Kurds badly, in this area). Helping them is important to maintaining democracy.
It certainly is not as simple as your ill-informed pot-shot 'argument'.
Yes, the US are in territory formerly ruled by the Syrian dictatorship. The US are:
1) opposing Russia (remember Syria is a client state of Russia, another autocracy, & Assad survived protests from his people only due to Russian intervention),
2) keeping a lid on ISIL resurgence, and
3) supporting the Kurds who have lived in that area for centuries and have been seeking to maintain self-determination, despite having been overrun by multiple dictators.
The IS destroyed most of the oil infrastructure when they were there. The US helped defeat them. To the extent that the US has helped rebuild the infrastructure, yes, the Kurds are benefiting, and yes, their territory also extends into northern Iraq. The Kurds have a better claim to any of these resources than either the dictatorial regimes of Assad/Putin, or of ISIL.
You think that we should simply withdraw and leave the Kurds to whichever of two murderous regimes, Assad/Russia or ISIL, can murder them and take the oil first? Or are you just taking cheap shots mischaracterizing the situation?
Even a casual glance at the situation shows that someone should be in there helping the Kurds, and keeping the lid on authoritarian regimes. I'd be happy if they can do it alone, or if someone else could help in our place.
But again, it is key to be better armed, prepared, and allied than authoritarians if democracy is to survive. The Kurds are key regional allies (and the US under Trump did screw the Kurds badly, in this area). Helping them is important to maintaining democracy.
It certainly is not as simple as your ill-informed pot-shot 'argument'.
What mental gymnastics! These are literally the same (well-founded) arguments of Moscow proponents. Observe:
Russia, in territory formerly ruined by the Kiev puppet regime, are
1) opposing Washington/NATO (remember Ukraine is a client state of Washington, another plutocracy, & Kiev survived protests from its people only due to American intervention),
2) keeping a lid on neo-Nazi/fascist resurgence, and
3) supporting the ethnic Russians who have lived in that area for centuries and have been seeking to maintain self-determination, despite having been overrun by multiple dictators.
It is absurd to pretend that Washington has any moral high ground over Russia.
The main difference between the two is that Ukraine is on Russia's doorstep. What business does Washington have arming the Kurds or Banderites, on the opposite side of the planet?
Russia, in territory formerly ruined by the Kiev puppet regime, are
1) opposing Washington/NATO (remember Ukraine is a client state of Washington, another plutocracy, & Kiev survived protests from its people only due to American intervention),
2) keeping a lid on neo-Nazi/fascist resurgence, and
3) supporting the ethnic Russians who have lived in that area for centuries and have been seeking to maintain self-determination, despite having been overrun by multiple dictators.
It is absurd to pretend that Washington has any moral high ground over Russia.
The main difference between the two is that Ukraine is on Russia's doorstep. What business does Washington have arming the Kurds or Banderites, on the opposite side of the planet?
> There are no "good guys". The world is not divided into good vs. evil, as much as our Western worldviews are conditioned that way. There is zero moral difference between supporting businesses backed by Beijing or Washington.
One moral difference is that you can protest and public object to what Washington does and not disappear: it's possible to judge them against a moral standard which they profess to have, and note when they fall short. Try holding an anti-government/leader rally in Beijing.
There used to be an old Cold War joke: In both America and Russia we both have free speech. But you Americans have freedom after speech.
One moral difference is that you can protest and public object to what Washington does and not disappear: it's possible to judge them against a moral standard which they profess to have, and note when they fall short. Try holding an anti-government/leader rally in Beijing.
There used to be an old Cold War joke: In both America and Russia we both have free speech. But you Americans have freedom after speech.
> One moral difference is that you can protest and public object to what Washington does and not disappear
The OP is literally about a recent successful anti-lockdown protest movement in China, albeit with ample spin and speculation.
The OP is literally about a recent successful anti-lockdown protest movement in China, albeit with ample spin and speculation.
> good guys
Yes there are. Harder to find in aggregates though. (And in complexities.)
And incidentally, I have seen that "good guys" argument used very recently to undermine the idea of "moral authorities", through the device of abstracting the set of actors as only including the institutional ones. But the Moral Authority is in individuals.
And no "flattening" (or "twoweightstwomeasures" shout) is an excuse for deeds.
> xenophobic
That was in reply to a poster that stressed the concept of "money is power and vote", and expressed no aversion of strangers as strangers.
Yes there are. Harder to find in aggregates though. (And in complexities.)
And incidentally, I have seen that "good guys" argument used very recently to undermine the idea of "moral authorities", through the device of abstracting the set of actors as only including the institutional ones. But the Moral Authority is in individuals.
And no "flattening" (or "twoweightstwomeasures" shout) is an excuse for deeds.
> xenophobic
That was in reply to a poster that stressed the concept of "money is power and vote", and expressed no aversion of strangers as strangers.
Can you give a real example of a "good guy" in a current position of power? What makes them "good" and not "evil"?
[deleted]
I kept using 10y laptop to avoid giving my money to China.
I will buy parts made not in China to assemble PC when it breaks down.
I don't know how Americans support the evil CCP after knowing it's exporting fentanal which ends up killing 100k young people per year.
America doesn't care about its workers it seems
I will buy parts made not in China to assemble PC when it breaks down.
I don't know how Americans support the evil CCP after knowing it's exporting fentanal which ends up killing 100k young people per year.
America doesn't care about its workers it seems
Uh, sticking it to the CCP is the one issue that brings Democrats and Republicans together:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/09/28/some-americ...
If you're demanding an immediate, national economic decoupling on moral grounds, well that's just not a good idea for a whole host of reason. Would produce a lot more suffering than it would prevent.
If you're demanding an immediate, national economic decoupling on moral grounds, well that's just not a good idea for a whole host of reason. Would produce a lot more suffering than it would prevent.
Amazing to watch the trends skyrocket after 2018 when the media started turning against China.
I suppose it's possible that all of those people are deeply clued into the details of Xi's increasing authoritarianism, but it seems more likely that we're just thinking what we're told to think.
I suppose it's possible that all of those people are deeply clued into the details of Xi's increasing authoritarianism, but it seems more likely that we're just thinking what we're told to think.
As long as the attitude remains "sticking it" to anyone, welcome to WWIII.
We saw what happened when we left Afghanistan. The Blob got so antsy they couldn't help themselves from instigating Russia and the war in Ukraine, not to mention all the coups in South and Central America over the past couple years.
Idle hands are the Devil's playthings. There are strong, institutional forces that inevitabilize (word?) conflicts profitable for military contractors. This is the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower was warning us about.
We saw what happened when we left Afghanistan. The Blob got so antsy they couldn't help themselves from instigating Russia and the war in Ukraine, not to mention all the coups in South and Central America over the past couple years.
Idle hands are the Devil's playthings. There are strong, institutional forces that inevitabilize (word?) conflicts profitable for military contractors. This is the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower was warning us about.
Might is right. Even if I don’t like the result, I respect the natural order of things. The opposite is anarchy.
Yeah, you have that perfectly backwards. "Might is right" implies the most powerful entity has 'the right' to do what it wants on the basis of the ability to assert it. That it cannot be bound or constrained by rules / laws. And all other conflicts also reduce to "which entity is more powerful". So, by the time you go down the entity list from most to least powerful, there is no room for rule of law to bind any given actor.
And hence it is anarchy.
And hence it is anarchy.
It seems you are saying that authoritarianism is anarchy. Which sounds absurd.
You asserted three very distinct claims as equivalent, none of which included authoritarianism.
Authoritarianism is not "might is right". The authority at the top does not extend the 'right' of might to agents in the middle of the hierarchy. They are bound by the authority's will in their behavior towards their own power-inferiors.
Authoritarianism is not "might is right". The authority at the top does not extend the 'right' of might to agents in the middle of the hierarchy. They are bound by the authority's will in their behavior towards their own power-inferiors.
That's a pretty compelling argument for anarchism.
Well at least these "hostile forces" are not facilitating the import of massive volumes of fentanyl into China.
Uh... Try the other way around:
https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/DEA_GOV_DIR-...
https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/DEA_GOV_DIR-...
Yep
"Currently, China remains the primary source of fentanyl and fentanyl-related substances trafficked through international mail and express consignment operations environment, as well as the main source for all fentanyl-related substances trafficked into the United States."
"Currently, China remains the primary source of fentanyl and fentanyl-related substances trafficked through international mail and express consignment operations environment, as well as the main source for all fentanyl-related substances trafficked into the United States."
Tanner Greer is one of the most thoughtful commentators I know, I have learned a lot from his blog.
Regularly such 'disappearances' of personas in targeted countries are posted in the Western media. Then those people show up a few months later, having being doing their own thing. They posted that some guy had disappeared in an Xinjiang prison. The guy was then discovered in his own home, giving an interview to a local TV, unaware of his own disappearance. Some other woman was told to have been 'disappeared'. A few weeks later she was interviewed while manning the cash register in her own small cellphone shop, being unaware that she has disappeared. When it comes to North Korean dignitaries, its a regular thing - frequently major US outlets post that some NK dignitary has been 'vanished'. Two months later the guy shows up somewhere else, busy with something else. Because the public seems to have the memory span of a fish, nobody notices.
This kind of smearing has been used against many countries before. From all the small countries that were attacked by the US in the last decades to the actual superpowers that the US targeted.
It took only SIX months for the mainstream US press to turn the country I grew up in from being a 'model democracy in the region' to 'authoritarian state' after that country refused to play along with the US foreign policy in the region. Now that its pushing war in Taiwan, its no surprise such smears seem to be increasing. Nothing surprising.
What's suprising, however, is how easily the supposedly educated Western public buys into lies. Its only 20 years after the Iraqi WMDs lie. The people were supposed to have learned something from that. However look at the comments in these threads, people raging about this supposed event far worse than how people raged against Iraq during the war propaganda back in 2003. All of this without any consideration for CIA rendition flights, Assange etc of course. Those things are 'bad but dont talk about them'. Such smears are 'rage all about it with all your might'.
From what the Brexit process has taught, reviling, smearing others and uniting over this hatred of an external enemy seems to be a cultural paradigm in various countries - foremost the Angloamerican ones. Everyone else is most evil. They themselves are, well, 'okay with some problems'. Even if the problems are atrocious violations of most basic human rights, from killing people if they cant pay for healthcare to jailing whistleblowers to murdering people for their oil.
20 years after Iraq. The same thing. Shame. What's worse, against all objective, repeated reality repeating itself over and over and over and over again, people still reject such criticism as evidenced by the downvotes. If the 'educated and intelligent' segment in the West is like this, imagine the non-educated segments...
This kind of smearing has been used against many countries before. From all the small countries that were attacked by the US in the last decades to the actual superpowers that the US targeted.
It took only SIX months for the mainstream US press to turn the country I grew up in from being a 'model democracy in the region' to 'authoritarian state' after that country refused to play along with the US foreign policy in the region. Now that its pushing war in Taiwan, its no surprise such smears seem to be increasing. Nothing surprising.
What's suprising, however, is how easily the supposedly educated Western public buys into lies. Its only 20 years after the Iraqi WMDs lie. The people were supposed to have learned something from that. However look at the comments in these threads, people raging about this supposed event far worse than how people raged against Iraq during the war propaganda back in 2003. All of this without any consideration for CIA rendition flights, Assange etc of course. Those things are 'bad but dont talk about them'. Such smears are 'rage all about it with all your might'.
From what the Brexit process has taught, reviling, smearing others and uniting over this hatred of an external enemy seems to be a cultural paradigm in various countries - foremost the Angloamerican ones. Everyone else is most evil. They themselves are, well, 'okay with some problems'. Even if the problems are atrocious violations of most basic human rights, from killing people if they cant pay for healthcare to jailing whistleblowers to murdering people for their oil.
20 years after Iraq. The same thing. Shame. What's worse, against all objective, repeated reality repeating itself over and over and over and over again, people still reject such criticism as evidenced by the downvotes. If the 'educated and intelligent' segment in the West is like this, imagine the non-educated segments...
> It took only SIX months for the mainstream US press to turn the country I grew up from being a 'model democracy in the region' to 'authoritarian state' after that country refused to play along with the US foreign policy in the region.
If the country you are referring to is India, it has been backsliding democratically for a while under Modi. Just look at how the entire state apparatus is mobilized to prevent people from seeing a BBC documentary called The Modi Question.
Say what you will about American journalism: but from fascists to communists and everything in between they are all allowed to publish.
If the country you are referring to is India, it has been backsliding democratically for a while under Modi. Just look at how the entire state apparatus is mobilized to prevent people from seeing a BBC documentary called The Modi Question.
Say what you will about American journalism: but from fascists to communists and everything in between they are all allowed to publish.
It's probably Poland or another one of the Eastern Bloc that is backsliding into authoritarianism.
> If the country you are referring to is India, it has been backsliding democratically for a while under Modi
Its not. Its another country far in the West. Moreover, the US press has alternatively depicted the social/cultural segment that I belonged to as 'antidemocratic elites' and 'democratic opposition' over and over. One day, you belong to the 'antidemocratic elite' according to NYT, Wapo etc. 6 months later when the US policy changes, you suddenly find out that you are now 'the democratic opposition'.
But that's not something that dumbfounds me - its how the Western public just believes what they are told and even the educated people you personally know change their opinion with the changes in the mainstream press, while still insisting that they are 'informed and objective'...
Its not. Its another country far in the West. Moreover, the US press has alternatively depicted the social/cultural segment that I belonged to as 'antidemocratic elites' and 'democratic opposition' over and over. One day, you belong to the 'antidemocratic elite' according to NYT, Wapo etc. 6 months later when the US policy changes, you suddenly find out that you are now 'the democratic opposition'.
But that's not something that dumbfounds me - its how the Western public just believes what they are told and even the educated people you personally know change their opinion with the changes in the mainstream press, while still insisting that they are 'informed and objective'...
Coming from ex-USSR, what is most amazing to me about West is how people trust the government and media. On one hand it's nice. I can imagine the sweet social contract them brought those societies to such place. But on the other hand it looks very funny when there's seemingly little critical thinking even when if the discourse questionable AF.
E.g. Stance on Russia, Nord Stream and whatnot for the past 30 years. The government and big businesses pretended that all is nice. And people just ate it up.
E.g. Stance on Russia, Nord Stream and whatnot for the past 30 years. The government and big businesses pretended that all is nice. And people just ate it up.
> Coming from ex-USSR, what is most amazing to me about West is how people trust the government and media
Yep. Amazing contradiction. The most propagandized people on the planet think that they dont have propaganda and they believe in whatever their establishment says. Ends up getting roped into murdering millions for their oil and paying for it with their taxes.
Contradictorily, ex-Eastern Bloc citizens may have made a mistake in not believing their own establishment: I read an article in which a journalist told that there are people in Russia who still don't believe that there are homeless in the US. The Cold War movie and bootleg CIA videotape propaganda has been so effective that when the Eastern Bloc governments told their people that there was rampant discrimination, poverty and homelessness in the US back in the day, the people just did not believe them.
Immense contradiction. The people in the Anglosphere are way too trusting. The people in the Eastern Bloc were too untrusting...
Yep. Amazing contradiction. The most propagandized people on the planet think that they dont have propaganda and they believe in whatever their establishment says. Ends up getting roped into murdering millions for their oil and paying for it with their taxes.
Contradictorily, ex-Eastern Bloc citizens may have made a mistake in not believing their own establishment: I read an article in which a journalist told that there are people in Russia who still don't believe that there are homeless in the US. The Cold War movie and bootleg CIA videotape propaganda has been so effective that when the Eastern Bloc governments told their people that there was rampant discrimination, poverty and homelessness in the US back in the day, the people just did not believe them.
Immense contradiction. The people in the Anglosphere are way too trusting. The people in the Eastern Bloc were too untrusting...
It’s like every time they say some big guy in North Korea got executed because South Korean intelligence said so and then reappears a few months later.
Never believe the media.
Never believe the media.
Yep. I guess they now prefer smearing about such normal citizens because they are much less visible than NK dignitaries since they can easily be spotted in TV broadcasts. To discover that such 'disappeared' ordinary people are actually living their lives, some TV must go there, find them and interview them. And when they do, it doesn't do much impact outside the targeted countries anyways because the Western press has already moved on. The targeted country's TVs' reports never make it into the Western press in the first place anyway.
...
But, after 20 years of following geopolitics and social matters out of interest, my current opinion is that this kind of thing works because certain demographics in the West ! like ! it. Smears, reviling of others, the talk of danger, tyranny, war, immigrants, hatred etc. Leaving aside the social study cases like Brexit debacle, the presence of Murdoch press can only be explained with that. This social trait seems to be the #1 manipulation tool that the establishment uses in such countries.
...
But, after 20 years of following geopolitics and social matters out of interest, my current opinion is that this kind of thing works because certain demographics in the West ! like ! it. Smears, reviling of others, the talk of danger, tyranny, war, immigrants, hatred etc. Leaving aside the social study cases like Brexit debacle, the presence of Murdoch press can only be explained with that. This social trait seems to be the #1 manipulation tool that the establishment uses in such countries.
I'd say #1 manipulation tool in the West is to pretend that Fukyama's End-of-History is truth. And then pretend that everything is nice and fluffy. While brushing all the issues under the carpet.
> And then pretend that everything is nice and fluffy.
You hit a jackpot there. I think that is what is behind the observed easy-to-deceive nature of these demographics. It looks like in these countries there is a need to make themselves believe that things are at least 'okay', or at least there is 'hope' for the future. This allows them to easily get manipulated into believing whatever feeds that bias.
You hit a jackpot there. I think that is what is behind the observed easy-to-deceive nature of these demographics. It looks like in these countries there is a need to make themselves believe that things are at least 'okay', or at least there is 'hope' for the future. This allows them to easily get manipulated into believing whatever feeds that bias.
I'd rather say that there's a need to make people think they shouldn't even look for possible dangers. Everything is nice, period. Only thing to be afraid of is anyone telling you that something is wrong or dangerous.
There's no rule of law in China. It's strictly a fascist crony capitalist regime. And there's not much room for human error. If you fuck up in China you might pay with your life. They have an organ harvesting system and all it takes is a kangaroo court and a mobile van and then they've got your kidneys, eyes, liver etc. Tim Cook runs a college in China (amongst other things). I have no idea how he sleeps at night.
It's definitely not 'crony capitalist'.
It's an authoritarian one-party system, now edging towards a bit of an ideological dictatorship.
The crony capitalism is the second or third layer of power.
The crony capitalists are nothing compared to the state apparatus.
Ask Jack Ma.
It's an authoritarian one-party system, now edging towards a bit of an ideological dictatorship.
The crony capitalism is the second or third layer of power.
The crony capitalists are nothing compared to the state apparatus.
Ask Jack Ma.
Not sure about the downvotes, I've read some serious articles with very graphic pictures more than 20 years ago about mass organized organ harvests operations running very effectively as you describe.
It may not be some official state policy but rather some rogue effort from corrupt local officials in few places, but numbers were running in thousands per year at least, and they didn't even try to hide it too much since reporter(s) were allowed on execution fields and operating places. Murderers, drug traffickers, addicts and dissidents alike.
Given even back then critical organs were running in tens of thousands of dollars for mostly western/arabic receivers who were too low in donor list in their countries or didn't qualify (ie heavy smokers / drinkers refusing to quit). Imagine what some 20k or 50k meant in china some 25 years ago.
It may not be some official state policy but rather some rogue effort from corrupt local officials in few places, but numbers were running in thousands per year at least, and they didn't even try to hide it too much since reporter(s) were allowed on execution fields and operating places. Murderers, drug traffickers, addicts and dissidents alike.
Given even back then critical organs were running in tens of thousands of dollars for mostly western/arabic receivers who were too low in donor list in their countries or didn't qualify (ie heavy smokers / drinkers refusing to quit). Imagine what some 20k or 50k meant in china some 25 years ago.
Very difficult to get accurate info out of China but a multi-nation tribunal painted a pretty clear picture on why it's so easy to get organs in China:
https://chinatribunal.com/final-judgment/
I think there's a major financial incentive to harvest cheap organs within China and there's a major supply of dissidents.
https://chinatribunal.com/final-judgment/
I think there's a major financial incentive to harvest cheap organs within China and there's a major supply of dissidents.
Perhaps the dying Chinese people are more willing to donate their organs and there are more Chinese people dying as there are more people in China?
China is the single greatest threat to freedom, human rights, and prosperity, the world over. I don't know how anyone who makes money from China can sleep at night.
While china is controlled by the CCP this is true. But remember Chinese people have no choice like we do in the west. I would exclude the USA from this too as they are different colours of the same shit.
No, this is not an issue of moral relativism.
The Americans are the central power that keeps the world from falling into insane tyranny.
The oceans, suez, panam, bosphorous, etc. are all open because of the US Navy (previously UK). And partly supporting allies.
The world order mostly exists because the West + Japan / Korea keep it up and the US is at the centre of that.
You can see the pressure of this equilibrium at the Ukraine Russia border right now, 80 years after WW2, the US President still holds the magic keys.
Now, it should be more spread out, but it's not largely because Europeans don't want to take necessary actions for a variety of reasons.
Due to the power of technology, tyrants are even more powerful and all seeing than ever.
Just one generation ago - a local province in Russia might have broken out in revolt, that's impossible now. There are eyes everywhere, the state can move their pawns very quickly, and more importantly, the propaganda channels.
It's pretty shocking what regular Russians are led to believe. Every nations plebes believe in whacky, scary stuff, god knows we almost had an election overturned due to that, but it's on another level where the state controls communications.
China in 2023 is effectively an Orwellian state. It's 'fine' for most people, so long as you don't challenge the power of the apparatus, but otherwise it's tyranny - and as stated very clearly in the document in question, any hint of challenge to the state will be crushed, there is no separation of powers, the CCP via Xi rules all. Full on Eye of Sauron stuff. It's plainly stated in the document.
It's exceedingly naive to contemplate that America is just some other side of the coin, or 'another way'.
500 years ago, there was no power that could materially control the world, there were innumerable places to escape to - now we are locked in a room and it's entirely feasible the world could come under totalitarian control. Which is why by the way, even as we all understand global cooperation is very important, the concept of 'global governance' comes with the deep risk that such an institution could be compromised and then it's game over for all of us.
'Freedom' is not some kind of Rambo American propaganda even though it's often presented that way, and Americans in particular have default views, lacking in nuance. The basic values of Western Democracy matter a lot. The war in Ukraine is reminding us of that.
The Americans are the central power that keeps the world from falling into insane tyranny.
The oceans, suez, panam, bosphorous, etc. are all open because of the US Navy (previously UK). And partly supporting allies.
The world order mostly exists because the West + Japan / Korea keep it up and the US is at the centre of that.
You can see the pressure of this equilibrium at the Ukraine Russia border right now, 80 years after WW2, the US President still holds the magic keys.
Now, it should be more spread out, but it's not largely because Europeans don't want to take necessary actions for a variety of reasons.
Due to the power of technology, tyrants are even more powerful and all seeing than ever.
Just one generation ago - a local province in Russia might have broken out in revolt, that's impossible now. There are eyes everywhere, the state can move their pawns very quickly, and more importantly, the propaganda channels.
It's pretty shocking what regular Russians are led to believe. Every nations plebes believe in whacky, scary stuff, god knows we almost had an election overturned due to that, but it's on another level where the state controls communications.
China in 2023 is effectively an Orwellian state. It's 'fine' for most people, so long as you don't challenge the power of the apparatus, but otherwise it's tyranny - and as stated very clearly in the document in question, any hint of challenge to the state will be crushed, there is no separation of powers, the CCP via Xi rules all. Full on Eye of Sauron stuff. It's plainly stated in the document.
It's exceedingly naive to contemplate that America is just some other side of the coin, or 'another way'.
500 years ago, there was no power that could materially control the world, there were innumerable places to escape to - now we are locked in a room and it's entirely feasible the world could come under totalitarian control. Which is why by the way, even as we all understand global cooperation is very important, the concept of 'global governance' comes with the deep risk that such an institution could be compromised and then it's game over for all of us.
'Freedom' is not some kind of Rambo American propaganda even though it's often presented that way, and Americans in particular have default views, lacking in nuance. The basic values of Western Democracy matter a lot. The war in Ukraine is reminding us of that.
>The Americans are the central power that keeps the world from falling into insane tyranny.
The U.S. has an actual history of creating and supporting tyrannical regimes. Just look to your history.
The U.S. has an actual history of creating and supporting tyrannical regimes. Just look to your history.
Yes, of course, and the US has made other kinds of mistakes and will continue to.
But mistakes and even directly supporing bad leaders are not inconsistent with the motivation for world order, because better alternatives are not always possible.
It'd have been much easier to support Saddam than to thwart him, right?
The US could overhtrow House of Saud, and see what happens?
There are no perfectly good options.
The firts rule of the inrenational order is 'order'. Stability generally comes before most things, because withouut it, there will be pain, and probably worse outcomes.
Saudi Arabia has bad internal politics, but, they are actually a pretty good actor on the international scene. They are a 'positive player'. Moreover, internally, they are ultra Orthodox, but not completely lunatic and finally, they are making progress.
Pinochet was not a nice man, but yes, 'look at history' he was the better choice given the alternative Allende who was going to bring crypto-Communism (and an authoritarian one) to Chile. And we didn't know he'd be such a jerk either. And of course, he was a jerk, but not completely Tyrannical. Certainly not as bad as Fidel or Vladimir.
Saddam was tolerable until he invaded Kuwait, and then went completley insane.
Even Gaddafi was eventually pushed to reform; The West started to accept him and his thuggery so long as he was not being an international nutjob, but that went out the window when he threatened genocide.
There is no magical way to install democracy in most places obviously, and the system is fairly messy, but it's far, far more noble to be on the 'free and open' side, than the totalitarian major powers such as China and Russia, particularly as of late.
It really takes a special kind of delusion to not get this.
The delusion is not new. Long after Stalin mass murdered millions of his own people, he was still hugely influential among Communists worldwide. Becuase in WW2 they were an 'Allied' state, we didn't push the propaganda against him, and he had many supporters even literally among the Scientists on the Manhatten project, which is ultimately how the Russians got the bomb so quickly: leaks by American scientist supporters of a global mass murderer, hypnotized by his ideology and glorification of 'the other way'.
Many in academia supported Stalin, much the way people still like to wax on about moral relatavism today, using straw man arguments such as the assumption of moral absolutism (aka somehow the West is superior in every way, which nobody is suggesting), or that there are not cultural nuances, which there are.
80 years after WW2, the US is still the pillar, which is probably not so good frankly Europe, Japan and S. Korea (and others) really need to step up to the plate, but it is what it is.
Go ahead and read the CCP document in the article, it's frightening. Nobody could legimately support it. It's a nakedly blatant statement of Orwellian total power.
FYI I'm not American.
But mistakes and even directly supporing bad leaders are not inconsistent with the motivation for world order, because better alternatives are not always possible.
It'd have been much easier to support Saddam than to thwart him, right?
The US could overhtrow House of Saud, and see what happens?
There are no perfectly good options.
The firts rule of the inrenational order is 'order'. Stability generally comes before most things, because withouut it, there will be pain, and probably worse outcomes.
Saudi Arabia has bad internal politics, but, they are actually a pretty good actor on the international scene. They are a 'positive player'. Moreover, internally, they are ultra Orthodox, but not completely lunatic and finally, they are making progress.
Pinochet was not a nice man, but yes, 'look at history' he was the better choice given the alternative Allende who was going to bring crypto-Communism (and an authoritarian one) to Chile. And we didn't know he'd be such a jerk either. And of course, he was a jerk, but not completely Tyrannical. Certainly not as bad as Fidel or Vladimir.
Saddam was tolerable until he invaded Kuwait, and then went completley insane.
Even Gaddafi was eventually pushed to reform; The West started to accept him and his thuggery so long as he was not being an international nutjob, but that went out the window when he threatened genocide.
There is no magical way to install democracy in most places obviously, and the system is fairly messy, but it's far, far more noble to be on the 'free and open' side, than the totalitarian major powers such as China and Russia, particularly as of late.
It really takes a special kind of delusion to not get this.
The delusion is not new. Long after Stalin mass murdered millions of his own people, he was still hugely influential among Communists worldwide. Becuase in WW2 they were an 'Allied' state, we didn't push the propaganda against him, and he had many supporters even literally among the Scientists on the Manhatten project, which is ultimately how the Russians got the bomb so quickly: leaks by American scientist supporters of a global mass murderer, hypnotized by his ideology and glorification of 'the other way'.
Many in academia supported Stalin, much the way people still like to wax on about moral relatavism today, using straw man arguments such as the assumption of moral absolutism (aka somehow the West is superior in every way, which nobody is suggesting), or that there are not cultural nuances, which there are.
80 years after WW2, the US is still the pillar, which is probably not so good frankly Europe, Japan and S. Korea (and others) really need to step up to the plate, but it is what it is.
Go ahead and read the CCP document in the article, it's frightening. Nobody could legimately support it. It's a nakedly blatant statement of Orwellian total power.
FYI I'm not American.
China is the single greatest thread to personal freedom, but may also be the world's best hope for dealing with tragedy of the commons problems like existential threat of climate change or AI / biotech safety where swift, undemocratic action is needed that goes against the short-term benefit of moneyed interests.
Ayep. China's government sucks.
After Trump, we can't knock China for being defensive. We sail warships by their ports and concoct distorted narratives of their policy. Meanwhile we STILL have Guantanamo and we invaded over a dozen countries in the last century.
You'd think after the "weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" that we'd realize our hysteria doesn't help the world.
You'd think after the "weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" that we'd realize our hysteria doesn't help the world.
I don't know that pointing out the Guantanemo Bay detention camp is the moral victory you think it is. I encourage you to research how many inmates remain in that camp[0].
Also if we're comparing crimes between the US and China over the past 100 years, surely China looks worse, right?[1]
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine
Also if we're comparing crimes between the US and China over the past 100 years, surely China looks worse, right?[1]
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine
This is the classic whataboutism that always pops up around China.
You're right about the stuff you said.
It doesn't mean we're not allowed to discuss the CCP disappearing people or bad things happening in authoritarian countries in general.
You're right about the stuff you said.
It doesn't mean we're not allowed to discuss the CCP disappearing people or bad things happening in authoritarian countries in general.
The point is we all need to turn down the temperature and stop being hysterical. They didn't disappear, they just aren't using social media.
China regularly threatens to invade Taiwan. If there’s anyone that needs to tone things down it’s China.
Yes, sure, they just stopped using social media.
They also don't show up to work, none of their family can contact them, the government refuses to say where they are, and social media posts about them are deleted. I'm sure it's entirely innocent.
They also don't show up to work, none of their family can contact them, the government refuses to say where they are, and social media posts about them are deleted. I'm sure it's entirely innocent.
All those Uighurs didn't disappear, they just quit using social media? That's the lamest rationalization I have ever heard in my entire life. We can see the camps in satellite views, you know. (And those camps aren't just resorts where people can go to detox from social media...)
Any given person, sure, I could buy your explanation. Saying that's all that's going on? No way.
Any given person, sure, I could buy your explanation. Saying that's all that's going on? No way.
no war in Ba Sing Se?
[deleted]