The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Godfree Roberts Archive
Mao Reconsidered
One Hundred Percent Good
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Mao and Family
Mao and Family

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The simple facts of Mao’s career seem incredible: in a vast land of 400 million people, at age 28, with a dozen others, to found a party and in the next fifty years to win power, organize, and remold the people and reshape the land–history records no greater achievement. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, all the kings of Europe, Napoleon, Bismarck, Lenin–no predecessor can equal Mao Tse-tung’s scope of accomplishment, for no other country was ever so ancient and so big as China. Indeed Mao’s achievement is almost beyond our comprehension. – John King Fairbank, The United States and China.

Colleagues, rivals, academics and propagandists East and West have written much nonsense about Mao Zedong yet, when we correct for bias and discard patent falsehoods it becomes clear that, apart from the bloodshed that accompanies wars and revolutions, it’s doubtful that Mao killed anyone and indubitable that he gave life to billions. Indeed, no-one has done so much good for so many–and so little harm; no-one comes close.

The obloquy is easy to understand. Foreign powers vilified him for his independence and communism and charged that he had embarked on a chaotic and fruitless quest for a socialist spiritual utopia. Colleagues like Deng Xiaoping (whom Cambridge double blue Lee Kwan Yew called ‘the most brilliant man I ever met’) and Chou En Lai (who wrung from Henry Kissinger the admission that ‘the Chinese are smarter than us’) stood head and shoulders above any Western contemporary and the humblest of them–and father of the current president–was a general at age nineteen and governor at twenty-two.

They buried him with faint praise because in life, Mao stood effortlessly, head and shoulders above them all, chastening or dismissing them at will while exhausting them with societal upheavals that required a level of heroic exertion that would have killed or maddened lesser men. That was the thirty percent in their verdict, “Seventy percent right and thirty percent wrong” but the Chinese people never accepted that verdict for reasons that will become obvious in the course of this three-part reconsideration.

Mao first came to public attention in 1919 when, aged twenty-six, he published The Death of Miss Chao, a searing account of a girl in his village who committed suicide rather than marry a man she despised: “The circumstances in which Miss Chao found herself were the following: (1) Chinese society; (2) the Chao family of Nanyang Street in Changsha; (3) the Wu family of Kantzuyuan Street in Changsha, the family of the husband she did not want. These three factors constituted three iron nets, a kind of triangular cage. Once caught in these three nets, it was in vain that she sought life in every way possible. There was no way for her to go on living … It happened because of the shameful system of arranged marriages, because of the darkness of the social system, the negation of the individual will and the absence of the freedom to choose one’s own mate”.

In 1927, after escaping execution at the hands of Nationalist forces, he remained a tireless campaigner for women’s rights, “A man in China is usually subjected to the domination of three systems of authority: political, family and religious. Women, in addition to being dominated by these three systems of authority, are also dominated by the authority of their husbands. These four authorities–political, family, religious and masculine–are the embodiment of the whole feudal-patriarchal ideology and system”.

In 1945 hemade colleagues promise that, in victory, they would ‘ensure freedom of marriage and equality between men and women’ and, in 1950, his first official act as head of State was to sign the Marriage Law of the People’s Republic of China, which promised to protect women and children, guarantee gender equality in monogamous marriages, women’s choice of marriage partners, equal pay for equal work, maternity leave and free childcare. (Encountering resistance later, in 1955, he insisted, “Men and women must receive equal pay for equal work. Genuine equality between the sexes can only be realized in the process of the socialist transformation of society as a whole”).

When Mao stepped onto the world stage in 1945, Russia had taken Mongolia and a piece of Xinjiang, Japan occupied three northern provinces, Britain had taken Hong Kong, Portugal Macau, France pieces of Shanghai, Germany Tsingtao, the U.S. shared their immunities and the nation was convulsed by civil war. China was agrarian, backward, feudalistic, ignorant and violent. Of its four hundred million people, fifty million were drug addicts, eighty percent could neither read nor write and their life expectancy was thirty-five years. The Japanese had killed twenty million and General Chiang Kai-Shek complained that, of every thousand youths he recruited, barely a hundred survived the march to their training base. Women’s feet were bound, peasants paid seventy percent of their produce in rent, desperate mothers sold their children in exchange for food and poor people sold themselves, preferring slavery to starvation. U.S. Ambassador John Leighton Stuartreported that, during his second year there, ten million people starved to death in three provinces.

When he stepped down in 1974 the invaders, bandits and warlords were gone, the population had doubled, literacy was 84 percent, wealth disparity had disappeared, electricity reached poor areas, infrastructure was restored, the economy had grown 500 percent, drug addiction was a memory, women were liberated, girls were educated, crime was rare, everyone had food and shelter, life expectancy was sixty-seven and, by several key social and demographic indicators, China compared favorably with middle income countries whose per capita GDP was five times greater.

Despite a brutal U.S. blockade on food, finance and technology, and without incurring debt,Mao grew China’s economy by an average of 7.3 percent annually, compared to America’s postwar boom years’ 3.7 percent. When he died, China was manufacturing jet planes, heavy tractors, ocean-going ships, nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missiles. As economist Y. Y. Kueh observed: “This sharp rise in industry’s share of China’s national income is a rare historical phenomenon. For example, during the first four or five decades of their drive to modern industrialization, the industrial share rose by only 11 percent in Britain (1801-41) and 22 percent in Japan”. His documented accomplishments are, as Professor Fairbanks says, almost unbelievable. He

  • doubled China’s population from 542 million to 956 million
  • doubled life expectancy
  • doubled caloric intake
  • quintupled GDP
  • quadrupled literacy
  • increased grain production three hundred percent
  • increased gross industrial output forty-fold
  • increased heavy industry ninety-fold.
  • increased rail lineage 266 percent
  • increased passenger train traffic from 102,970,000 passengers to 814,910,000.
  • increased rail freight tonnage two thousand percent
  • increased the road network one thousand percent.
  • increased steel production from zero to thirty-five MMT/year
  • Increased industry’s contribution to China’s net material product from twenty-three percent to fifty-four percent.
China’s Second Dump Truck, December, 1973
China’s Second Dump Truck, December, 1973

But, from Mao’s point of view, that was a sideshow. By the time he retired, he had reunited, reimagined, reformed and revitalized the largest, oldest civilization on earth, modernized it after a century of failed modernizations and ended thousands of years of famines. A military genius (Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery compared his greatest battles favorably to Alexander’s and Napoleon’s),strategist andpolitical innovator, mastergeopolitician, peasant and Confucian gentleman, Mao was a finepoet, even in translation. In 1946, British poet Robert Payne praised his Snow and Mao replied, “I wrote it in the airplane. It was the first time I had ever been in an airplane. I was astonished by the beauty of my country from the air–and there were other things”.

“What other things?” Payne asked.

“So many. You must remember when the poem was written. It was when there was so much hope in the air, when we trusted the Generalissimo [Chiang Kai Shek]. My poems are stupid–you mustn’t take them seriously”.

North country scene: a hundred leagues locked in ice, a thousand leagues of whirling snow.

Both sides of the Great Wall one single white immensity.

The Yellow River’s swift current is stilled from end to end.

The mountains dance like silver snakes and the highlands charge like wax-hued elephants,

Vying with heaven in stature.

On a fine day, the land, clad in white, adorned in red, grows more enchanting.

This land so rich in beauty has made countless heroes bow in homage.

But alas! Chin Shih-huang and Han Wu-ti lacked literary grace,

And Tang Tai-tsung and Sung Tai-tsu had little poetry in their souls;

And Genghis Khan, proud Son of Heaven for a day, knew only shooting eagles, bow outstretched.

All are past and gone!

For truly great men? Look to this age alone.

He retains the affection of the common people to this day, and ten million of them visit his birthplace each year, dwarfing, by orders of magnitude, the memory of all of history’s heroes combined. Yet we tend to associate his name with famine and chaos which, in our minds, obscure his achievements but, upon inspection, we will see that they are no more valid than the charges of economic mismanagement. They are simply implanted memories and we will examine the first, The Great Famine, in the next instalment.

Excerpted from CHINA 2020: Everything You Know is Wrong. Forthcoming, 2018.

 
• Category: History, Ideology • Tags: China, Chinese Communist Party, Mao Zedong, PRC 
Hide 357 CommentsLeave a Comment
357 Comments to "Mao Reconsidered"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Dan Hayes says:

    As stated on its masthead, the Unz Review aims to provide “Controversial Perspectives.” This obviously is one of them!

    Read More
    • Agree: MEH 0910, German_reader
    • LOL: Tsar Nicholas
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Very successfully so, haha.
    , @jacques sheete
    And I say, "Bravo" !!! Let's have more of the same.
    , @Beckow
    To call it 'controversial' is evasive and shows inability to understand the way the world works. Our past is full of suffering, injustice and famines. And one can describe most of human history as one long 'economic mis-management'. What matters is how most people live. And not what a few frustrated, absurdist intellectuals feel, or the formerly rich who lose out.

    In 1945, China was substantially worse off than India: poorer, backward, lacking in everything. Then China got Mao and India got a bunch of 'liberal' talkers. Today China is head and shoulders above India in terms of development and overall quality of life. And suffering? If you count apples as apples, there has been as much famine and injustice in India as in China.

    I understand that evaluating post-WWII revolutions (or 'communism') is hard because of the extreme visibility all screw-ups and oppression were given in the Western media and consciousness. After all it was 'the enemy' so it had to be demonised. And the victims were mostly high-visibility and often exiles living bitter lives in the West.

    But the massive and very successful transformation of China is simply not something that one can dismiss as 'controversial'. It was real - more people than ever in history dramatically improved their lives. And this is true also for most places in eastern Europe. If you look at the data, you see the same pattern: suddenly after hundreds of years of incredible poverty and brutal oppression, regular people started to live normal lives with housing, jobs, education, medical care, basic safety, etc... And it happened within 1-2 generations.

    Would it had happened anyway? Was the dramatic 1950-90 improvement for so many, so fast, going to happen regardless of the revolutions? Were the elites after hundreds of years of no interest in how most people lived suddenly going to change on their own? Yeah, sure they were. Right.
    , @Achmed E Newman
    That it does, Dan! Nowhere on the site does it claim to provide “Peak Stupidity” however. That can only be obtained from one Stupidity Nexus, as it were.

    What a complete idiot. This guy may want to talk to some Chinese people, though lots who would have differing opinions are in graves after their murder or starvation. Even the living Chinamen (AND WOMEN, yes, OK, and women) over 50 years old could tell the author of the misery caused by 30-or so years of hard-core communism — http://www.peakstupidity.com/index.php?post=423 caused by this scum.

    The Long March of Stupidity ended roughly in the late 70’s after Mao (RIH) died, as Mr. Deng let the Chinese people have freedoms as far as business is concerned, and the business of China is business (wish America could say this again!)

    Hey, sorry I have not read the comments yet. I just saw the BS by this imbecile Godfree Roberts, and chimed in here. Roberts, you suck to no end, sir!, you sick Commie-apologist.
    , @Joe Wong
    This article shedding positive light on Mao is “Controversial Perspectives” only to those who have a mindset belonging to the past, stalled in the old days colonialism, and constrained by zero-sum cold war mentality and beggar-thy-neighbour culture. To them China is some sort of Orwellian police state, China in their eyes is a caricature caricature - and any articles or comment must fit into that caricature of repression, lack of freedoms, and evil, for the articles or comments to make sense to themselves or anyone surrounding them.

    Meanwhile themselves are bombing, killing, warterboarding, stealing, ethnic cleansing, carrying out racial discrimination, regime changing, spewing out skillful propaganda, etc. on the fabricated phantom WMD allegations without repentance, they call it American exceptionalism, whatever USA does is necessary with the best intention.
    , @Neoconned
    I'll post a question: in what way if any, is Mr Godfrey's thesis wrong?

    Mao turned China from Somalia to say Turkey his lifetime. More could have been done but still a hell of an accomplishment....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /article/mao-reconsidered/#comment-2045090
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Certainly, Lenin didn’t personally kill anyone either. The same holds for Stalin, I think. I’m sure Godfree ( who said Communist parents didn’t have a sense of humour ! ) could write similar articles for these gentlemen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peter Lund
    Hitler had such blue eyes. He was a painter, you know!
    , @Seraphim
    No Communist leaders didn't 'personally' killed nobody no more. Nobody ever said
    that Lenin killed the Tsar shooting a rifle at him with his own hands, let alone bayoneting him and his family to make sure that they were dead for good. No siree! But who in his right mind would contend that he gave the order to kill him? Stalin did not shoot with his own hand ('personally') the Polish officers at Katyn, but he signed the order for their execution.
    Hey, even "Genghis Khan, proud Son of Heaven for a day, knew only shooting eagles, bow outstretched". Certainly he did not slaughter with his own hand the inhabitants of Khwarizmia!
    , @Joe Wong
    In 1981 (25 years after the event) Judith Banister at the US Bureau of the Census proposed 30 millions killed in the Great Leap Forward (GLF) based on her “massive death toll” hypothesis, this figure is the mother of all subsequent numbers when the westerns write about the GLF; Frank Dikotter quoted 45 millions murdered in the GLF to win the Samuel Johnson prize for non-fiction; recently Jung Chang and Jon Halliday said 70 millions killed in the GLF in their book “Mao: the Unknown Story.” All of them claimed their number based on secret sources in china. The latest number is 100 millions murdered in the GLF in some western current affairs analysis sites.

    Verymuchalive, how many do you believe deaths (or percentage) would attribute to polices of the Great Leap Forward?
    , @godfree Roberts
    Lincoln killed more American soldiers and civilians than Hitler and Tojo ever did.

    Is he a criminal?

    Should we never have built statues for him?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_Native_Americans

    And strangely no one is responsible for the following:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bengal_famine_of_1770

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_Famine_of_1945
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. By the time he retired, he had reunited, reimagined, reformed and revitalized the largest, oldest civilization on earth, modernized it after a century of failed modernizations and ended thousands of years of famines.

    Your piece concentrates on China, but he also crated a whole new universal political philosophy; a school of thought popular all over the world even today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    "he also created a whole new universal political philosophy; a school of thought popular all over the world even today."

    And that is?
    , @godfree Roberts
    Not very popular here, it seems!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Langley says:

    Mao said that “killing ten million people” was nothing compared to the good he would accomplish.

    https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE2.HTM

    There seems to be a concerted effort to rehabilitate the mass murderers of the last century.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    There seems to be a concerted effort to rehabilitate the mass murderers of the last century.
     
    And to ignore or gloss over the crimes of the present times.

    Here's one tool for accomplishing that.

    “Every one of the 112 pages in the [Luntz] booklet is marked "not for distribution or publication" and it is easy to see why. The Luntz report, officially entitled "The Israel project's 2009 Global Language Dictionary, was leaked almost immediately to Newsweek Online, but its true importance has seldom been appreciated. It should be required reading for everybody especially journalists, interested in any aspect of Israeli policy because of its "dos and don'ts" for Israeli spokesmen.”

    These are highly illuminating about the gap between what Israeli officials and politicians really believe, and what they say, the latter shaped in minute detail by polling to determine what Americans want to hear…”

    -Patrick Cockburn The secret report that helps Israel hide facts
    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/israel-gaza-conflict-the-secret-report-that-helps-israelis-to-hide-facts-9630765.html
     
    , @godfree Roberts
    Wait til you read Part 2
    , @godfree Roberts
    In fact, he said no such thing. As you will see in Part 2.
    , @Joe Wong
    The Europeans including their offshoots is where is now, still filthy rich (although always complaining), because of those hundreds of millions of people all over the world who were robbed and murdered, those who become victims of their very madness of colonialism and orientalism, of the crusades and the slave and Opium trades. Cathedrals and palaces, museums and theaters, train stations – all had been constructed on horrid foundations of bones and blood, and amalgamated by tears. There were so many centuries of plunder that the acts of looting the world for the sole benefit of the few, turned into inseparable part of the ‘Western existence and culture’, something that gets almost never addressed, let alone criticized.

    Yeah, anybody who dares to expose such dark truth about the White who claims they are civilized, they are the final form of civilization is a bad thing, and anything that can make China escape the dark age of unequal treaties imposed on her by the barbaric and greedy western imperialists is also a bad thing. The concerted effort to keep the ‘Western existence and culture’ never addressed, let alone criticized, remains strong and relentless.
    , @godfree Roberts
    Mao said nothing of the kind, but you'll have to wait for Part Two of this trilogy, Whose Famine? to find out what he did say.
    , @Ragno

    There seems to be a concerted effort to rehabilitate the mass murderers of the last century.
     
    All except one, my friend; the one who still makes the cash registers of his victims go ka-ching! (Pun unintentional.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. pyrrhus says:

    It’s going to take a lot of work for the author to explain away the wholesale executions of the middle class, such as nurses, doctors, and teachers, in the postwar period. And even more work to explain away the Cultural Revolution, regarded with horror by the Chinese people themselves…

    Read More
    • Replies: @godfree Roberts
    Chill. The author will explain all.
    , @Moi
    Native American genocide? Slavery? Hiroshima/Nagasaki, bombings and invasions abroad.....and so on and so forth.
    , @markflag
    As the statues in the U.S. come down, as speech, including syntax and pronouns, is monitored, the U.S. is living the early days of the so-called cultural revolution. I've worked with some of the children of survivors of the red guard and cultural revolution. They are damaged as a result of the damage inflicted on their parents.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    I may agree with much of this sentiment from the author. There was so much that could have gone wrong. The country could have easily been divided into several pieces, but didn’t. Only a great leader could have accomplished this.

    But I hope the author does not gloss over the fact that China destroyed so much of its history during this time period. A huge back mark in my book.

    Read More
    • Replies: @godfree Roberts
    All emigre groups contend that those who overthrew them 'destroyed so much of our culture'. It was and is bullshit. Wait for the sequel..
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. The writer should read
    Jung Chang, Jon Halliday, ‘Mao, Das Leben eines Mannes, das Schicksal eines Volkes’, München 2005 (Mao, London 2005)
    for another view.

    Read More
    • Replies: @godfree Roberts
    The writer has, indeed, read Jung Chang and Jon Halliday. And Franck Dikotter.
    All will be revealed in Part 2...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Yee says:

    A book first published in 1949, written by an American journalist Jack Belden , recorded some of the miserable life of the Chinese people at that time. The author focused more on the life of little people than the big figures.

    After reading it, you will understand why people now in their 70s, 80s, 90s, still love Mao.

    Here’s an on-line read, if anyone is interested. English on the right hand side.

    http://www.chinashakestheworldbook.com/TextFrameset.htm

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. That was the funniest shi* I ever read.

    I mean who’s gonna be rehabilitated next? Stalin? Hitler?

    Please Stop!!

    ROTFL.

    Read More
    • Replies: @godfree Roberts
    Did I lie? Were any of my statements incorrect? Or are you offended because you were unfamiliar with this information?

    In other words, what's your problem?
    , @Wally
    Hitler has been "rehabilitated". Pay attention.

    www.codoh.com
    www.forum.codoh.com

    , @Buzz Baldrin

    Priss Factor says: • Website
    October 16, 2017 at 7:19 am GMT
    That was the funniest shi* I ever read.

    I mean who’s gonna be rehabilitated next? Stalin? Hitler?

    Please Stop!!

    ROTFL.
     
    George Bush.
    , @Father O'Hara
    Don't knock the Hit Man,he was da bomb!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. @Verymuchalive
    Certainly, Lenin didn't personally kill anyone either. The same holds for Stalin, I think. I'm sure Godfree ( who said Communist parents didn't have a sense of humour ! ) could write similar articles for these gentlemen.

    Hitler had such blue eyes. He was a painter, you know!

    Read More
    • Replies: @godfree Roberts
    Tres drole. Do you have anything substantive to add?
    , @aandrews
    He can never be forgiven, though, for what he did to the toothbrush moustache, as a men's fashion statement.
    , @jlee1
    artists are so sensitive, ergo...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. History can be almost anything people want it to be.

    As the Russians say, “Nothing is more uncertain than the past.”

    I’m interested to know about the tens of millions that did or did not die at the hands of the revolution …. and the swimming pools that were kept warm in every city in China for Mao just in case he dropped in …. and what constitutes evidence, anyway?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. wrung from Henry Kissinger the admission that ‘the Chinese are smarter than us’

    Then …

    China was agrarian, backward, feudalistic, ignorant and violent. Of its four hundred million people, fifty million were drug addicts, eighty percent could neither read nor write and their life expectancy was thirty-five years.

    But hey, China invented gunpowder.

    Read More
    • Replies: @godfree Roberts
    What I should have said was, "Thanks to us, China was agrarian, backward, feudalistic, ignorant and violent. Of its four hundred million people, fifty million were drug addicts, eighty percent could neither read nor write and their life expectancy was thirty-five years.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Escher says:

    In 1927, after escaping execution at the hands of Nationalist forces, he remained a tireless campaigner for women’s rights

    I’m sure he was reading feminist philosophy to the many young women he bedded after becoming head notorious bedding of young women.

    http://articles.latimes.com/1998/mar/08/opinion/op-26719

    Mao recruited young military women at dance parties arranged in close proximity to his bedroom. He drew to his custom-built, sloping, wooden bed a number of nurses on duty in the Forbidden City.

    Read More
    • Replies: @godfree Roberts
    If ever I want to know about Mao's sexual life, I turn first to the LA Times...
    , @kauchai
    And you get this from "informed" western authors or better yet "china experts". LOL!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. increased steel production from zero to thirty-five MMT/year

    Backyard furnace
    … Where iron ore was unavailable, they melted any steel objects they could get their hands on, including pots and pans, and even bicycles, to make steel girders, but these girders were useless, as the steel was impure and of poor quality and thus cracked easily. Unbeknownst to the Communist Party officials, the result was not steel, but high carbon pig iron, which needs to be decarburized to make steel.

    #LOLCommunism

    Backyard Steel Furnaces During China’s ‘Great Leap Forward’

    Backyard furnace4.jpg

    Read More
    • Replies: @godfree Roberts
    Mao's constant question about the backyard furnaces was the same as yours would be, "If they're so great, why doesn't Germany use them?"

    He wasn't a dictator, remember.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Seraphim says:
    @Verymuchalive
    Certainly, Lenin didn't personally kill anyone either. The same holds for Stalin, I think. I'm sure Godfree ( who said Communist parents didn't have a sense of humour ! ) could write similar articles for these gentlemen.

    No Communist leaders didn’t ‘personally’ killed nobody no more. Nobody ever said
    that Lenin killed the Tsar shooting a rifle at him with his own hands, let alone bayoneting him and his family to make sure that they were dead for good. No siree! But who in his right mind would contend that he gave the order to kill him? Stalin did not shoot with his own hand (‘personally’) the Polish officers at Katyn, but he signed the order for their execution.
    Hey, even “Genghis Khan, proud Son of Heaven for a day, knew only shooting eagles, bow outstretched”. Certainly he did not slaughter with his own hand the inhabitants of Khwarizmia!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
    Now we're supposed to shed crocodile tears for the Tsar!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Mao is certainly not as great as it is said here and scope of his achievements is below that of Lenin and Stalin. Not to be forgotten is that his success in uniting and then developing China was greatly assisted by Soviet union and it was Soviet army that removed Japanese and Soviet union which built the core of Chinese industries. Mao could not do it. He was a man of many flaws but chinese as a people showed wisdom and so did Chinese communist party. They did not do what Krushev and other Soviet and Russian leaders and people did. They did not smear Mao like Soviets did with Stalin.results are obvious and smear campaign about founding fathers of modern Russia continues.

    Read More
    • Agree: Cyrano
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. Interesting and I’m sure a lot of it is true, but it sounds like hagiography a bit overdone.

    He

    doubled China’s population from 542 million to 956 million
    doubled life expectancy
    doubled caloric intake
    quintupled GDP

    No he did not. That list is not mere hagiography, it’s histrionic hyperbole.This proves that the aphorism that history is written by the victors is wrong. It’s written by all sorts of folks but we usually are exposed only to that of the self proclaimed “victors.”

    I’ll accept that he may have facilitated all of that, but he could not have done all of that, particularly the first. Heck, even I, as much as I would have enjoyed trying, couldn’t have come close even in my wildest dreams. ;)

    Read More
    • Replies: @godfree Roberts
    I personalized his achievements because our media personalized his faults.
    , @Robert Magill
    Chairman Mao's 'Hero Mothers' (women who had 4 or more children were celebrated) did indeed raise the population to about 940 million before Mao died. The one child rule came later to stop the rise.

    https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2017/10/14/mankind-a-bogus-species/

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Is the author 18 years old, a freshman at Columbia, and raised in a Jewish Communist insular cell in an urban Yiddish enclave? One would think so. This academic minded, armchair bound, stuffed pant load seems to grovel and grope for Mao’s metaphorical pants zipper.

    Nothing like having no determination over your own life, being told what to think, what to do, and being executed for a stray opinion carelessly spoken. No property rights, no ownership, no personal possessions, and your children are the property of the State.

    Huzzah! I just can’t wait for the same destination that all of Indo-European Man is headed toward. Maybe we’ll all wear black pajamas and practice obsequiousness constantly.

    F You, “God Free” Roberts. I smell your disease thousands of miles away.

    Read More
    • Replies: @godfree Roberts
    Drop the ad hominem. Address Mao's achievements or go home.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. This is an interesting essay.

    A couple of years ago I was stunned to see a graph of how Chinese life expectancy grew during the Mao years.

    It made me reconsider all the “reportage”and “western historical perspective” concerning China. Most of the western perspective on China is bunkum, I suspect

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    When Mao took control of China the country had been in a state of anarchic turmoil for a century and a half. The country, and particularly the economy, was a shambles. Even a brutal incompetent like Mao couldn't help but oversee an improvement in conditions in a country that was finally unified, at peace, and rid of foreign invaders.

    Mao's major contribution to the process was to serially interfere with China's natural progress in a way that caused tens of millions of deaths and unimaginable suffering and retarded economic growth to a shocking degree. To appreciate this, one has only to compare Chinese progress under Mao's thumb to the economic and social progress that occurred after this creature and his infantile ideological legacy lost control of the country.
    , @Wally
    Let's see your alleged "graph".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Sounds like the kind of agit-prop that is used to get Antifa thugs all sweaty and ready to bash in the skulls of Americans who dare to use their free speech rights or wear a MAGA hat.

    Read More
    • Replies: @godfree Roberts
    Sound like you don't know jack about contemporary Chinese history.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. mp says:

    Mao unified the nation by defeating regional warlords. The KMT (Nationalists) were unable to do it. It was a mixed bag. My impression is that most Chinese, even those in the diaspora, are China first nationalists… with the exception of those on Taiwan, and possibly HK. The former are too beholden to the West, and of the latter, those youth are too drunk on the idea of “freedom” to realize that Western liberalism will eventually destroy them, as Chinese. The idea that Mao was a “feminist” is risible. A return to tradition is in order.

    Read More
    • Replies: @godfree Roberts
    Can you see–or produce– any evidence that Mao was not, in thought, word and deed, a feminist?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. @Langley
    Mao said that "killing ten million people" was nothing compared to the good he would accomplish.

    https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE2.HTM

    There seems to be a concerted effort to rehabilitate the mass murderers of the last century.

    There seems to be a concerted effort to rehabilitate the mass murderers of the last century.

    And to ignore or gloss over the crimes of the present times.

    Here’s one tool for accomplishing that.

    “Every one of the 112 pages in the [Luntz] booklet is marked “not for distribution or publication” and it is easy to see why. The Luntz report, officially entitled “The Israel project’s 2009 Global Language Dictionary, was leaked almost immediately to Newsweek Online, but its true importance has seldom been appreciated. It should be required reading for everybody especially journalists, interested in any aspect of Israeli policy because of its “dos and don’ts” for Israeli spokesmen.”

    These are highly illuminating about the gap between what Israeli officials and politicians really believe, and what they say, the latter shaped in minute detail by polling to determine what Americans want to hear…”

    -Patrick Cockburn The secret report that helps Israel hide facts

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/israel-gaza-conflict-the-secret-report-that-helps-israelis-to-hide-facts-9630765.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. “Crime was rare, everyone had food and shelter”

    Only if you ignore the Cultural Revolution (10 years of anarchy leads to a lot of crime) and the Great Leap Forward (how many people starved, 20 million?)

    Hard to take seriously any article about Mao that ignores these two things.

    Read More
    • Replies: @godfree Roberts
    We'll come to the Cultural Revolution in Part 3 of this series. It was not what you've been led to imagine.
    , @Achmed E Newman
    Yes, on the “crime was rare” thing. From personal anecdotes, yes crime was rare, because there was NOTHING TO STEAL! To this day, there are Chinese people who suck at taking care of anything, because they don’t even know that when you have stuff, you must take care of it too. They didn’t grow up with any stuff. Oh, yes, they were poor, but they were happy, huh? That only works up to 5-6 years old or so, and only if your belly is kept somewhat full.

    Oh, as to the part about a blockade. They were part of Communist World, and we were part of the Free World (back then!). We didn’t trade much with them, and they didn’t have much to trade to us. It wasn’t a blockade - we just didn’t do business. Additionally, the Americans sent them corn even when we wanted to defeat them, because the people were starving. To this day, a family member’s mom HATES HATES HATES corn, and will not eat it, because, though we sent corn, it was feed corn, haha, not the good stuff. It was eat that or starve. They were using ration books for food through 1982 even.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Then one would have to completely dismiss the ‘Great Leap Forward’ and the ‘Cultural Revolution’ as pure Western Propaganda.

    The Great Leap Forward is blamed for causing mass starvation in China, somewhere between 18M to 50M deaths.

    The Cultural Revolution marked by political oppression, purges, humiliation, and executions.
    There is certainly enough eye witness accounts to verify that these events happened.

    Read More
    • Replies: @kauchai
    18-50m deaths? Really?

    Who did the counting? Where did the statistics come from? What were those numbers based on? (Of wait a minute, I know, fake news was invented decades ago by the CIA controlled government and media)

    Want to know how this number was invented? In 1982-3 the chinese government (for reasons unknown) decided to release the population census data dated way back to 1950's. The US Census Bureau immediately pounced on it and started massaging the spotty data to build a case against china. The project was headed by judith bannister who later published a book about it. In the book, bannister discussed the various statistical methodologies employed to produced a figure of 30 million casualty. To cut a long story short, bannister herself admitted that she did not have good data to work from as the data released by the chinese givernment was at best, "spotty". Anyone who has dealt with numbers know that if you have bad data, you will churn out bad reports no matter how advanced and sophisticated the statistical models employed.

    Bannister's project was a classic "GIGO" (garbage in garbage out) as those in the IT business call it. It was from here that the myth of "millions killed in Great Leap Forward" began to gather momentum. From here you have paid for authors like Jung Chang/John Halliday, Frank Dikotter, and Yang Jisheng who went to to perpetuate this myth.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @Langley
    Mao said that "killing ten million people" was nothing compared to the good he would accomplish.

    https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE2.HTM

    There seems to be a concerted effort to rehabilitate the mass murderers of the last century.

    Wait til you read Part 2

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @pyrrhus
    It's going to take a lot of work for the author to explain away the wholesale executions of the middle class, such as nurses, doctors, and teachers, in the postwar period. And even more work to explain away the Cultural Revolution, regarded with horror by the Chinese people themselves...

    Chill. The author will explain all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @Langley
    Mao said that "killing ten million people" was nothing compared to the good he would accomplish.

    https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE2.HTM

    There seems to be a concerted effort to rehabilitate the mass murderers of the last century.

    In fact, he said no such thing. As you will see in Part 2.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @Anonymous
    I may agree with much of this sentiment from the author. There was so much that could have gone wrong. The country could have easily been divided into several pieces, but didn't. Only a great leader could have accomplished this.

    But I hope the author does not gloss over the fact that China destroyed so much of its history during this time period. A huge back mark in my book.

    All emigre groups contend that those who overthrew them ‘destroyed so much of our culture’. It was and is bullshit. Wait for the sequel..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Not sure what you mean by emigre group.

    China destroyed it's own culture not some other group. But I will wait for the second part.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @jilles dykstra
    The writer should read
    Jung Chang, Jon Halliday, ‘Mao, Das Leben eines Mannes, das Schicksal eines Volkes’, München 2005 (Mao, London 2005)
    for another view.

    The writer has, indeed, read Jung Chang and Jon Halliday. And Franck Dikotter.
    All will be revealed in Part 2…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @Priss Factor
    That was the funniest shi* I ever read.

    I mean who's gonna be rehabilitated next? Stalin? Hitler?

    Please Stop!!

    ROTFL.

    Did I lie? Were any of my statements incorrect? Or are you offended because you were unfamiliar with this information?

    In other words, what’s your problem?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Did I lie? Were any of my statements incorrect? Or are you offended because you were unfamiliar with this information?

    In other words, what’s your problem?
     

    If you are going to refute the accepted narrative, you should follow your own advice and begin by telling us which of the statements comprising the accepted historical account are incorrect, and which of those statements offended you because you were unfamiliar with the "information".

    In other words, what's your problem with those who dismiss your account as ridiculous trash?

    Altogether, one of the silliest articles on a site devoted to a great many silly articles.

    , @Priss Factor
    Did I lie? Were any of my statements incorrect? Or are you offended because you were unfamiliar with this information?

    Mr. Roberts, your problem is deeper and simpler than your use of facts or data. It's your mindset.

    This here blog says you grew up in Australia(and later moved to the US and then to Thigh-land).

    http://godfreeroberts.blogspot.com/

    You see, you still have the British Imperial Mindset. So, your Maoitis is simply a symptom of a deeper disease. Now, British Mindset can be healthy, but anything can grow cancerous. And boy, has the Anglo-mindset gotten cancerous lately. (A still healthy kind can be found in John Derbyshire even though he too suffers from the negative side of the BIM or British Imperial Mindset.)

    Now, you will surely object and ask, "How can I have BIM when I spent much of my time in the US? And how can I be BIM-ish when I'm praising the anti-imperialist freedom fighter Mao?"

    Well, your formative yrs were spent in Australia that never had a real national identity. Even as independent nation, it continued to be defined by colonial mindset. Formative yrs are very important. So, you've been infected with BIM all your life.

    Also, mindset is 'structurally' deeper than mere belief systems. So, even if someone like you rejects British Imperial Ideology, the mindset -- habits of thinking and emoting -- still remain BIM-ish. It's like even Chinese communists who rejected Confucianism remained, on some level, very Confucian in their way of thinking. And it's like even post-Christian whites in Europe remain puritanical with their PC. To some extent, mindset is genetic. Negroes tend to have the Bongo-mindset. Look at Negroes anywhere in the world and they live in a World of Sheeeeeiiiit. But some mindsets are cultural. I don't think there's much genetic difference between Chinese and Japanese, but Japanese mindset is different -- moral 'anal' -- due to cultural factors... though it could be genetic. In Japan, samurai cut off heads of anyone who got out of line, so more wolfish genes got weeded out. That may account for the sheepish manners of Japanese.

    Given the structural factors of BIM, even Anglos with very different ideologies can have similar attitudes and styles of outlook. It's like two Jews can disagree on ideology but still share the JHM or Jewish-Hyper-Mentality. It's like Neocons and Liberal Zionists can disagree on ideas but still approach the world with a restless anxious outlook.

    British Imperial Mindset is an odd blend of several attitudes, sensibilities, and perspectives. And it is this fusion of contradictory tendencies that had led to the current neurosis in people like yourself.

    BIM is arrogant. It's like the scene in HOPE AND GLORY where a teacher tells students that the British Empire rules 2/5th of the empire.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QDIDYXj3Qc

    Now, YOU may deny having such attitude since you praise Mao the anti-imperialist... BUT, you still retain the arrogance of superior knowledge. It's not enough to say Mao did some good things or wasn't totally bad. No, you have to say he was 100% good. It's just BIM in action. It's like you pointing to the blackboard and asking students, 'what percentage of Mao was good?' The answer is of course 100%. Richard Dawkins and JK Rohwling have the same kind of hoity-toity know-all-ness. Godfree being Australian, you'd think he'd be more common-sensical like Crocodile Dundee and Mad Max, but all that book-learning got to him, esp in radical California.

    So, even after the Brits lost their empire, their imperial mindset remained in some corner of their psyche. They still like to make Grand Pronouncements to the world, so as to speak. And your Bold Pronouncement is that Mao was 100% jolly good, old boy. It's like you're the 007 of Mao's secret service.

    Another aspect of British Imperial Mindset is the Adventurous Outlook. Brits became expert sea-voyagers and conquerors. And you have some of that mentality. You got financially wiped out but decided on something adventurous... like settle in Thigh-land.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kL4N6zKgrSg

    And I'll bet a part of you love doing the John-Milius-Fantasy bit. The Great White Man among the natives. THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING(on retirement). The Brits got so good at discovering and conquering much of the world that they find excitement in men of adventure. So, BIM tends to identify with excitement and crises. We see this is LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. Lawrence the fruit adventurer finds the Arab rebellion thrilling. Instead of just serving God, King, and Country, he gets to play the role of god, king, and savior to the Arabs. Of course, his adventure comes with great contradictions. He sees himself as a modern-day prophet, a white muhammad leading the Arabs to freedom and liberty. He believes himself to be writing his own fate and destiny. But he is a pawn moved about by his imperialist superiors. And on some level, he is an agent of British Imperialism even as he leads the Arabs against it but then also for it. After all, it is in British interest that the Arabs rise up against the Turks. As Lawrence sees it, the Arabs shouldn't stop at fighting the Turks but also resist British and French attempts to gain control over Arabia. But he must also know that the British Empire has the power to turn off the spigot just as easily it was turned on. The empire will provide water for warfare as long as Arabs kill Turks. But once Arabs challenge British rule? Turn off the water. Lawrence is an idealist but also a liar. He willfully deluded himself that he was serving the Arabs when he must have known that it would turn out differently. Also, the Arab of his imagination is a fantasy. Real Arabs are a little people who can't create an ocean of power since each side guards its own tribal wells. As Lawrence sees it, the desert can be like an ocean for all Arabs. But in the end, Arab tribalism remains and it is easily manipulated by the West... as still happens to this day.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdSz8WsNSYY

    BIM is a funny thing. Even when it goes in to humble-pie mode, it has to bake the cake in MacArthur's Park. It's like Bowie in MERRY X-MAS MR. LAWRENCE. He is racked with guilt over something that happened to his brother, so how does he redeem himself? By playing the christ role. Roberts' cake is melting in the rain.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6a_KFJ5Ksc

    Now, the contradictory nature of Lawrence can be seen in many Anglos with BIM. There are elements of adventurism, egotism, worship of power, and obedience & humility. After all, despite his big ego, Lawrence was also a good soldier who did, in the end, dutifully serve the British Empire.

    When the British Empire was around, people like Godfree Roberts could support the empire to satisfy their need for adventure, great-power-worship, and humility. A British imperialist had to be a combination of ego and servitude. The ego of being part of a great empire provided pride, courage, and the will. But values of humility and servitude made him a disciplined soldier or agent who worked as a team and ultimately did what he did for something bigger than himself: God, King or Queen, Country, Empire, Tea and Crumpets.

    But that empire is no more. It's like what the traitor says in TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY.

    https://youtu.be/lDk7wSx0b7o?t=26m44s

    With the decline and fall of empire, the BIM needed something to latch onto. For some, it was pro-Americanism. It was the idea that the US was really the child of UK. So, what was good for America was good for Britain, its closest ally(now replaced by Israel, Israel, Israel).
    But for others, it was anti-Americanism. Since there was no more British Empire to play rival of US power, the thing was to side with ANY power opposed to Americanism.

    In the end, both streams more or less ended up in the same pool of globalism as both global capitalism and global leftism came to be dominated by Jewish globalists. For those who went pro-American, it's all about praising Wall Street, Hollywood, and Wars for Israel. For those who went anti-American, it's all about praising homos and Diversity... funded by the same globalists who support Wall Street and Israel.

    So, we have Godfree Roberts of the Australian School of BIM. There is no more empire, but he feels a need to admire and praise something big and strong. And he sees it in Mao and China. China seems like the rising new empire, and Mao was like its emperor. So, there is a lot of servile power-worship on the part of Roberts. This servitude is one part of BIM. It's like the guy who takes umbrage at an American journalist's cynical remark about Lawrence.

    BENTLEY
    He was also the most shameless
    exhibitionist since Barnum and Bailey.

    MAN
    You, sir. Who are you?

    BENTLEY
    My name is Jackson Bentley.

    MAN
    Well, whoever you are, I overheard your
    last remark and I take the gravest
    possible exception. He was a very great
    man.

    BENTLEY
    Did you know him?

    MAN
    No, sir. I can't claim to have known him.
    I once had the honour to shake his hand
    in Damascus.

    You see, the man never knew Lawrence but the Great Man shook his hand once, and he feels honored to have been in his presence.

    And Godfree Roberts has the same mentality in relation to Mao. He doesn't care about the Mao the Man. He's enthralled with Mao the Myth just like Americans worship MLK the myth that has nothing to do with the man. The real MLK was Fartin' Poother Bling, a lying cheat and thug. But that's just how myths go. There are plenty of morons who worship Tupac as some kind of messiah. And Eminem the demento is supposed to be some kind of prophet.

    Godfree Roberts is too old to admire rappers, so he looks to the giants of his youth, and Mao was one of them. He was the Revolutionary Gangsta. To be sure, Che is the safer bet for this kind of adulation. As Che died before he did any real damage -- he failed -- , he can't be blamed for mass tyranny and murder, which surely would have followed communist takeover of Latin America.

    BIM is addicted to greatness and adventure. Even John Derbyshire ended up in China at one time. But BIM is also into servitude to a higher glory. This is why British soldiers were such great fighters. They were willing to sacrifice their lives to God, King or Queen, Country, the espirit de corps(even as they turned into spirits departing corpses). Look at the discipline of British soldiers as they march in battle in BARRY LYNDON.

    https://youtu.be/SBFpw-459VU?t=33s

    In a way, the man with biggest ego tend not to be the best warrior. After all, an egotist wants to live and others to serve him. Why should he stick his neck out if it could mean death? It's like Italians have big egos and talk big. But when faced with danger, they poop their pants and run like a mofo to hide under mama's dress to survive. Mussolini ran in the end like a rat.
    To be a good soldier, your own ego must be suppressed and be made to serve a higher glory. It could be queen or country. Or it could be a sense of camaraderie. Brits were very mindful of how OTHERS thought of them. This is why Lord Jim freaks out. He chickened out and can't live with the shame. In contrast, an Italian or Greek has no such shame. They act like #1 and act big and tough and manly but when the going gets tough, they act like the Latino in RAIDERS. Esp them lowlife Greeks. Mafia has to stress honor precisely because no one has any.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws8btF36O1Q

    Among the British, self-ego was suppressed to be part of a Greater Good and Glory. Consider the men in ZULU and how they fight to the end. If they were Italian or Greek, they would have run like a mothafuc*a and got on the first ship back to Italy or Greece. And even if the deaths are wasteful in GALLIPOLI, those are brave soldiers.
    And yet, British bravery was also built on cowardice. Brits were more fearful of being shunned than dying. If Lord Jim were an Italian, his attitude would have been, "who cares what others think? I'm alive and I'm gonna go home and eat mama's pastas and go out and pinch women's asses." But the BIM works differently. Brits are fearful and cowardly in face of what others thinks. So a Brits prefers to DIE than be looked down upon. And this mindset is behind both the brave soldiers in ZULU & GALLIPOLI and in the current demise of UK under Afro-Islamic colonization. Today's Brit is so fearful of being called 'racist' and being looked down upon that he will bravely face death by demographic imperialism of the darkies. He would rather go down with the ship than be called a 'coward'. In contrast, a craven Italian or Greek captain will be the first one to jump a sinking ship. This is why I say BIM has gotten cancerous. In the past, it was harnessed to take over the world. Now, it's is leading to demise of UK.

    Anyway, there is a kind of BIM mentality in both Derbyshire and Godfree.
    Just like Godfree feels a need to admire and praise Great Mao, Derbyshire is also into hero-worship.

    Now, Jared has no greater admirer than me. As I have told him myself: If our republic survives, there will be statues to Jared in public squares one day.

    Rule, Tayloria! Tayloria, rule the waves!
    Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

    I find myself wondering again, for the umpteenth time, why shallow mediocrities like David Brooks or John Podhoretz have high-paid opinionating slots at major mainstream publications while Steve’s material is out beyond the fringes of respectability.

    Rule, Saileria! Saileria, rule the waves!
    Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

    That hymn is interesting. It says Brits shall never be slaves, but British Freedom is ensured by a certain slavishness on the part of Brits. While Anglos pioneered individualism, it came with the caveat of the willingness to self-sacrifice for the common good. It balanced the grasshopper with the ant. And we see this contradiction in movies about British Education, at least until Pink Floyd destroyed it with 'We don't need no education'.

    After all, if a society had two options, which is preferable?

    Option #1 forbids freedom and forces everyone to do the right thing. And everyone does the right and proper thing and society survives and even thrives.

    Option #2 allows freedom to individuals and individuals freely choose to do the wrong thing and mess things up royally like Negroes in Detroit or hillbillies addicted to meth as the new moonshine.

    Now, we all like freedom, but wouldn't tyranny and survival be preferable to freedom and demise?

    But what if there is a third option? Suppose there is freedom and suppose individuals freely do the right thing and society thrives and survives. But how could such a society be created when individuals, when allowed to be free, so often act foolish?

    The solution is to deny freedom to young ones. Educate them, work them hard, discipline them. Force them to attend school where teachers instill in them proper values and manners. And then let them graduate to a higher freedom. After all, if clay is to turn into a pottery, it has to be molded and then heated. If allowed to remain clay-ish, the pottery will fall apart in rain or crack in sunlight. So, British adult freedom was founded on strict molding of the young ones. Later social critics saw this as cruel and inhuman, but the only way individual freedom could be constructive was by molding the young ones to be respectable, dignified, and reasonably deferential to traditional, authority, and all that. That way, even if freed, they would act properly. It's like dogs have to be trained before they are allowed to run around without a leash. An untrained dog has to remain on leash.
    Sadly, this model has vanished in the West. Pop Culture encourages children to act like total louts and whores and punks and thugs. PC tells kids that white teachers are oppressors. Blacks in schools see anything 'white' as weak, wussy, and punkass. People of Color are indoctrinated with resentment for whiteness, and that means white traditions and institutions that made the Modern World possible are denigrated. Girls are not raised to be proper respectable women but whores and sluts or Oleannic demento-bitches. Imagine if Pat Buchanan had been raised by a single mother who whores around with Negroes and her homo friends. He might have an earring, tattoos on his ass, and be rapping like Eminem. Boomer parenting was disastrous but maybe it goes back further. Maybe Greatest Gen parenting was too lax and materialistic. After all, it's Archie Bunker who raised the insipid Gloria, and Meathead is the son of 'Polack' GG parents.

    With PC having it made it taboo for whites to admire their own identity and tradition, whites with BIM are latching onto the Other as something to serve. So, UK is now into worship of the Negro. BBC's official line is white blokes must worship the Big Negro Dong. BBC features white women worship the Great Negro as the new ideal. Among Canada and Australia, the worship is for Great Asia. Let Anglo-nations be handed over to People of Dot and People of Dog(eating) on a silver platter. What lunacy.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byrNW6eokWM

    And we now have Godfree Roberts rhapsodizing about Mao when he should be worrying about how to save the white race from Negroes, People of Dot, and People of Dog. His mindset is still in the mode of BIM. He thinks bigly in imperial terms. After all, even though Mao kicked out the imperialists, he ruled China like a new emperor and Maoism was once promoted around the world as something like new muhammadism, the Chinese heresy of islam-communism as rebellion against chrito-communism of the Soviet Union.

    So, Godfree has to be free himself of this silly BIM. When Australia is about to be overrun by People of Dot, People of Dog, Muslim crazies, and Sudanese thugs who go around kicking white butt, what is Godfree doing living in Thigh-land and singing East is Red?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4lztE1KZ2k

    Anglos were at their best with their race-ism. Race-ism ultimately saved both Anglo-nations and non-white nations under Anglo rule. It led to the transference of best Anglos ideas to non-white world and creating new business/trade opportunities while maintaining racial and cultural integrity of both worlds. Because Anglo race-ism abhorred race-mixing, there was less mixing between Brits and their non-white subjects. This was good for the subjects cuz it meant their womenfolk were less sexually conquered by Anglos. In contrast, the race-mixing Latinos changed the bloodline of the natives of Latin America forever. And they also messed up white bloodlines. This made it near-impossible for natives of 'Latin America' to rise up and kick out the Spanish imperialists. With so many people with mixed-blood, they didn't know if they were white or Indio.
    In contrast, Anglo race-ism ensured that most darkies keep their racial integrity. So when the time came for resistance and national liberation, it was easy for Asians, Africans, or other people to unify and kick out the Brits. Why do Han Chinese promote race-mixing with Tibetans and Uighurs? They are trying to do what the Hispanics and Portuguese did to the natives of the Americas.

    Another thing about the Anglos was they were snobbish and sneering, and this was also good for the non-white natives. It prevented their full cooperation and collaboration with the British Empire. Many non-white elites studied in Britain and wanted to be accepted in the white world. And had they been allowed in, they never would have returned home and become national leaders. Even as Brits educated these non-whites to serve the empire, they also always made sure that non-white elites understood who was the real boss. So, even an educated Hindu was a 'wog', an educated Chinese was 'chinaman', and educated African was a 'coon', sometimes accented with 'bloody'. This made it impossible for someone like Gandhi to serve the empire. I mean he was there in Africa serving the British Empire to control the Negroes but the whites were calling him a 'wog' too. He took it personally, and he decided to lead his own people. Same with Lee Kuan Yew. He had great admiration from the Brits and learned much from them. But the Brits must also have called him 'chinaman' at some point, and he became a great leader over his own kind.

    So, if the Anglos really wanna do the world a favor, they should become race-ist once again. That way, the non-white elites will be less likely to serve globalism and go back to their nations and be good nationalists once again. It's like what the great uncle Victor says in HAROLD AND MAUDE.

    And so I ask you - why the hell did
    we give up on the Germans? Those
    damn politicians in Washington
    chalked them up on our side and the
    wars ever since have been a national
    disgrace. Hell, look at history.
    The two best wars this country has
    fought were against the Jerries.
    Now I say, get the Krauts on the
    other side of the fence where they
    belong, and let's get back to the
    kind of enemy worth killing and the
    kind of war this whole country can
    support.


    https://youtu.be/oxomZHzw7Nc?t=37s

    When the 'krauts' were on the other side, things were so much simpler. And the world would be simpler and things would be clearer if Anglos were race-ists. Then, non-Anglo world could learn good ideas from Anglos and fix their own nations. That way, their own nations would improve and Anglo nations would remain white. Everyone wins. But today, Anglo mode is both neo-imperialist and apologetic-suicidal. Anglo-America calls itself 'exceptional' and 'indispensable', a new jingoism. But supposedly, the New America is so great cuz it's about 'diversity'. It's all so confusing. Also, even though Anglosphere is still the richest and most powerful part of the world, it's not even ruled by Anglos anymore but by Jewish globalists and their homo allies whose main object of worship is the homo anus and the Negro dong and black woman's ass 'twerking'. Yes, 'twerk' is now part of Western Culture. Anglo-world from Work Ethic to Twerk Antic.

    Anyway, what about Mao?

    Godfree's Mao-worship is nothing new. Indeed, such opinions and lit were commonplace prior to the 80s. I went to college in mid 80s and a lot of book on Russia, China, and etc were from 60s and 70s. Most China Scholars prior to the 80s had very limited access to Chinese affairs, and much of it depended on Chinese sources or CIA estimates that later proved to be very wrong. Also, most China Scholars were on the left and sympathetic to communists. My professor told me he was a student in the late 50s and his professors all dismissed reports of famine in China as Taiwanese propaganda. Read most books on China on 60s and 70s and, even as they admit Mao was a tyrant, they talk glowingly of progress.

    But then, China opened up in the 80s and the full extent of the horrors poured out from so many sources. Also, Westerners had freer access to people, voices, and accounts in China. Prior to that, every Westerner was carefully shown Potemkin village versions of China. A good book on this is Steven Mosher's CHINA MISPERCEIVED. Now, over the yrs, Mosher became overly anti-Chinese and is dismissive of EVERYTHING done by the CCP, but his book details how so many Western scholars and reporters were fooled, not least because their political sympathies wanted to be duped(like so many sympathizers, left or right, were fooled by Soviet Union and Nazi Germany).

    https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-465-09805-7

    As for Robert's stats showing economic growth under China, much of it seems based on outdated and discredited data. When Mao died, Time magazine, relying on CIA sources, said China's economic growth under communism had been 'staggering'. We are talking about a nation where a car factory might churn out 100 cars a year. It was a nation of bicycles called the Flying Pigeon.

    Also, some of the achievements of Mao would have happened under Chiang. Mao had the advantage of unity, stability, and peace. Chiang never got a chance because he had to deal with Japanese invasion and then lost the Civil War. But the fact is much had been done during the Nanking Decade from 1927 to 1937 and if China hadn't end up fighting Japan, much more could have been done. Sure, Chiang's way wasn't to drive out the imperialists overnight, but he knew time was on his side. If China kept developing and gaining greater economic might, the foreigners would eventually have to return their territories. Also, the foreigners could be useful in facilitating greater trade between China and the rest of the world. After all, wasn't it good for China that Mao didn't kick out the imperialists in Hong Kong? Those HK'ers later taught so much to Mainland Chinese. And Taiwan's independence also turned out to be beneficial to China. Many Taiwanese succeeded in capitalism and later, with many other overseas Chinese, invested heavily in China.

    If Chiang could have avoided war with Japan or had he prevailed over Communists in the Civil War, he would surely have done much more for China. He too wanted to end the opium epidemic. He also believed in Westernization. He also believed in modernization. Indeed, individuals and women in Taiwan and Hong Kong lived with more freedom and dignity than women in China. To be sure, Taiwanese and HKer's didn't have national dignity as Taiwan as protectorate of US and HK was whore of UK. But UK wasn't such a bad pimp. Check out NOBLE HOUSE.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_63CZoyoYJc

    Chiang was a sort of a Christo-Confucian fascist. He converted to Christianity, respected Confucian traditions and hierarchy. But he also believed in reforms and modernization. He sought to balance the left and right, past and future. But he never got a chance. The war with Japan ruined him. And he was prescient. He feared that if KMT fights Japan, it would be crushed and it would give the commies a second chance. His fears were borne out by events. Mao came to power ONLY BECAUSE Japan crushed KMT that was pushed to the south. With KMT and Japan exhausting one another, the commies waited for their opportunity, and they took it when WWII ended and Japan retreated, esp as Soviet occupiers of North China handed over so much to the Commies.

    Was the KMT corrupt? Yes, very, but in some ways, it was a sign of health. It meant bad use of freedom but it still meant freedom. In contrast, the communists were pure and far less corrupt, BUT there was no freedom at all. It was a iron-fisted world of spartan ruthlessness. Chiang trusted his followers because he didn't like to be cruel or paranoid. He could be ruthless when necessary but it was not something he exulted in. IN contrast, Mao loved violence and he purged his own men who'd served him loyally over and over. This process ensured no spies among the communists and total devotion to Mao. In contrast, Chiang's humane tolerance did lead to more corruption and also more communist spies in KMT. Indeed, it turned out KMT was filled with commie spies because Chiang was overly nice and trusting.

    Mao did have Great Man qualities. His path to power from son of farmer to ruler of China is the most epic story in the 20th century. Hitler's path to power was relatively easy. He won elections with backing of rich Germans. Lenin and Trotsky led the revolution and then Stalin the bureaucrat took over. But Mao was at the center from the beginning of communism of China to his victory in 1949. So, there's no doubt he had a lot of intelligence, a kind of political vision, and shrewdness. But he was also a boor, a vulgarian, and a fool. He was arrogant, vindictive, cruel, and nasty. Or just plain childish. He had a great opportunity after Stalin died. Khrushchev wanted to reboot relations on good terms. He visited China, but Mao kept trying to drown him like a water polo ball in a the swimming pool. Khrush could hardly swim and this freaked him out. And Mao kept blowing smoke in his face even though Khrush didn't smoke. I mean here's Khrush, leader of the other great superpower, trying to make nice with Mao, and Mao is acting like the king of the hillbillies. The main reason for Sino-Soviet rift was Mao's a**hole behavior and egotism as he wanted to be the new leader of the communist world after Stalin died. Now, had Mao been more sensible, the communist world could have been greatly strengthened. If Chinese manpower and Russian knowhow and resources could have been combined, communism would have been stronger(even if ultimately doomed cuz it's not a good system). But instead, Mao's megalomania led to the rift and the Soviets and Chinese were working AGAINST one another than for each other.

    Another thing that Mao messed up royally was talent. Communists had lots of talent. Indeed, one of Chiang's complaints was that so many of the Best and the Brightest of the Chinese went over to the Communists. So many educated and idealistic Chinese were so angry with Japan and Western powers that they wanted to join a great movement for national liberation and progress. And many were drawn to the communists. Zhou Enlai, Liu Shaochi, Deng Xiaoping, and many others were men of great intelligence and ability. Even with communism being ultimately a bad system, the fact is there was enough talent in the CCP for it to make considerable progress if Mao hadn't gotten in the way. Mao knew guerrilla warfare and leadership, but he was unfit to rule and manage. Stalin was cruel, but he had bureaucratic patience and diligence to get things done, which is why USSR did make great leaps in industry(even if at huge human cost). Mao was too impatient for gradual progress in economics. Instead of letting things develop organically, he carried out campaigns that, more often than not, did more harm than good. Like the idiotic idea about getting rid of sparrows. The mass culling of sparrows was like playing chess like a retard. It's like going for short-term gain of a piece while falling into a trap of checkmate. Killing sparrows meant fewer birds eating crops, but it also meant fewer birds eating bugs that eat many more crops. But Mao's hysterical view of progress didn't allow for complexity and nuance.
    Many idealistic intellectuals, teachers, scientists, doctors, engineers, and managers joined Communist China. Even the Chinese atomic bomb owed to Chinese engineers trained in the US who returned out of patriotism and idealism. But Mao sent so many educated people to carry dung in farms. A backward nation like China needed all the talent it could gather to do scientific and technological stuff. But Mao used many of them badly, esp during the Cultural Revolution that also destroyed so much art and culture.
    Now, there was a theme in communism that was good for China. A corrupted version of Confucianism had created a culture of snobbery, contempt, and elitism among the rich and educated. And surely, Mao suffered many such slights as a farmboy in the city. The 'better kind' of people never took him seriously. So, communism emphasis on the dignity of farmers and workers was good. But did Mao have to send educated people to carry pig shi*? What a total waste.
    Worse, some of these people were driven to suicide or were tortured to death because they refused to admit guilt to some false accusation.

    As for all the achievements of Mao's China, let's compare them with developments in other non-communist Asian nations. Which achieved far more? Mao's China or Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore? And did China achieve more between 1980 and 2010 or between 1949 and 1976?
    Didn't new China beginning with Deng follow the model of Japan and the 'Asian tigers'?

    Roberts talks of women's rights, but Asian women were 'liberated' without communism in Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Roberts talks of ending foot-binding, but Chiang would have ended foot-binding too. And he too would have carried out a campaign against opium, though probably less brutal than Mao's that rounded and shot all the dealers and even some of the users.

    Now, one could argue that China under Mao achieved less in economic development than, say, Japan or Taiwan, since it was closed off from the world market. True to some extent, but Mao could have had good relations with USSR and its Warsaw Pact nations. But he messed up the relations. The souring of relations between USSR and China meant China would also be shout out from Warsaw Pact nations.
    Also, when Nixon met with Mao, he wanted faster negotiations for more trade. It was Mao who held back. It was only after Mao died and the Gang of Four was neutralized that China could really join the world trading community. But even if China had been shut off from world trade, it could at least have fed itself. But Mao's crazy agricultural plans led to stagnation in agriculture and even mass famine during Great Leap.
    As for the huge population growth, how is that an accomplishment? Look at Africa today. Poorest part of the world has the highest population growth. Mao pushed for more babies because he thought like a peasant: "Every mouth comes with two hands". He thought everything in terms of manual labor. Also, he wanted many Chinese because he feared new wars with USSR and US. Since China lagged in technology, he figured he needed as many cannon fodders as possible in case of war. After all, the only reason why the Japanese failed to conquer China was there were TOO MANY Chinese.

    That said, there are some good things to be said for Mao's victory. If Mao(nor Chiang) had not prevailed in the Civil War, China today might be two nations like Korea. North China and South China. Mao's victory did lead to a nationalist and independent China. Also, as this government was based on indigenous rule, it had genuine sovereignty. Chiang was a patriot too, but his aides were too close with the imperialists. The Soong Family was intertwined with American oligarchs. As for the governments of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, they became total whores of the US. US was a good generous pimp, but they were whores nevertheless.
    Communist victory did establish a fully independent national government in China, and that is a blessing. And even though Mao's rift with the Soviets was stupid as hell at the time, it also turned out to have benefits. If Mao had played along with Soviets, China may have remained a junior partner of Russia. But because of the rift, China became independent of both the West and Russia. This led to much hardship but also a greater sense of national sovereignty.

    Also, who would have known that the US the good pimp would turn into a bad pimp? When US was ruled by Anglos, it was truly a great nation like in BIG COUNTRY. Proud, tough, moral, Christian, patriotic, and sensibly race-ist. But once the Jewish globalists, homos, and Negroes took over, it's been a total disgrace. What is the white man in the US? A cuck who serves Israel-firsters, homo degenerates, Negro 'muh dic*ers', and skanky feminists. Because US is the center of globalism, this filth is being spread all over.

    This is where the rise of Putin, CCP rule in China, and Iranian Revolution turned out to have positive aspects. Putin's autocracy is deeply flawed but it holds back against globalist degeneracy like homo 'pride' parades. China won't allow homomania as proxy of US-globalist imperialism. Sure, China is repressive state that needs more freedom, but much of today's 'freedom' just means cucking to evil sick degenerate globalism. And even though I don't like theocracy, Iranian revolution did put in place a truly nationalist power bloc that says NO to the garbage that comes out of the US.

    So, what seems like a curse at one time could later turn out to be a blessing. It's like how history plays out in the cosmic-chess-game prophecy of Isaac Asimov's FOUNDATION series.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Moi says:
    @pyrrhus
    It's going to take a lot of work for the author to explain away the wholesale executions of the middle class, such as nurses, doctors, and teachers, in the postwar period. And even more work to explain away the Cultural Revolution, regarded with horror by the Chinese people themselves...

    Native American genocide? Slavery? Hiroshima/Nagasaki, bombings and invasions abroad…..and so on and so forth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    Thanks...I was going to mention something similar. They lie about all that to this day. Even make excuses for it.

    Twain, one among many, noticed the trend and commented on it over a century ago.


    “We are out of moral-courage material; we are in a condition of profound poverty. “

    Mark Twain (Samuel Clemmens), THE UNITED STATES OF LYNCHERDOM (1901)
    http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/mixed_lit/twain_lyncherdom.htm
     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @Peter Lund
    Hitler had such blue eyes. He was a painter, you know!

    Tres drole. Do you have anything substantive to add?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peter Lund
    Yes, one accent grave and one accent circonflexe.

    Ending the civil war was great but couldn't he have accomplished that far easier and with much less bloodshed by simply surrendering? And who says "uniting" China was even a good thing?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @Hippopotamusdrome


    wrung from Henry Kissinger the admission that ‘the Chinese are smarter than us’

     

    Then ...


    China was agrarian, backward, feudalistic, ignorant and violent. Of its four hundred million people, fifty million were drug addicts, eighty percent could neither read nor write and their life expectancy was thirty-five years.

     

    But hey, China invented gunpowder.

    What I should have said was, “Thanks to us, China was agrarian, backward, feudalistic, ignorant and violent. Of its four hundred million people, fifty million were drug addicts, eighty percent could neither read nor write and their life expectancy was thirty-five years.

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
    "Of its four hundred million people, fifty million were drug addicts"

    Really? That's like 1 in 6 adults.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @Escher

    In 1927, after escaping execution at the hands of Nationalist forces, he remained a tireless campaigner for women’s rights
     
    I'm sure he was reading feminist philosophy to the many young women he bedded after becoming head notorious bedding of young women.

    http://articles.latimes.com/1998/mar/08/opinion/op-26719

    Mao recruited young military women at dance parties arranged in close proximity to his bedroom. He drew to his custom-built, sloping, wooden bed a number of nurses on duty in the Forbidden City.
     

    If ever I want to know about Mao’s sexual life, I turn first to the LA Times…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Escher
    That was just an example. Mao's philandering was well known. But hey, keep smoking whatever it is you have.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. neutral says:

    As with many other people in history that were responsible for the deaths of thousands/millions but also for great changes in society (Ghenghis Khan, Stalin, Hitler, Mohammed, Alexander the great) they will always have those that support them and those that hate them, as time marches on the hatred diminishes though.

    Mao has killed more people than any other, some will try to defend this because his intent was different than say Hitler, but in the end Mao was in charge and his decisions led to those deaths. Many Chinese and others will support Mao because he was the architect of a modern and unified China, this is no different to how Americans worship Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was a mass murderer, Mao may have killed more but this was with a much bigger population base, if one does percentage comparisons of the population killed off then Lincoln and Mao are not that different. It is difficult to have a neutral perspective on someone like Mao, but one should at least understand the perspectives of the different views people have on him.

    I also have to add that a white nationalist will find someone like Merkel, Macron, etc, profoundly worse than Mao. Mao killed millions but he did not ethnically cleanse his own Chinese people (their population expanded in fact). Merkel on the other is openly ethnically cleansing Germans (hard or soft ethnic cleansing, the end result is the still the same so it’s still ethnic cleansing).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. @Hippopotamusdrome


    increased steel production from zero to thirty-five MMT/year

     

    ...


    Backyard furnace
    ... Where iron ore was unavailable, they melted any steel objects they could get their hands on, including pots and pans, and even bicycles, to make steel girders, but these girders were useless, as the steel was impure and of poor quality and thus cracked easily. Unbeknownst to the Communist Party officials, the result was not steel, but high carbon pig iron, which needs to be decarburized to make steel.

     

    #LOLCommunism

    Backyard Steel Furnaces During China's 'Great Leap Forward'

    Backyard furnace4.jpg

    Mao’s constant question about the backyard furnaces was the same as yours would be, “If they’re so great, why doesn’t Germany use them?”

    He wasn’t a dictator, remember.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hieronymus of Canada

    He wasn’t a dictator, remember.
     
    So what was he?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @jacques sheete
    Interesting and I'm sure a lot of it is true, but it sounds like hagiography a bit overdone.

    He

    doubled China’s population from 542 million to 956 million
    doubled life expectancy
    doubled caloric intake
    quintupled GDP
    ...
     

    No he did not. That list is not mere hagiography, it's histrionic hyperbole.This proves that the aphorism that history is written by the victors is wrong. It's written by all sorts of folks but we usually are exposed only to that of the self proclaimed "victors."

    I'll accept that he may have facilitated all of that, but he could not have done all of that, particularly the first. Heck, even I, as much as I would have enjoyed trying, couldn't have come close even in my wildest dreams. ;)

    I personalized his achievements because our media personalized his faults.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    I personalized his achievements because our media personalized his faults.
     
    They invariably magnify them as well.

    Very good article and well written. Love your responses too. I have to leave for bit, but would rather stay and join in the conversation here. It proves to be lively.

    Keep up the fine work and I hope we hear more from you!

    And always remember that no one really knows JS, but you're obviously a few cuts above the average.

    BTW, Hitler deserves to be rehabilitated too, because he was also subjected to the harebrained demonization similar to what Mao underwent, while Churchill and FDR need to be knocked off their perches.

    Illegitimi non carborundum...

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @Poupon Marx
    Is the author 18 years old, a freshman at Columbia, and raised in a Jewish Communist insular cell in an urban Yiddish enclave? One would think so. This academic minded, armchair bound, stuffed pant load seems to grovel and grope for Mao's metaphorical pants zipper.

    Nothing like having no determination over your own life, being told what to think, what to do, and being executed for a stray opinion carelessly spoken. No property rights, no ownership, no personal possessions, and your children are the property of the State.

    Huzzah! I just can't wait for the same destination that all of Indo-European Man is headed toward. Maybe we'll all wear black pajamas and practice obsequiousness constantly.

    F You, "God Free" Roberts. I smell your disease thousands of miles away.

    Drop the ad hominem. Address Mao’s achievements or go home.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E Newman
    Poupon was exactly correct though. You just sound like someone without any experience at all, and additionally from what you respect of that tyrant, I don’t think you even have an imagination that could picture real freedom. That was the 2nd part of Mr “Marx”’s point.

    I have read 50 books or more on China because I have family members from there. I have been numerous times. You really should read more history before you spout off like this. The problem with people like you who don’t know history is you make as all more likely to repeat it.

    Are you a fan of the Antifa “folks”, Godfree? I ask, because they are the closest I’ve seen to the Red Chinese fans* of Chairman Mao. They are just looking for their own “Chairman” right now.

    * I was going to write “followers”, but that does not imply people who really believed in the Red Leader. Sometimes, it was go along or be dead or destitute.
    , @Poupon Marx
    Have you ever heard the expression, "Been down so long, it looks like up?". In other words, you silly simpleton, China could not sink any lower, and ANY authoritarian that produced some ORDER by ANY method, would have achieved success.

    What an "intellectual" like you cannot see is the question that screams to be asked: what OTHER form of government/authority could have produced as much prosperity, order, and reconstruction? There is a glaring example set: Singapore, from rags to riches; Japan, TOTALLY destroyed.

    If I had to drive horses across the plains, as a "muleskinner", I could use the lash, punishment, violence, or intimidation. Or, what if more positive inducements, or at least balanced ones would yield the same results?

    You are the Orwellian paradigm: "Some things are so stupid and absurd, that only an intellectual could believe them". Intelligence versus Stupidity, Vacuity, and Simple Logic and Reasoning.

    Game, set, and match. Exit Stage Left, Sir.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @Greg Bacon
    Sounds like the kind of agit-prop that is used to get Antifa thugs all sweaty and ready to bash in the skulls of Americans who dare to use their free speech rights or wear a MAGA hat.

    Sound like you don’t know jack about contemporary Chinese history.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greg Bacon
    I know enough to make sane comments, not in the arms of my Thai lover, but back in the USA.

    Mao may have done much for China, but he was also a butcher and if you can't accept that, then there's no hope for you and your Antifa friends.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @mp
    Mao unified the nation by defeating regional warlords. The KMT (Nationalists) were unable to do it. It was a mixed bag. My impression is that most Chinese, even those in the diaspora, are China first nationalists... with the exception of those on Taiwan, and possibly HK. The former are too beholden to the West, and of the latter, those youth are too drunk on the idea of "freedom" to realize that Western liberalism will eventually destroy them, as Chinese. The idea that Mao was a "feminist" is risible. A return to tradition is in order.

    Can you see–or produce– any evidence that Mao was not, in thought, word and deed, a feminist?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    His own sexual activities might imply otherwise; at any rate, feminism is not healthy for the country. As mp said, a return to tradition is in order. Xi Dada does seem to be aware of this, for which I am most grateful.

    I think Mao was necessary in the same sense that Qin Shi Huang was necessary - to break the stagnation that China has gotten herself in - but it hardly just makes him 100% good.

    , @Jus' Sayin'...

    Can you see–or produce– any evidence that Mao was not, in thought, word and deed, a feminist?
     
    His treatment of his wives and various consorts.
    , @mp
    @ godfree Roberts: In the Western sense, feminism is an anti-traditional, mostly Jewish, construct. This sort of thing had no counterpart in China, with the possible exception of the prior (to Mao) May Fourth Movement. But even that was a mixed bag.

    For his part, Mao was essentially a revolutionary opportunist whose liberal views on women did not particularly mirror anything reflected within his government, or his personal life. Had he lived longer, and had he been in better physical/mental condition, my guess is that he'd never have allowed the Jiang Qing clique their temporary triumph. As others have stated, once Mao was gone and the Gang of Four were retired, it was Deng who laid the groundwork for modern China--his Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. Women had some "rights," but they were not significantly included in government.

    It is my impression (for what it is worth) that the majority of Chinese are not happy with women leaders. Jiang Qing is remembered by the oldsters as the major force behind the disastrous CR, and newer Netcitizens are reminded by the fairly recent Gu Kailai affair, etc.

    Feminism (Western) will likely not take hold in China. Women work, and can make a lot of money. But there is too much tradition that mitigates against this family and nation destroying feminist ideology. One big reason it will not happen is that Chinese have not turned over their culture to an alien group whose intent is to dispossess the majority, as is the case in the West.

    , @Ragno

    Can you see–or produce– any evidence that Mao was not, in thought, word and deed, a feminist?
     
    Well, he was known to attend informal party functions wearing an ASK ME ABOUT MY FEMINIST AGENDA t-shirt.

    On the other hand, if you did, you were shot dead on the spot. So his feminism was......complicated.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @NJ Transit Commuter
    "Crime was rare, everyone had food and shelter"

    Only if you ignore the Cultural Revolution (10 years of anarchy leads to a lot of crime) and the Great Leap Forward (how many people starved, 20 million?)

    Hard to take seriously any article about Mao that ignores these two things.

    We’ll come to the Cultural Revolution in Part 3 of this series. It was not what you’ve been led to imagine.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @jacques sheete
    Interesting and I'm sure a lot of it is true, but it sounds like hagiography a bit overdone.

    He

    doubled China’s population from 542 million to 956 million
    doubled life expectancy
    doubled caloric intake
    quintupled GDP
    ...
     

    No he did not. That list is not mere hagiography, it's histrionic hyperbole.This proves that the aphorism that history is written by the victors is wrong. It's written by all sorts of folks but we usually are exposed only to that of the self proclaimed "victors."

    I'll accept that he may have facilitated all of that, but he could not have done all of that, particularly the first. Heck, even I, as much as I would have enjoyed trying, couldn't have come close even in my wildest dreams. ;)

    Chairman Mao’s ‘Hero Mothers’ (women who had 4 or more children were celebrated) did indeed raise the population to about 940 million before Mao died. The one child rule came later to stop the rise.

    https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2017/10/14/mankind-a-bogus-species/

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    You missed my point.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @godfree Roberts
    Mao's constant question about the backyard furnaces was the same as yours would be, "If they're so great, why doesn't Germany use them?"

    He wasn't a dictator, remember.

    He wasn’t a dictator, remember.

    So what was he?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Why, naturally as the Great Helmsman, he was a demigod.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/9914895/How-China-came-to-worship-the-mango-during-the-Cultural-Revolution.html
    , @godfree Roberts
    Chairman of the Board. Neither more nor less.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @Dan Hayes
    As stated on its masthead, the Unz Review aims to provide "Controversial Perspectives." This obviously is one of them!

    Very successfully so, haha.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @godfree Roberts
    Can you see–or produce– any evidence that Mao was not, in thought, word and deed, a feminist?

    His own sexual activities might imply otherwise; at any rate, feminism is not healthy for the country. As mp said, a return to tradition is in order. Xi Dada does seem to be aware of this, for which I am most grateful.

    I think Mao was necessary in the same sense that Qin Shi Huang was necessary – to break the stagnation that China has gotten herself in – but it hardly just makes him 100% good.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    I think Mao was necessary in the same sense that Qin Shi Huang was necessary – to break the stagnation that China has gotten herself in – but it hardly just makes him 100% good.
     
    That's very similar to my own perspective. I think Mao's place in history would be far better if he'd tripped and broken his neck during the early 1950s. I'm pretty skeptical of attempts to explain away the gigantic disasters of the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution, but I suppose we'll see.

    I tend to agree that Mao was indeed a "feminist" but back in those days, I think "Chinese feminism" meant opposition to foot-binding, buying wives, and polygamy, and would also have accorded with the views of American reactionaries, let alone Christian missionaries. My guess is that he'd regard today's American or Chinese "feminists" as decadent lunatics, and ship them all off to harsh Reeducation Camps.

    I also strongly disagreed with various other parts of the article. For example, is doubling Chinese's population necessarily a positive achievement? The governments of many totally impoverished African nations are increasing their populations by 10x or more. So are they vastly more successful than Mao?

    Closely related to this issue is the fact that the economic growth chart is *total* GDP rather than per capita GDP, which means that a good chunk of the economic improvement wasn't real. That's the same trick journalists often play these days with "African growth." Also, totally backward, devastated, and impoverished countries like China are naturally going to grow more rapidly than the post-WWII USA, which was already the richest country in the world, so the comparison isn't a sensible one.

    I think it would be much better to compare the growth in per capita Chinese GDP from the chart vs. that during the following decades under Deng's anti-Maoist economic policies, which was *vastly* greater.

    I'd summarized this in my own China article of a few years ago, which I'd still currently stand by:

    By the late 1970s, three decades of Communist central planning had managed to increase China’s production at a respectable rate, but with tremendous fits and starts, and often at a terrible cost: 35 million or more Chinese had starved to death during the disastrous 1959–1961 famine caused by Mao’s forced industrialization policy of the Great Leap Forward.

    China’s population had also grown very rapidly during this period, so the typical standard of living had improved only slightly, perhaps 2 percent per year between 1958 and 1978, and this from an extremely low base. Adjusted for purchasing power, most Chinese in 1980 had an income 60–70 percent below that of the citizens in other major Third World countries such as Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Kenya, none of which were considered great economic success stories. In those days, even Haitians were far wealthier than Chinese.

    All this began to change very rapidly once Deng Xiaoping initiated his free-market reforms in 1978, first throughout the countryside and eventually in the smaller industrial enterprises of the coastal provinces. By 1985, The Economist ran a cover story praising China’s 700,000,000 peasants for having doubled their agricultural production in just seven years, an achievement almost unprecedented in world history. Meanwhile, China’s newly adopted one-child policy, despite its considerable unpopularity, had sharply reduced population growth rates in a country possessing relatively little arable land.

    A combination of slowing population growth and rapidly accelerating economic output has obvious implications for national prosperity. During the three decades to 2010, China achieved perhaps the most rapid sustained rate of economic development in the history of the human species, with its real economy growing almost 40-fold between 1978 and 2010. In 1978, America’s economy was 15 times larger, but according to most international estimates, China is now set to surpass America’s total economic output within just another few years.
     
    http://www.unz.com/runz/chinas-rise-americas-fall/#china-shakes-the-world
    , @Priss Factor
    I think Mao was necessary in the same sense that Qin Shi Huang was necessary – to break the stagnation that China has gotten herself in – but it hardly just makes him 100% good.

    Isn't it better to say 'someone-like-Mao was necessary' than 'Mao was necessary'?

    Yes, China needed a strong leader who could unite and rule the nation with authority. Someone like Mao with his good qualities. But there were so many bad qualities in the particular figure of Mao.

    Now, if you argue that ONLY Mao could have done the job, doesn't this make Chinese look really stupid? You mean, out of those 100s of millions of people, ONLY ONE person has the will and ability to rule a nation?

    As it turned out, Liu Shao-Chi did a pretty good job for several yrs after the the catastrophic Great Leap. He restored the economy and even wanted to restore ties with Russia. Also, Deng was a most able leader from the late 70s to the end. He combined iron hand with soft touch. He worked like what Teddy Roosevelt said: Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick.

    So, China didn't have any shortage of able leaders. There were others who could have played the Mao role with much more sanity.

    It's like saying Germany needed someone LIKE HITLER during the Great Depression. It needed a strong leader who could restore a sense of pride and purpose to the nation. 'Someone like Hitler' with his good qualities BUT not Hitler himself who was pathological and didn't know when to stop and brought about WWII.

    Mao too was pathological. His failures weren't just epic in scope, costing millions of lives and the near-total destruction of culture during the Cultural Revolution, a truly crazy time. Like Hitler, Mao didn't know when to stop.

    Btw, the idea that China was stagnant when communists came to power is wrong. Chiang and KMT were fully aware of the problems, and they did much to improve things except that Japanese invasion messed everything up. Also, Chiang wanted to play for time, but Chinese popular opinion called for war against Japan in an alliance with communists. And that brought about the demise of KMT. China in the 1930s and 1940s was a dynamic place and far removed from 1840 when it was indeed stagnant.

    It was understandable why the Chinese people wanted the KMT to engage the Japanese over Manchuria, but Chiang knew China was not ready to fight Japan. He figured he must destroy the communists totally first before engaging Japan. But there was enough freedom in China under KMT to call for tough actions against Japan. And after the kidnapping by the Manchurian general, Chiang felt obligated to go into war mode against Japan.

    Now, imagine if Mao's China was at war with Russia. Suppose KMT in Taiwan offered an alliance with the mainland to fight Russia. Do you think Mao would have agreed? No way. He would have known such an alliance would give KMT another foothold in the mainland.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_decade

    Chiang is truly a tragic figure in Chinese history, caught between a rock and a hard place. He wanted to unify China and modernize it, and he did have achievements during the Nanking Decade, but Japanese aggression in North China just put him at odds with not just Japan but the Chinese people who clamored for war when China was not ready. And the communists exploited this by appealing to the Chinese people. It called for unity with KMT to fight the Japanese. It was a cynical but masterly move on the part of Mao and Zhou. They got to witness the Japanese and KMT destroy one another while the communists waited patiently to fill the vacuum when the time was ripe.

    Anyway, I agree China needed someone like Mao but not Mao himself. And I agree Germany needed someone like Hitler but not Hitler. And Russia needed someone like Stalin but not Stalin. Those particular fellers were too pathological and extreme.

    It's too bad they were not like Ataturk, a man who could be strong but had a real sense of humanity.

    Anyway, it's better to say China needed a man like Deng.. and got him in the late 70s, and it was very good for China.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Jake says:

    This is how utterly insane our world has become. In 1968, bleeding heart liberal pothead John Lennon wrote:

    But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
    You aint’ gonna make it with anyone any how

    And yes, our universities are filled with people who lionize Mao.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  47. TG says:

    Missing the point, but not surprising, because it has been almost totally edited out of the public discussion.

    Here is the core of what Mao did: when he took over, he started a pro-natalist program. Honest economists like Ma Yinchu were purged, women were encouraged to have six kids each, etc. Despite substantial rises in rice production, it was not enough to keep up with an exploding population, and China was miserably poor and on the verge of anarchy and collapse.

    In desperation the Chinese government instituted an about-face, and turned from an abusive pro-natalist policy to an abusive one-family one-child policy. THEN life for the average Chinese got, slowly but surely, better. Remember, it’s not so much the number of people, as the rate of increase.

    It is indeed true that, as of today, China is a remarkable success story. Hundreds of millions lifted out of poverty, wages that are now substantially higher than Mexico’s. Nevertheless, the horrors of the cultural revolution phase, and the strictures of the following one-child policy, where wholly un-necessary and a consequence of the communist ideology of treating people like cattle (though neoliberal capitalists are no better). I personally would grant most of China’s current success to the pragmatist post-Mao leadership.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    Very good points:

    Missing the point, but not surprising, because it has been almost totally edited out of the public discussion.

    Here is the core of what Mao did: when he took over, he started a pro-natalist program. Honest economists like Ma Yinchu were purged, women were encouraged to have six kids each, etc.

    I personally would grant most of China’s current success to the pragmatist post-Mao leadership.

    Mao's War Against Nature: Politics and the Environment in Revolutionary China (Studies in Environment and History) https://www.amazon.com/Maos-War-Against-Nature-Revolutionary/dp/0521786800

    Passage from a very good customer review of the book:

    When the president of Beijing University warned about the danger of rapid population growth, he was denounced and relieved of his responsibilities. Overpopulation could only be a problem in evil capitalist societies — never in a socialist paradise. China was already overpopulated in 1949, and it grew with spooky speed. Mao refused to believe the census numbers. In 1958, family planning programs were ended, and not resumed until 1971. Mao died in 1976, and in 1979, the one-child policy was implemented.
     

    - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/ROOXKIGOTP2RO/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0521786800

    http://www.china-profile.com/data/figures/fig_WPP2010_TotPop_TFR_1.gif

    Source: The very high fertility in the early 1950s and late 1960s corresponded well with Mao's political dogma that a huge population would promote China's military and political power. The high fertility caused the enormous population increase of modern China and is responsible for the huge momentum effect which is now incorporated in China's age structure.
    - http://www.china-profile.com/data/fig_WPP2010_TotPop_TFR.htm

    Coincidentally, just before this piece was published yesterday evening, I commented the following:

    I guess, technically Communism could/should also be classified as an organized religion, though.
    - http://www.unz.com/tsaker/is-communism-really-dead/#comment-2045037

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FcBeyEWgSM

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @godfree Roberts
    What I should have said was, "Thanks to us, China was agrarian, backward, feudalistic, ignorant and violent. Of its four hundred million people, fifty million were drug addicts, eighty percent could neither read nor write and their life expectancy was thirty-five years.

    “Of its four hundred million people, fifty million were drug addicts”

    Really? That’s like 1 in 6 adults.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @godfree Roberts
    I personalized his achievements because our media personalized his faults.

    I personalized his achievements because our media personalized his faults.

    They invariably magnify them as well.

    Very good article and well written. Love your responses too. I have to leave for bit, but would rather stay and join in the conversation here. It proves to be lively.

    Keep up the fine work and I hope we hear more from you!

    And always remember that no one really knows JS, but you’re obviously a few cuts above the average.

    BTW, Hitler deserves to be rehabilitated too, because he was also subjected to the harebrained demonization similar to what Mao underwent, while Churchill and FDR need to be knocked off their perches.

    Illegitimi non carborundum…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Moi
    Agree totally. My grandfather, who was not white, was in the Berlin Olympics '36 and experienced no racism--in or outside the Olympic village.

    If what was done to Germany after WW1 was done to the US, we'd put a halo around the person who could do for the US what Hitler did for Germany.

    But in our propaganda, Hitler=Holocaust.

    Americans tend to take a binary view of things, allowing for no shades of gray.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Joe Hide says:

    Mao was the “Best of the Barely Okay.” Any nation with people as intelligent, motivated, and hard working as the Chinese will make incredible progress if their leaders aren’t completely incompetent, insane, and self-righteous. So, while I actually liked the article (It was well written), I came away from it realizing that way too much credit goes to rulers, and way too little to the people. By the way. I am a “people” so maybe I’m just biased?

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    So, while I actually liked the article (It was well written), I came away from it realizing that way too much credit goes to rulers, and way too little to the people.
     
    True.

    People, in the US at least, tend to put too much faith in some messiah whether it be some person or some (invariably corrupt) institution.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @Hieronymus of Canada

    He wasn’t a dictator, remember.
     
    So what was he?
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @Dan Hayes
    As stated on its masthead, the Unz Review aims to provide "Controversial Perspectives." This obviously is one of them!

    And I say, “Bravo” !!! Let’s have more of the same.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @Moi
    Native American genocide? Slavery? Hiroshima/Nagasaki, bombings and invasions abroad.....and so on and so forth.

    Thanks…I was going to mention something similar. They lie about all that to this day. Even make excuses for it.

    Twain, one among many, noticed the trend and commented on it over a century ago.

    “We are out of moral-courage material; we are in a condition of profound poverty. “

    Mark Twain (Samuel Clemmens), THE UNITED STATES OF LYNCHERDOM (1901)

    http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/mixed_lit/twain_lyncherdom.htm

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Greg Bacon says: • Website
    @godfree Roberts
    Sound like you don't know jack about contemporary Chinese history.

    I know enough to make sane comments, not in the arms of my Thai lover, but back in the USA.

    Mao may have done much for China, but he was also a butcher and if you can’t accept that, then there’s no hope for you and your Antifa friends.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. This is an embarrassing piece, though perhaps a warranted one given how much Mao has been demonized.

    Every single former communist country is behind where it would otherwise be today if some kind of capitalist system was selected instead. This doesn’t mean neoliberalism either– South Korea for instance engaged in quite a bit of dirigisme and outright economic planning.

    In fairness to the socialists, it was difficult to know that at the time. Today however, it is not difficult to know.

    That would be bad enough, but the Leninist political system imposed considerable brutality everywhere it was tried. Yes, Westerners exaggerate the kill counts, but no one can dispute the harshness and wickedness of these regimes.

    Formerly primitive countries like Japan, South Korea, and the European periphery (up to and including right-wing dictatorships, nearly all of which were gentler than communist ones) all managed to modernize at considerably lower human cost.

    If one adjusts for human capital, then the achievements of countries such as Brazil, Mexico, and Indonesia should also be taken into consideration. Chinese people are of course much more intelligent than those people, so more is expected of them.

    We can credit Mao with winning a civil war, unifying China, expelling foreign powers from the country, and implementing modernization. No need to engage in hagiography.

    I understand that for the Chinese themselves a positive account of Mao serves a useful role, so I wouldn’t expect them to condemn Mao. Godfree Roberts, however, would appear to be a white man.

    Read More
    • Replies: @kauchai
    In 1965-66, Indonesia was engaged in an orgy of mass extra-judicial killings by Suharto supported by the US, UK and Australia. All in the name of an anti-communism order driven from washington DC. After the pogrom, suharto went on to become indonesia's dictator until he was lynched out of office in 1998. An estimated 1-1.5 million were brutally killed in the most hideous manners possible (Ref: Archipelago of Fear - Andre Vltchek and The Art of Killing - Joshua Oppenheimer). Between 1966 - 1998, Indonesia's economy hardly grew. Its natural resources like oil, coal, timber and other minerals were plundered by suharto and his cronies. It went on to become a net oil importer from an exporter in a matter of a few years. The event of 1965-66 had scarred the entire country to this day and no one is allowed to discuss it in the open. I think in terms human capital already paid for, the chinese had a better ROI.

    ( And I seriously doubt the numbers of casualty as reported by bought and paid for authors like Frank Dikotter, Jung Chang/Jon Halliday and Yang JiSheng. Those who did perished in the famine of the late 50's in china did not die under such horrendous conditions)
    , @Sam J.
    Thorfinnsson has pretty much nailed it.

    "...Every single former communist country is behind where it would otherwise be today if some kind of capitalist system was selected instead..."

    What the author has NOT chosen to do is to compare China to other countries that didn't need to murder mass numbers of people to do the same. Growth in some cases a bit slower but if you're one of the bodies it might be worth it to you.

    What if Americans explained to the American Indians how much better off they were with the growth rate statistics for Colonial America?

    The authors explanation of economics is the same as those that when windows are broken count the repair as an increase in GNP.

    The guy who wrote this article is either a Jew or Robert Lindsay. One setting out to delude people of the truth and the other deluding himself.
    , @Mao Cheng Ji

    Every single former communist country is behind where it would otherwise be today if some kind of capitalist system was selected instead.
     
    "Some kind" is doing a lot of work here. Yeah, if only China could become Switzerland... But for some reason even Portugal can't become Switzerland. Go figure...

    Also, it contains the unwarranted presumption that those communist countries had the choice to 'select' that (hypothetical) nice capitalist system, while achieving (and maintaining) independence - to be able to 'select' anything at all. See Cuba, Vietnam.

    In any case: China is certainly in a better shape than India. Cuba is far better than Guatemala or Haiti. This proves you wrong.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. “We’ve come very far, very fast. But do you know what it cost?” – General Yevgraf Zhivago, in the film Doctor Zhivago

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  57. Well, Godfree, judging from the comments, it definitely appears that you’ve struck a nerve here. I, for one, welcome a different perspective on Mao. Through the years I have become increasingly convinced that most of what we’re told about people like Mao and Stalin is just so much propaganda. It leaves me wondering why, decades after their deaths, they still command such a large and loyal following in their own countries. Could it be that the Russians and the Chinese know something about these men that we don’t?

    The commenter above who mentioned Lincoln had a very good point. It would be very easy to represent Lincoln purely as a genocidal tyrant, if one were so inclined. In fact, many people from the South still consider him to have been a murderous dictator. But he did manage to keep the country together in one piece, so there’s that to consider, too.

    Thanks, Godfree. And don’t let the trolls get you down.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson

    It leaves me wondering why, decades after their deaths, they still command such a large and loyal following in their own countries. Could it be that the Russians and the Chinese know something about these men that we don’t?
     
    With due respect, this is a very poor argument in light of the power of propaganda.

    In the United States for instance we lionize the historical figures such as Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. who contributed to unleashing negro pandemonium on the country, despite all evidence of this experiment being overwhelmingly negative. The reason they're lionized is because of highly effective propaganda.

    Communists are apparently not as good at propaganda as capitalists, but they're not awful at it. And on top of that naturally who wishes to consider his country's past leadership as negative, particularly when that leadership had a role in founding the state?

    Asking Chinese to condemn Mao would be like asking Americans to condemn the Founding Fathers.

    Sure, Mao's record is considerably worse than that for the Founding Fathers, but many objections can be raised to any of the Founding Fathers (or even the entire enterprise of seceding from the British Empire).
    , @Wally
    on Lincoln:

    "But he did manage to keep the country together in one piece, so there’s that to consider, too."

    And that's a good thing?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @godfree Roberts
    Did I lie? Were any of my statements incorrect? Or are you offended because you were unfamiliar with this information?

    In other words, what's your problem?

    Did I lie? Were any of my statements incorrect? Or are you offended because you were unfamiliar with this information?

    In other words, what’s your problem?

    If you are going to refute the accepted narrative, you should follow your own advice and begin by telling us which of the statements comprising the accepted historical account are incorrect, and which of those statements offended you because you were unfamiliar with the “information”.

    In other words, what’s your problem with those who dismiss your account as ridiculous trash?

    Altogether, one of the silliest articles on a site devoted to a great many silly articles.

    Read More
    • Replies: @godfree Roberts
    I made assertions and produced evidence to support them.

    The usual practice is for others to question the assertions or the evidence, make counter-assertions and advance counter-evidence.

    No-one has done so, thus far, so I assume that commenters are simply angry because they cannot refute my argument–like old white guys get angry when you present them with evidence of anthropogenic climate change.

    Insulting the person who presents unfamiliar ideas and substantiates them–or dismissing them all, out of hand, like the old white guys do– is generally considered poor form.

    Do you consider either acceptable?
    , @kauchai
    what accepted "narratives"? Accepted by whom and when? Care to elaborate?

    what "familiar" information are you referring to?

    If someone came up with an alternative account of history, shouldn't that be celebrated as an opportunity to debate instead of throwing invectives and inuendoes? The author through his numerous replies in this forum had encouraged commenters to publish proofs of their counter arguments. Sadly, none were forthcoming. The best was "accepted narratives". I wonder what "accepted narratives" were based on?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @godfree Roberts
    Tres drole. Do you have anything substantive to add?

    Yes, one accent grave and one accent circonflexe.

    Ending the civil war was great but couldn’t he have accomplished that far easier and with much less bloodshed by simply surrendering? And who says “uniting” China was even a good thing?

    Read More
    • Replies: @godfree Roberts
    Do you have any idea what Chiang did to China before Mao chased him away? Or WHY Mao won so easily despite massive US support for Chiang? Seriously.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. How interesting Mr. Roberts! I look forward to reading Parts 2 and 3.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  61. whorefinder says: • Website

    It seems the commies are funding some extreme whitewashing of history. I guess they’re not trying to cleanse Stalin/Soviet Union, so they’re trying to cleanse Mao, who’s rep is less well known in the U.S. and whom any criticism of can be called “racist”.

    Plus since the commies are following Mao’s playbook with their Struggle Sessions, I guess he’s the hero du jour. After all, Obama was surreptitiously quoting Mao’s during his first campaign and had an adviser openly quoting Mao. -

    The murder of a hundred million people, and then cannibalism, torture and oppression? Yeah, let’s pretend it never happened.

    Truth: Mao is the greatest mass murderer in history. Literally worse than Hitler.

    Read More
    • Replies: @godfree Roberts
    wait for Part 2
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. anon says: • Disclaimer

    Doesn’t compare unfavourably to the current numbers for the good ol’ US of A. With an estimated 23 million people who have a substance abuse problem.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  63. @Jon Halpenny
    This is an interesting essay.

    A couple of years ago I was stunned to see a graph of how Chinese life expectancy grew during the Mao years.

    It made me reconsider all the "reportage"and "western historical perspective" concerning China. Most of the western perspective on China is bunkum, I suspect

    When Mao took control of China the country had been in a state of anarchic turmoil for a century and a half. The country, and particularly the economy, was a shambles. Even a brutal incompetent like Mao couldn’t help but oversee an improvement in conditions in a country that was finally unified, at peace, and rid of foreign invaders.

    Mao’s major contribution to the process was to serially interfere with China’s natural progress in a way that caused tens of millions of deaths and unimaginable suffering and retarded economic growth to a shocking degree. To appreciate this, one has only to compare Chinese progress under Mao’s thumb to the economic and social progress that occurred after this creature and his infantile ideological legacy lost control of the country.

    Read More
    • Replies: @godfree Roberts
    The facts, which I presented, beg to differ.

    If you wish to make assertions that run counter to my evidence, then produce them. Don't just windily repeat what you heard on Fox News.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @godfree Roberts
    Can you see–or produce– any evidence that Mao was not, in thought, word and deed, a feminist?

    Can you see–or produce– any evidence that Mao was not, in thought, word and deed, a feminist?

    His treatment of his wives and various consorts.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. chris m says:

    Henry Liu also made some interesting comparisons between MAO AND LINCOLN some years ago
    see MAO AND LINCOLN
    Henry C.K. Liu
    Part I: Demon and deity,
    This article appeared in AToL on March 31, 2004

    https://henryckl.ipower.com/page115.html

    although i think best comparison would be to compare Mao with the original architect of China
    Qin Shi Huang (whom Mao considered a progenitor of his)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qin_Shi_Huang

    ps but you still got to say that the accomplishments of Chinese people since 1945
    were generally made in spite of Mao, not because of Mao
    and i consider achievements of Deng Xiaoping to be greater.

    Read More
    • Replies: @godfree Roberts
    I've demonstrated Mao's achievements in my article.

    Would you care to demonstrate Deng's?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Centrally controlled thought , action and deeds with dissent punished with harassment,imprisonment and death should first two fail . Rule by the Iron Fist ! Bolshevism transported and perfected . Fear is a wondrous thing . The Police State Party Supreme . Why are all these wealthy Chinese bureaucrats and “entrepreneurs” inflating North American real estate markets if china is so great ? Pure Unadultrated Hogwash !!!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @godfree Roberts
    Get a grip. There is far more breadth of thought in China than in the USA. Dissent is punished much more leniently, imprisonment is rare by comparison, as is death at the hands of the government.

    What planet do you live on?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Beckow says:
    @Dan Hayes
    As stated on its masthead, the Unz Review aims to provide "Controversial Perspectives." This obviously is one of them!

    To call it ‘controversial’ is evasive and shows inability to understand the way the world works. Our past is full of suffering, injustice and famines. And one can describe most of human history as one long ‘economic mis-management’. What matters is how most people live. And not what a few frustrated, absurdist intellectuals feel, or the formerly rich who lose out.

    In 1945, China was substantially worse off than India: poorer, backward, lacking in everything. Then China got Mao and India got a bunch of ‘liberal’ talkers. Today China is head and shoulders above India in terms of development and overall quality of life. And suffering? If you count apples as apples, there has been as much famine and injustice in India as in China.

    I understand that evaluating post-WWII revolutions (or ‘communism’) is hard because of the extreme visibility all screw-ups and oppression were given in the Western media and consciousness. After all it was ‘the enemy’ so it had to be demonised. And the victims were mostly high-visibility and often exiles living bitter lives in the West.

    But the massive and very successful transformation of China is simply not something that one can dismiss as ‘controversial’. It was real – more people than ever in history dramatically improved their lives. And this is true also for most places in eastern Europe. If you look at the data, you see the same pattern: suddenly after hundreds of years of incredible poverty and brutal oppression, regular people started to live normal lives with housing, jobs, education, medical care, basic safety, etc… And it happened within 1-2 generations.

    Would it had happened anyway? Was the dramatic 1950-90 improvement for so many, so fast, going to happen regardless of the revolutions? Were the elites after hundreds of years of no interest in how most people lived suddenly going to change on their own? Yeah, sure they were. Right.

    Read More
    • Agree: Mao Cheng Ji
    • Replies: @map
    What a ridiculous argument.

    Do you not realize that killing off surplus populations of useless eaters will always lead to better lives for those that remain alive? There is nothing remarkable about doing this and nothing prescient about Mao resorting to these means. The results would always be positive.

    That is all Mao did...get rid of the surplus population of the useless. The remainder that survived the purges would then enjoy a much higher standard of living because per capita GDP is going up.

    Duh!!

    Russia did really well under Communism by repudiating the debts they owed and killing off the surplus population. Germany did really well under Hitler by repudiating debts and getting rid of the surplus population. There is nothing remarkable about this.

    Here is a thought experiment.

    Just imagine if America could get rid of its useless population. Imagine how much better America would be? The remaining population of 220 million would be living in a wealthy and peaceful paradise.

    Recoiling in horror at Mao is due to the fact that one does not want to live in a State where you had a substantial chance of being killed by your own government in peacetime. Who care how well the survivors will live?
    , @Santos
    Meanwhile people in China lived in a prison, literally, China was a prison for most Chinese unless you were a higher up in the Communist Party.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. MarkinLA says:

    For example, during the first four or five decades of their drive to modern industrialization, the industrial share rose by only 11 percent in Britain (1801-41) and 22 percent in Japan”.

    Yes, lets compare Britain of 200 years ago where building newly invented steam engines and making industrial tools that have never been in existence before to a world where every advanced county already has the implements of modern industry and China simply has to copy what is already out there (even if they are rather crude compared to the rest of the world and cannot hold tight tolerances). Obviously, an engineer did not write this ridiculous article.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E Newman

    Obviously, an engineer did not write this ridiculous article.
     
    Very good point, Mark. It was much easier for the Chinese to come this far from 1978 due to the body of engineering knowledge, and the technical means, already being in place. I will add, however, to emphasize the ridiculousness even more, that all the advancements started a few years after Mao (RIH) died. It took a few years of that “Gang of Four” BS to be over with for Deng Xiaoping to implement the relief of Communism in the small business realm, especially in Canton.

    BTW, Mark, I know we disagreed greatly on the issue of free-market healthcare (another area in which the Chinese are freer than us, at this point), but I appreciate all your other comments. I don’t know how we can be so at-odds on one thing, but not about all else - politically, that is.

    I would link to you on the health-care thing to personal experience, but links are messed-up for me today on the unz site. I have done some testing, and I think it’s a bug - hopefully temporary.
    , @Poupon Marx
    Mark, yes, I am an engineer, and this assertion dealing in the concrete and empirical is balderdash, shallow, and perhaps deliberately deceptive. What are we to make and conclude? The author is trying to snocker us or is too thin and superficial to notice his deficiencies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @Seamus Padraig
    Well, Godfree, judging from the comments, it definitely appears that you've struck a nerve here. I, for one, welcome a different perspective on Mao. Through the years I have become increasingly convinced that most of what we're told about people like Mao and Stalin is just so much propaganda. It leaves me wondering why, decades after their deaths, they still command such a large and loyal following in their own countries. Could it be that the Russians and the Chinese know something about these men that we don't?

    The commenter above who mentioned Lincoln had a very good point. It would be very easy to represent Lincoln purely as a genocidal tyrant, if one were so inclined. In fact, many people from the South still consider him to have been a murderous dictator. But he did manage to keep the country together in one piece, so there's that to consider, too.

    Thanks, Godfree. And don't let the trolls get you down.

    It leaves me wondering why, decades after their deaths, they still command such a large and loyal following in their own countries. Could it be that the Russians and the Chinese know something about these men that we don’t?

    With due respect, this is a very poor argument in light of the power of propaganda.

    In the United States for instance we lionize the historical figures such as Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. who contributed to unleashing negro pandemonium on the country, despite all evidence of this experiment being overwhelmingly negative. The reason they’re lionized is because of highly effective propaganda.

    Communists are apparently not as good at propaganda as capitalists, but they’re not awful at it. And on top of that naturally who wishes to consider his country’s past leadership as negative, particularly when that leadership had a role in founding the state?

    Asking Chinese to condemn Mao would be like asking Americans to condemn the Founding Fathers.

    Sure, Mao’s record is considerably worse than that for the Founding Fathers, but many objections can be raised to any of the Founding Fathers (or even the entire enterprise of seceding from the British Empire).

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Hey, I was in Moscow and bought my Stalin T-shirt. It says (in Cyrillic) "Thank you Comrade Stalin for the wonderful childhood". That may be sarcasm however.
    , @Seamus Padraig
    OK. But then, what about Stalin? The Soviet Union ceased to exist twenty-six years ago, and had officially started propagandizing against him back in the mid-fifties. Yet, year after year, polls in Russia still show that he is regarded there as one of the greatest Russian rulers ever. (Yes, I know he was really Georgian.) So that's all just a function of brilliant propaganda? I say his fans may know something we don't.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    The author is a college professor in Mass.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  71. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    good one there comrade.

    Joe Webb

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  72. Kinda reminds me of the story that was told about the late Kim Jong Il. First time he went golfing, without benefit of any instruction, he hits a hole in one on the very first hole. Second hole, second hole in one!

    But you know, he was just that kind of guy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  73. Wally says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    By the time he retired, he had reunited, reimagined, reformed and revitalized the largest, oldest civilization on earth, modernized it after a century of failed modernizations and ended thousands of years of famines.
     
    Your piece concentrates on China, but he also crated a whole new universal political philosophy; a school of thought popular all over the world even today.

    “he also created a whole new universal political philosophy; a school of thought popular all over the world even today.”

    And that is?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. mp says:
    @godfree Roberts
    Can you see–or produce– any evidence that Mao was not, in thought, word and deed, a feminist?

    @ godfree Roberts: In the Western sense, feminism is an anti-traditional, mostly Jewish, construct. This sort of thing had no counterpart in China, with the possible exception of the prior (to Mao) May Fourth Movement. But even that was a mixed bag.

    For his part, Mao was essentially a revolutionary opportunist whose liberal views on women did not particularly mirror anything reflected within his government, or his personal life. Had he lived longer, and had he been in better physical/mental condition, my guess is that he’d never have allowed the Jiang Qing clique their temporary triumph. As others have stated, once Mao was gone and the Gang of Four were retired, it was Deng who laid the groundwork for modern China–his Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. Women had some “rights,” but they were not significantly included in government.

    It is my impression (for what it is worth) that the majority of Chinese are not happy with women leaders. Jiang Qing is remembered by the oldsters as the major force behind the disastrous CR, and newer Netcitizens are reminded by the fairly recent Gu Kailai affair, etc.

    Feminism (Western) will likely not take hold in China. Women work, and can make a lot of money. But there is too much tradition that mitigates against this family and nation destroying feminist ideology. One big reason it will not happen is that Chinese have not turned over their culture to an alien group whose intent is to dispossess the majority, as is the case in the West.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    People should give Mao more literary credit, especially for some slogans that I think basically every Chinese know to this day:

    造反有理! (Revolution is justified!) insofar as when things are bad thing, it is time to fight.

    枪杆子里面出政权 (Political power comes from the barrel of a gun!) aka all law comes ultimately from state violence

    Quite harmonious in sound and meaningful in message, he would probably made a decent poet. I understand Hitler would have possibly been a decent artist if his skill was allowed to be cultivated, too.

    , @utu
    Chinese have not turned over their culture to an alien group whose intent is to dispossess the majority

    The alien group did not say the last word yet.
    , @godfree Roberts
    Read what I said. Mao was not a feminist. He simply liberated China's women for the first time in 5,000 years. There are more self-made billionaires in China today than in the rest of the world combined. China's first Nobelist was a woman. The designer and builder of the world's fastest computer is a woman. Women get equal pay. That's more goddam liberation than all so-called womens libbers have done combined, ever.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Wally says:
    @Priss Factor
    That was the funniest shi* I ever read.

    I mean who's gonna be rehabilitated next? Stalin? Hitler?

    Please Stop!!

    ROTFL.

    Hitler has been “rehabilitated”. Pay attention.

    http://www.codoh.com
    http://www.forum.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Ron Unz says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    His own sexual activities might imply otherwise; at any rate, feminism is not healthy for the country. As mp said, a return to tradition is in order. Xi Dada does seem to be aware of this, for which I am most grateful.

    I think Mao was necessary in the same sense that Qin Shi Huang was necessary - to break the stagnation that China has gotten herself in - but it hardly just makes him 100% good.

    I think Mao was necessary in the same sense that Qin Shi Huang was necessary – to break the stagnation that China has gotten herself in – but it hardly just makes him 100% good.

    That’s very similar to my own perspective. I think Mao’s place in history would be far better if he’d tripped and broken his neck during the early 1950s. I’m pretty skeptical of attempts to explain away the gigantic disasters of the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution, but I suppose we’ll see.

    I tend to agree that Mao was indeed a “feminist” but back in those days, I think “Chinese feminism” meant opposition to foot-binding, buying wives, and polygamy, and would also have accorded with the views of American reactionaries, let alone Christian missionaries. My guess is that he’d regard today’s American or Chinese “feminists” as decadent lunatics, and ship them all off to harsh Reeducation Camps.

    I also strongly disagreed with various other parts of the article. For example, is doubling Chinese’s population necessarily a positive achievement? The governments of many totally impoverished African nations are increasing their populations by 10x or more. So are they vastly more successful than Mao?

    Closely related to this issue is the fact that the economic growth chart is *total* GDP rather than per capita GDP, which means that a good chunk of the economic improvement wasn’t real. That’s the same trick journalists often play these days with “African growth.” Also, totally backward, devastated, and impoverished countries like China are naturally going to grow more rapidly than the post-WWII USA, which was already the richest country in the world, so the comparison isn’t a sensible one.

    I think it would be much better to compare the growth in per capita Chinese GDP from the chart vs. that during the following decades under Deng’s anti-Maoist economic policies, which was *vastly* greater.

    I’d summarized this in my own China article of a few years ago, which I’d still currently stand by:

    [MORE]

    By the late 1970s, three decades of Communist central planning had managed to increase China’s production at a respectable rate, but with tremendous fits and starts, and often at a terrible cost: 35 million or more Chinese had starved to death during the disastrous 1959–1961 famine caused by Mao’s forced industrialization policy of the Great Leap Forward.

    China’s population had also grown very rapidly during this period, so the typical standard of living had improved only slightly, perhaps 2 percent per year between 1958 and 1978, and this from an extremely low base. Adjusted for purchasing power, most Chinese in 1980 had an income 60–70 percent below that of the citizens in other major Third World countries such as Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Kenya, none of which were considered great economic success stories. In those days, even Haitians were far wealthier than Chinese.

    All this began to change very rapidly once Deng Xiaoping initiated his free-market reforms in 1978, first throughout the countryside and eventually in the smaller industrial enterprises of the coastal provinces. By 1985, The Economist ran a cover story praising China’s 700,000,000 peasants for having doubled their agricultural production in just seven years, an achievement almost unprecedented in world history. Meanwhile, China’s newly adopted one-child policy, despite its considerable unpopularity, had sharply reduced population growth rates in a country possessing relatively little arable land.

    A combination of slowing population growth and rapidly accelerating economic output has obvious implications for national prosperity. During the three decades to 2010, China achieved perhaps the most rapid sustained rate of economic development in the history of the human species, with its real economy growing almost 40-fold between 1978 and 2010. In 1978, America’s economy was 15 times larger, but according to most international estimates, China is now set to surpass America’s total economic output within just another few years.

    http://www.unz.com/runz/chinas-rise-americas-fall/#china-shakes-the-world

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @random rand

    That’s very similar to my own perspective.
     
    Yeah, everything that Mao does would make much more sense if you look at him as the founding emperor of a new dynasty (which in fact he was). The Great Leap Forward was one of those epic projects that emperors like to undertake (e.g. The Great Wall) except the Great Leap Forward was a stupid plan and tens of millions ended up dead. The Cultural Revolution is more interesting because it wasn't a "disaster" for Mao personally. What the Cultural Revolution really was was a naked Machiavellian power grab to take back power since Mao was effectively sidelined in the Party after the Great Leap Forward. You can tell how Mao clearly didn't care all that much about the ideological aspect of the Cultural Revolution when he told the army to quell the Red Guards and force them to the countryside. Of course, neither the Great Leap Forward nor the Cultural Revolution was good for the country and there's no point defending them.

    The reason it is hard to judge Mao as "good" or "bad" is because there isn't really "good" or "bad" back then. The Guomindang really sucked. If they didn't they wouldn't have lost. They were effectively a loose alliance of rival clans with different power centres and incredible amounts of corruption and infighting. It is possible to argue that without the Communists to completely wipe out whatever power structures and terrible laws that existed under the Guomindang there would never have been a Deng to have the same amount of success.

    The Western MSM these days usually criticize Mao to denounce the whole of the CPC in general and then advocate that there should be regime change in China to install liberal democracy. A lot of defenses of Mao is also due to trying to refute the MSM's utterly ridiculous logic. Of course there's no reason to take the MSM seriously. The best way to judge Mao is as a founding emperor of a new dynasty and there's no denying both the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution were disasters.
    , @Anatoly Karlin

    I tend to agree that Mao was indeed a “feminist” but back in those days, I think “Chinese feminism” meant opposition to foot-binding, buying wives, and polygamy, and would also have accorded with the views of American reactionaries, let alone Christian missionaries.
     
    I realize that the end of foot-binding has been strongly associated with the Communists, but could even this be a case of them stealing other people's achievements?

    From the Wiki article on foot-banding:

    In 1912, the new Republic of China government banned foot binding (though not actively implemented), and leading intellectuals of the May Fourth Movement saw footbinding as a major symbol of China's backwardness. Local warlords such as Yan Xishan in Shanxi engaged in their own sustained campaign against footbinding with feet inspectors and fines for those who continued with the practice, and regional governments of the later Nanjing regime also enforced the ban. The campaign against footbinding was very successful in some regions; in one province, a 1929 survey showed that while only 2.3% of girls born before 1910 had unbound feet, 95% of those born after were not bound. In a region south of Beijing, Dingxian, where over 99% of women were once bound, no new cases were found among those born after 1919. In Taiwan, the practice was also discouraged by the ruling Japanese from the beginning of Japanese rule, and from 1911 to 1915 it was gradually made illegal. The practice however lingered on in some regions in China; in 1928, a census in rural Shanxi found that 18% of women had bound feet, while in some remote rural areas such as Yunnan Province it continued to be practiced until the 1950s. In most parts of China, however, the practice had virtually disappeared by 1949. The practice was also stigmatized in Communist China, and the last vestiges of footbinding were stamped out, with the last new case of footbinding reported in 1957.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Wally says:
    @Jon Halpenny
    This is an interesting essay.

    A couple of years ago I was stunned to see a graph of how Chinese life expectancy grew during the Mao years.

    It made me reconsider all the "reportage"and "western historical perspective" concerning China. Most of the western perspective on China is bunkum, I suspect

    Let’s see your alleged “graph”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    I found one: http://www.china-profile.com/data/fig_WPP2010_L0_Boths.htm

    Strikes me as noteworthy that the steep, upward trajectory appears to begin at the end of the Great Leap Forward.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @Dan Hayes
    As stated on its masthead, the Unz Review aims to provide "Controversial Perspectives." This obviously is one of them!

    That it does, Dan! Nowhere on the site does it claim to provide “Peak Stupidity” however. That can only be obtained from one Stupidity Nexus, as it were.

    What a complete idiot. This guy may want to talk to some Chinese people, though lots who would have differing opinions are in graves after their murder or starvation. Even the living Chinamen (AND WOMEN, yes, OK, and women) over 50 years old could tell the author of the misery caused by 30-or so years of hard-core communism — http://www.peakstupidity.com/index.php?post=423 caused by this scum.

    The Long March of Stupidity ended roughly in the late 70’s after Mao (RIH) died, as Mr. Deng let the Chinese people have freedoms as far as business is concerned, and the business of China is business (wish America could say this again!)

    Hey, sorry I have not read the comments yet. I just saw the BS by this imbecile Godfree Roberts, and chimed in here. Roberts, you suck to no end, sir!, you sick Commie-apologist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Wally says:
    @Seamus Padraig
    Well, Godfree, judging from the comments, it definitely appears that you've struck a nerve here. I, for one, welcome a different perspective on Mao. Through the years I have become increasingly convinced that most of what we're told about people like Mao and Stalin is just so much propaganda. It leaves me wondering why, decades after their deaths, they still command such a large and loyal following in their own countries. Could it be that the Russians and the Chinese know something about these men that we don't?

    The commenter above who mentioned Lincoln had a very good point. It would be very easy to represent Lincoln purely as a genocidal tyrant, if one were so inclined. In fact, many people from the South still consider him to have been a murderous dictator. But he did manage to keep the country together in one piece, so there's that to consider, too.

    Thanks, Godfree. And don't let the trolls get you down.

    on Lincoln:

    “But he did manage to keep the country together in one piece, so there’s that to consider, too.”

    And that’s a good thing?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    For Southerners, no. They were ruined by abolition and protection. While there was some reconciliation in the 1890s, the North decided to trash this goodwill in the 1960s with civil rights legislation.

    Northerners derived a substantial benefit until the Great Migration, when the descendants of the former slaves moved to Northern cities and ruined them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @godfree Roberts
    Drop the ad hominem. Address Mao's achievements or go home.

    Poupon was exactly correct though. You just sound like someone without any experience at all, and additionally from what you respect of that tyrant, I don’t think you even have an imagination that could picture real freedom. That was the 2nd part of Mr “Marx”’s point.

    I have read 50 books or more on China because I have family members from there. I have been numerous times. You really should read more history before you spout off like this. The problem with people like you who don’t know history is you make as all more likely to repeat it.

    Are you a fan of the Antifa “folks”, Godfree? I ask, because they are the closest I’ve seen to the Red Chinese fans* of Chairman Mao. They are just looking for their own “Chairman” right now.

    * I was going to write “followers”, but that does not imply people who really believed in the Red Leader. Sometimes, it was go along or be dead or destitute.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @NJ Transit Commuter
    "Crime was rare, everyone had food and shelter"

    Only if you ignore the Cultural Revolution (10 years of anarchy leads to a lot of crime) and the Great Leap Forward (how many people starved, 20 million?)

    Hard to take seriously any article about Mao that ignores these two things.

    Yes, on the “crime was rare” thing. From personal anecdotes, yes crime was rare, because there was NOTHING TO STEAL! To this day, there are Chinese people who suck at taking care of anything, because they don’t even know that when you have stuff, you must take care of it too. They didn’t grow up with any stuff. Oh, yes, they were poor, but they were happy, huh? That only works up to 5-6 years old or so, and only if your belly is kept somewhat full.

    Oh, as to the part about a blockade. They were part of Communist World, and we were part of the Free World (back then!). We didn’t trade much with them, and they didn’t have much to trade to us. It wasn’t a blockade – we just didn’t do business. Additionally, the Americans sent them corn even when we wanted to defeat them, because the people were starving. To this day, a family member’s mom HATES HATES HATES corn, and will not eat it, because, though we sent corn, it was feed corn, haha, not the good stuff. It was eat that or starve. They were using ration books for food through 1982 even.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @Wally
    Let's see your alleged "graph".

    I found one: http://www.china-profile.com/data/fig_WPP2010_L0_Boths.htm

    Strikes me as noteworthy that the steep, upward trajectory appears to begin at the end of the Great Leap Forward.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Got it, thanks.

    Valid, damning point.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @MarkinLA
    For example, during the first four or five decades of their drive to modern industrialization, the industrial share rose by only 11 percent in Britain (1801-41) and 22 percent in Japan”.

    Yes, lets compare Britain of 200 years ago where building newly invented steam engines and making industrial tools that have never been in existence before to a world where every advanced county already has the implements of modern industry and China simply has to copy what is already out there (even if they are rather crude compared to the rest of the world and cannot hold tight tolerances). Obviously, an engineer did not write this ridiculous article.

    Obviously, an engineer did not write this ridiculous article.

    Very good point, Mark. It was much easier for the Chinese to come this far from 1978 due to the body of engineering knowledge, and the technical means, already being in place. I will add, however, to emphasize the ridiculousness even more, that all the advancements started a few years after Mao (RIH) died. It took a few years of that “Gang of Four” BS to be over with for Deng Xiaoping to implement the relief of Communism in the small business realm, especially in Canton.

    BTW, Mark, I know we disagreed greatly on the issue of free-market healthcare (another area in which the Chinese are freer than us, at this point), but I appreciate all your other comments. I don’t know how we can be so at-odds on one thing, but not about all else – politically, that is.

    I would link to you on the health-care thing to personal experience, but links are messed-up for me today on the unz site. I have done some testing, and I think it’s a bug – hopefully temporary.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @Wally
    on Lincoln:

    "But he did manage to keep the country together in one piece, so there’s that to consider, too."

    And that's a good thing?

    For Southerners, no. They were ruined by abolition and protection. While there was some reconciliation in the 1890s, the North decided to trash this goodwill in the 1960s with civil rights legislation.

    Northerners derived a substantial benefit until the Great Migration, when the descendants of the former slaves moved to Northern cities and ruined them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. FKA Max says: • Website
    @TG
    Missing the point, but not surprising, because it has been almost totally edited out of the public discussion.

    Here is the core of what Mao did: when he took over, he started a pro-natalist program. Honest economists like Ma Yinchu were purged, women were encouraged to have six kids each, etc. Despite substantial rises in rice production, it was not enough to keep up with an exploding population, and China was miserably poor and on the verge of anarchy and collapse.

    In desperation the Chinese government instituted an about-face, and turned from an abusive pro-natalist policy to an abusive one-family one-child policy. THEN life for the average Chinese got, slowly but surely, better. Remember, it's not so much the number of people, as the rate of increase.

    It is indeed true that, as of today, China is a remarkable success story. Hundreds of millions lifted out of poverty, wages that are now substantially higher than Mexico's. Nevertheless, the horrors of the cultural revolution phase, and the strictures of the following one-child policy, where wholly un-necessary and a consequence of the communist ideology of treating people like cattle (though neoliberal capitalists are no better). I personally would grant most of China's current success to the pragmatist post-Mao leadership.

    Very good points:

    Missing the point, but not surprising, because it has been almost totally edited out of the public discussion.

    Here is the core of what Mao did: when he took over, he started a pro-natalist program. Honest economists like Ma Yinchu were purged, women were encouraged to have six kids each, etc.

    I personally would grant most of China’s current success to the pragmatist post-Mao leadership.

    Mao’s War Against Nature: Politics and the Environment in Revolutionary China (Studies in Environment and History) https://www.amazon.com/Maos-War-Against-Nature-Revolutionary/dp/0521786800

    Passage from a very good customer review of the book:

    When the president of Beijing University warned about the danger of rapid population growth, he was denounced and relieved of his responsibilities. Overpopulation could only be a problem in evil capitalist societies — never in a socialist paradise. China was already overpopulated in 1949, and it grew with spooky speed. Mao refused to believe the census numbers. In 1958, family planning programs were ended, and not resumed until 1971. Mao died in 1976, and in 1979, the one-child policy was implemented.

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/ROOXKIGOTP2RO/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0521786800

    Source: The very high fertility in the early 1950s and late 1960s corresponded well with Mao’s political dogma that a huge population would promote China’s military and political power. The high fertility caused the enormous population increase of modern China and is responsible for the huge momentum effect which is now incorporated in China’s age structure.
    http://www.china-profile.com/data/fig_WPP2010_TotPop_TFR.htm

    Coincidentally, just before this piece was published yesterday evening, I commented the following:

    I guess, technically Communism could/should also be classified as an organized religion, though.
    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/is-communism-really-dead/#comment-2045037

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Mao refused to believe the census numbers. In 1958, family planning programs were ended, and not resumed until 1971.
     
    That was at the height of the Cold War, after the Sino-Soviet split, after China had lost half a million men fighting the US in the Korean War, after the US had threatened war with China, before Nixon went to China and relations thawed. Mao would have been foolish to promote population reduction policies under such circumstances.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. aandrews says:
    @Peter Lund
    Hitler had such blue eyes. He was a painter, you know!

    He can never be forgiven, though, for what he did to the toothbrush moustache, as a men’s fashion statement.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Moi says:
    @jacques sheete

    I personalized his achievements because our media personalized his faults.
     
    They invariably magnify them as well.

    Very good article and well written. Love your responses too. I have to leave for bit, but would rather stay and join in the conversation here. It proves to be lively.

    Keep up the fine work and I hope we hear more from you!

    And always remember that no one really knows JS, but you're obviously a few cuts above the average.

    BTW, Hitler deserves to be rehabilitated too, because he was also subjected to the harebrained demonization similar to what Mao underwent, while Churchill and FDR need to be knocked off their perches.

    Illegitimi non carborundum...

    Agree totally. My grandfather, who was not white, was in the Berlin Olympics ’36 and experienced no racism–in or outside the Olympic village.

    If what was done to Germany after WW1 was done to the US, we’d put a halo around the person who could do for the US what Hitler did for Germany.

    But in our propaganda, Hitler=Holocaust.

    Americans tend to take a binary view of things, allowing for no shades of gray.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ragno
    In our propaganda, Hitler=Holocaust.

    Americans tend to take a binary view of things, allowing for no shades of gray.


    Uh, yeah...."Americans".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @mp
    @ godfree Roberts: In the Western sense, feminism is an anti-traditional, mostly Jewish, construct. This sort of thing had no counterpart in China, with the possible exception of the prior (to Mao) May Fourth Movement. But even that was a mixed bag.

    For his part, Mao was essentially a revolutionary opportunist whose liberal views on women did not particularly mirror anything reflected within his government, or his personal life. Had he lived longer, and had he been in better physical/mental condition, my guess is that he'd never have allowed the Jiang Qing clique their temporary triumph. As others have stated, once Mao was gone and the Gang of Four were retired, it was Deng who laid the groundwork for modern China--his Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. Women had some "rights," but they were not significantly included in government.

    It is my impression (for what it is worth) that the majority of Chinese are not happy with women leaders. Jiang Qing is remembered by the oldsters as the major force behind the disastrous CR, and newer Netcitizens are reminded by the fairly recent Gu Kailai affair, etc.

    Feminism (Western) will likely not take hold in China. Women work, and can make a lot of money. But there is too much tradition that mitigates against this family and nation destroying feminist ideology. One big reason it will not happen is that Chinese have not turned over their culture to an alien group whose intent is to dispossess the majority, as is the case in the West.

    People should give Mao more literary credit, especially for some slogans that I think basically every Chinese know to this day:

    造反有理! (Revolution is justified!) insofar as when things are bad thing, it is time to fight.

    枪杆子里面出政权 (Political power comes from the barrel of a gun!) aka all law comes ultimately from state violence

    Quite harmonious in sound and meaningful in message, he would probably made a decent poet. I understand Hitler would have possibly been a decent artist if his skill was allowed to be cultivated, too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. MarkinLA says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    It leaves me wondering why, decades after their deaths, they still command such a large and loyal following in their own countries. Could it be that the Russians and the Chinese know something about these men that we don’t?
     
    With due respect, this is a very poor argument in light of the power of propaganda.

    In the United States for instance we lionize the historical figures such as Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. who contributed to unleashing negro pandemonium on the country, despite all evidence of this experiment being overwhelmingly negative. The reason they're lionized is because of highly effective propaganda.

    Communists are apparently not as good at propaganda as capitalists, but they're not awful at it. And on top of that naturally who wishes to consider his country's past leadership as negative, particularly when that leadership had a role in founding the state?

    Asking Chinese to condemn Mao would be like asking Americans to condemn the Founding Fathers.

    Sure, Mao's record is considerably worse than that for the Founding Fathers, but many objections can be raised to any of the Founding Fathers (or even the entire enterprise of seceding from the British Empire).

    Hey, I was in Moscow and bought my Stalin T-shirt. It says (in Cyrillic) “Thank you Comrade Stalin for the wonderful childhood”. That may be sarcasm however.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. YOU DO HAVE TO LAUGH !
    Communist Apologist Godfree Roberts lives in Chiang Mai, Thailand, not the PRC !

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  91. Wally says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    I found one: http://www.china-profile.com/data/fig_WPP2010_L0_Boths.htm

    Strikes me as noteworthy that the steep, upward trajectory appears to begin at the end of the Great Leap Forward.

    Got it, thanks.

    Valid, damning point.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Joe Wong says:
    @Dan Hayes
    As stated on its masthead, the Unz Review aims to provide "Controversial Perspectives." This obviously is one of them!

    This article shedding positive light on Mao is “Controversial Perspectives” only to those who have a mindset belonging to the past, stalled in the old days colonialism, and constrained by zero-sum cold war mentality and beggar-thy-neighbour culture. To them China is some sort of Orwellian police state, China in their eyes is a caricature caricature – and any articles or comment must fit into that caricature of repression, lack of freedoms, and evil, for the articles or comments to make sense to themselves or anyone surrounding them.

    Meanwhile themselves are bombing, killing, warterboarding, stealing, ethnic cleansing, carrying out racial discrimination, regime changing, spewing out skillful propaganda, etc. on the fabricated phantom WMD allegations without repentance, they call it American exceptionalism, whatever USA does is necessary with the best intention.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    You are Wong again Joe*. I haven't read anyone complaining about an Orwellian police state in China nowadays, though they have some of it. Roberts' article is about China in the time of Chairman Mao, 1947 to 1976. During that time, if they had had the electronics we have today, it would have been worse than that imagined in Orwell's novel. During that time, America was the most free country the world had ever seen, excepting previous era America.

    You are confusing these different times in history, so this comment of yours does not relate well to the article in question, Joe.

    You criticisms of America, other than the silly "racist" angle, are all about things that are going on in the current era. I wouldn't argue about much of what you have to day there. Additionally, I have no problem pointing out the positives of modern-day China, especially as a comparison to America. An example is personal experience with Chinese free-market healthcare. More of it is described here, here, and here.



    * And I'll admit I was off by 3 years on the beginning of the one-child policy. I had thought that was still done during the time of the tyrant/butcher Chairman Mao. As it stands, overpopulation has been a problem for China for centuries. Do you all know that China had a larger population in the mid 1850's than American had EVEN now?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. utu says:
    @mp
    @ godfree Roberts: In the Western sense, feminism is an anti-traditional, mostly Jewish, construct. This sort of thing had no counterpart in China, with the possible exception of the prior (to Mao) May Fourth Movement. But even that was a mixed bag.

    For his part, Mao was essentially a revolutionary opportunist whose liberal views on women did not particularly mirror anything reflected within his government, or his personal life. Had he lived longer, and had he been in better physical/mental condition, my guess is that he'd never have allowed the Jiang Qing clique their temporary triumph. As others have stated, once Mao was gone and the Gang of Four were retired, it was Deng who laid the groundwork for modern China--his Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. Women had some "rights," but they were not significantly included in government.

    It is my impression (for what it is worth) that the majority of Chinese are not happy with women leaders. Jiang Qing is remembered by the oldsters as the major force behind the disastrous CR, and newer Netcitizens are reminded by the fairly recent Gu Kailai affair, etc.

    Feminism (Western) will likely not take hold in China. Women work, and can make a lot of money. But there is too much tradition that mitigates against this family and nation destroying feminist ideology. One big reason it will not happen is that Chinese have not turned over their culture to an alien group whose intent is to dispossess the majority, as is the case in the West.

    Chinese have not turned over their culture to an alien group whose intent is to dispossess the majority

    The alien group did not say the last word yet.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Joe Wong says:
    @Verymuchalive
    Certainly, Lenin didn't personally kill anyone either. The same holds for Stalin, I think. I'm sure Godfree ( who said Communist parents didn't have a sense of humour ! ) could write similar articles for these gentlemen.

    In 1981 (25 years after the event) Judith Banister at the US Bureau of the Census proposed 30 millions killed in the Great Leap Forward (GLF) based on her “massive death toll” hypothesis, this figure is the mother of all subsequent numbers when the westerns write about the GLF; Frank Dikotter quoted 45 millions murdered in the GLF to win the Samuel Johnson prize for non-fiction; recently Jung Chang and Jon Halliday said 70 millions killed in the GLF in their book “Mao: the Unknown Story.” All of them claimed their number based on secret sources in china. The latest number is 100 millions murdered in the GLF in some western current affairs analysis sites.

    Verymuchalive, how many do you believe deaths (or percentage) would attribute to polices of the Great Leap Forward?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    The millions killed by the Chinese Communist Party before, during and after the Second World War are certainly in the tens of millions. No definitive answer can be arrived at whilst the Chinese Communist Party still remains in power.
    , @godfree Roberts
    I address that in Part 2, next month
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Beckow says:

    “once Deng Xiaoping initiated his free-market reforms in 1978, first throughout the countryside and eventually in the smaller industrial enterprises of the coastal provinces”

    The question is whether Deng’s reforms were possible without the previous 30 years. By 1980 China had basic infrastructure, stability, basic needs for people were covered, etc…For example people were better educated, had better health. I don’t think Deng was possible without Mao.

    Read More
    • Agree: Mao Cheng Ji
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  96. markflag says:
    @pyrrhus
    It's going to take a lot of work for the author to explain away the wholesale executions of the middle class, such as nurses, doctors, and teachers, in the postwar period. And even more work to explain away the Cultural Revolution, regarded with horror by the Chinese people themselves...

    As the statues in the U.S. come down, as speech, including syntax and pronouns, is monitored, the U.S. is living the early days of the so-called cultural revolution. I’ve worked with some of the children of survivors of the red guard and cultural revolution. They are damaged as a result of the damage inflicted on their parents.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. >Foreign powers vilified him for his independence

    LOL. Please don’t insult the intelligence of people who know the, uh, “historical details”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  98. @Priss Factor
    That was the funniest shi* I ever read.

    I mean who's gonna be rehabilitated next? Stalin? Hitler?

    Please Stop!!

    ROTFL.

    Priss Factor says: • Website
    October 16, 2017 at 7:19 am GMT
    That was the funniest shi* I ever read.

    I mean who’s gonna be rehabilitated next? Stalin? Hitler?

    Please Stop!!

    ROTFL.

    George Bush.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    doubled China’s population from 542 million to 956 million

    This growth is actually quite low when compared with the population growth of other developing countries during the same time period. Based on those numbers (the 956m is higher than any other source I’ve seen), China’s population grew by 76% in a span of about 30 years. On the other hand, many Latin American countries grew by close to 150% in the same time period. Even Indonesia and India recorded a larger percentage of growth in population during this time period. Many of these countries had similarly high rises in life expectancy during this time period as well. I haven’t found any good data for national literacy rate increases for other countries that go back far enough to compare.

    Before laying all of the praise and none of the guilt at the feet of Mao, I would advise comparing China’s gains to those of similarly developing countries, in order to determine if China’s rising living conditions were unusual for a developing country at the time. It is also important to determine if the rising social development that did occur in China during this time period was the result of “Mao did it all!”, or if it was perhaps due to a wide range of other factors and people. OTOH, China’s rise in the four decades since Mao died is definitely unique and unparalleled among developing nations. Otherwise, this reads more like a colorful propaganda hit piece, the sort of which is all too common among the type of people of Roberts’ class. Three parts and then a book coming out? Why doesn’t that surprise me…

    Read More
    • Replies: @godfree Roberts
    I lay all of the praise and none of the guilt at the feet of Mao because, until now, writers have laid all of the guilt and none of the at the praise at the feet of Mao.

    It is normal to personify governments–the Reagan Years–for convenience. Nobody imagines that they performed all the functions themselves.

    Thank you for your comment on China's population growth vs other countries'. I had never thought to compare them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. hyperbola says:

    Let’s remember that the beginnings of such “revisionism” come from our very own totalitarian globalist criminals.

    David Rockefeller: “The Social Experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s Leadership is One of the Most Important and Successful in History.”

    http://historybud.com/david-rockefeller-the-social-experiment-in-china-under-chairman-maos-leadership-is-one-of-the-most-important-and-successful-in-history/

    Lets also remember what this same sort of “globalist totalitarianism” produced in the Soviet Union.

    Stalin’s Jews
    We mustn’t forget that some of greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish

    https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3342999,00.html

    Here’s a particularly forlorn historical date: Almost 90 years ago, between the 19th and 20th of December 1917, in the midst of the Bolshevik revolution and civil war, Lenin signed a decree calling for the establishment of The All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage, also known as Cheka.
    Within a short period of time, Cheka became the largest and cruelest state security organization. Its organizational structure was changed every few years, as were its names: From Cheka to GPU, later to NKVD, and later to KGB.
    We cannot know with certainty the number of deaths Cheka was responsible for in its various manifestations, but the number is surely at least 20 million, including victims of the forced collectivization, the hunger, large purges, expulsions, banishments, executions, and mass death at Gulags.
    Whole population strata were eliminated: Independent farmers, ethnic minorities, members of the bourgeoisie, senior officers, intellectuals, artists, labor movement activists, “opposition members” who were defined completely randomly, and countless members of the Communist party itself….

    And us, the Jews? An Israeli student finishes high school without ever hearing the name “Genrikh Yagoda,” the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century, the GPU’s deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD. Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin’s collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system. ….. In 1934, according to published statistics, 38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the Soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin. …. Turns out that Jews too, when they become captivated by messianic ideology, can become great murderers, among the greatest known by modern history.
    _______________________________________________________________
    Lets also remember who else the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations were supporting at the time.

    Eugenics and the Nazis — the California connection

    http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Eugenics-and-the-Nazis-the-California-2549771.php

    …. the concept of a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master Nordic race didn’t originate with Hitler. The idea was created in the United States, and cultivated in California, decades before Hitler came to power. California eugenicists played an important, although little-known, role in the American eugenics movement’s campaign for ethnic cleansing…. Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America’s most respected scientists from such prestigious universities as Stanford, Yale, Harvard and Princeton. These academicians espoused race theory and race science, and then faked and twisted data to serve eugenics’ racist aims….. The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz…..
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Lets ask ourselves why “godfree” doesn’t tell us who weas behind converting tens of millions of chinese to drug addicts.

    The Jewish Opium Trade and Britain

    http://satyricon20.tripod.com/sat33-Sassoon.htm

    Controller Houses Of The East India Company: EIC Series Part IV

    http://greatgameindia.com/controller-houses-east-india-company-eic-series-part-iv/

    _______________________________________________________________
    Lets remember how long these groups have been applying thought-control propaganda to Americans.

    The Science of Thought Control

    https://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/07/21/the-science-of-thought-control/

    The Century of the Self is a four part BBC documentary that delves deeply into the life and work of Sigmund Freud’s nephew Edward Bernays. Bernays was the first to perfect the science of thought control. In the political sphere, he referred to mass psychological manipulation as “engineering consent.” When he used propaganda and psychological manipulation to condition consumers to purchase products, he called it “public relations.”….

    and lets remember that the “chosen people” are becoming ever more flagrant in that kind of abuse of Americans (and Aussies, Brits, …. ).

    No joke! Meet Obama’s new ‘nudge’ czar
    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/no-joke-meet-obamas-new-nudge-czar/#B4B1wjCzVIH21oWl.99
    ___________________________________________________________________

    Sorry, but this article reads like more thought-control from the sect and its lackeys.

    Read More
    • Replies: @godfree Roberts
    "this article reads like more thought-control from the sect and its lackeys."

    The article is a string of publicly available facts (or assertions) accompanied by evidence in support of them.

    What the hell does that have to do with thought-control, sects or lackeys?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Joe Wong says:
    @Langley
    Mao said that "killing ten million people" was nothing compared to the good he would accomplish.

    https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE2.HTM

    There seems to be a concerted effort to rehabilitate the mass murderers of the last century.

    The Europeans including their offshoots is where is now, still filthy rich (although always complaining), because of those hundreds of millions of people all over the world who were robbed and murdered, those who become victims of their very madness of colonialism and orientalism, of the crusades and the slave and Opium trades. Cathedrals and palaces, museums and theaters, train stations – all had been constructed on horrid foundations of bones and blood, and amalgamated by tears. There were so many centuries of plunder that the acts of looting the world for the sole benefit of the few, turned into inseparable part of the ‘Western existence and culture’, something that gets almost never addressed, let alone criticized.

    Yeah, anybody who dares to expose such dark truth about the White who claims they are civilized, they are the final form of civilization is a bad thing, and anything that can make China escape the dark age of unequal treaties imposed on her by the barbaric and greedy western imperialists is also a bad thing. The concerted effort to keep the ‘Western existence and culture’ never addressed, let alone criticized, remains strong and relentless.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    So, do you get 五毛 per word or per post?
    , @Thorfinnsson
    Let's grant that your premise is correct--that our wealth is founded upon plunder and pillage of colored peoples.

    Should I feel bad about that?

    If anything, it makes me feel proud that we vanquished and subjugated an entire world.
    , @Lemurmaniac
    We're not going to bother about who did what to whom, we've overcome that. We're not sorry!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. Despite a brutal U.S. blockade on food, finance and technology, and without incurring debt, Mao grew China’s economy by an average of 7.3 percent annually, compared to America’s postwar boom years’ 3.7 percent.

    Considering that Chinese population growth was around 1.5% points higher than America’s during this period, plus the more significant fact that it was growing from an extremely low base, this is not at all impressive.

    Why not compare it with actually comparable countries like Taiwan or South Korea? I think we all know the answer to that.

    Graph of Chinese literacy over time:

    Seems to be around 50% if not higher by 1949, which implies that elementary schooling had become near universal under the Guomindang.

    I suspect that as in the USSR virtually all these commie “achievements” will unravel once you start closely combing the historical statistics.

    Read More
    • Agree: Vinteuil
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  103. Vinteuil says:

    “Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, all the kings of Europe, Napoleon, Bismarck, Lenin–no predecessor can equal Mao…”

    You mean, for biggest dick of all time?

    Possibly – but only ’cause you left out Ghengis Khan.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  104. @Joe Wong
    The Europeans including their offshoots is where is now, still filthy rich (although always complaining), because of those hundreds of millions of people all over the world who were robbed and murdered, those who become victims of their very madness of colonialism and orientalism, of the crusades and the slave and Opium trades. Cathedrals and palaces, museums and theaters, train stations – all had been constructed on horrid foundations of bones and blood, and amalgamated by tears. There were so many centuries of plunder that the acts of looting the world for the sole benefit of the few, turned into inseparable part of the ‘Western existence and culture’, something that gets almost never addressed, let alone criticized.

    Yeah, anybody who dares to expose such dark truth about the White who claims they are civilized, they are the final form of civilization is a bad thing, and anything that can make China escape the dark age of unequal treaties imposed on her by the barbaric and greedy western imperialists is also a bad thing. The concerted effort to keep the ‘Western existence and culture’ never addressed, let alone criticized, remains strong and relentless.

    So, do you get 五毛 per word or per post?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Wong
    Chieh, Chinese bloggers are here to protest when China is portrayed unfairly, to rebuke lies told about China, to correct distorted facts fabricated for China, to clear smear painted on China, as well as to expose the lies told about 'Western existence and culture.' Don't you feel truth should be told and lies should be exposed? Perhaps you feel such honesty is an offense to your adoring living god, the White, who might strike you to hell, so you need to show your loyalty preemptively?
    , @Peter Lund
    That's the first time I've understood a pun in Chinese :)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Ivan K. says: • Website

    Godfree Roberts: [I]n life, Mao stood effortlessly, head and shoulders above them all, chastening or dismissing them at will while exhausting them with societal upheavals that required a level of heroic exertion that would have killed or maddened lesser men.

    According to Paul Theroux in Riding the Iron Rooster (1986), the Chinese tend to think that Mao became mentally ill in the 1950s.

    Read More
    • Replies: @godfree Roberts
    Paul would know, of course. (As would hundreds of world leaders who spent time with him after 1950–NOT ONE of whom made any such assertion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. map says:
    @Beckow
    To call it 'controversial' is evasive and shows inability to understand the way the world works. Our past is full of suffering, injustice and famines. And one can describe most of human history as one long 'economic mis-management'. What matters is how most people live. And not what a few frustrated, absurdist intellectuals feel, or the formerly rich who lose out.

    In 1945, China was substantially worse off than India: poorer, backward, lacking in everything. Then China got Mao and India got a bunch of 'liberal' talkers. Today China is head and shoulders above India in terms of development and overall quality of life. And suffering? If you count apples as apples, there has been as much famine and injustice in India as in China.

    I understand that evaluating post-WWII revolutions (or 'communism') is hard because of the extreme visibility all screw-ups and oppression were given in the Western media and consciousness. After all it was 'the enemy' so it had to be demonised. And the victims were mostly high-visibility and often exiles living bitter lives in the West.

    But the massive and very successful transformation of China is simply not something that one can dismiss as 'controversial'. It was real - more people than ever in history dramatically improved their lives. And this is true also for most places in eastern Europe. If you look at the data, you see the same pattern: suddenly after hundreds of years of incredible poverty and brutal oppression, regular people started to live normal lives with housing, jobs, education, medical care, basic safety, etc... And it happened within 1-2 generations.

    Would it had happened anyway? Was the dramatic 1950-90 improvement for so many, so fast, going to happen regardless of the revolutions? Were the elites after hundreds of years of no interest in how most people lived suddenly going to change on their own? Yeah, sure they were. Right.

    What a ridiculous argument.

    Do you not realize that killing off surplus populations of useless eaters will always lead to better lives for those that remain alive? There is nothing remarkable about doing this and nothing prescient about Mao resorting to these means. The results would always be positive.

    That is all Mao did…get rid of the surplus population of the useless. The remainder that survived the purges would then enjoy a much higher standard of living because per capita GDP is going up.

    Duh!!

    Russia did really well under Communism by repudiating the debts they owed and killing off the surplus population. Germany did really well under Hitler by repudiating debts and getting rid of the surplus population. There is nothing remarkable about this.

    Here is a thought experiment.

    Just imagine if America could get rid of its useless population. Imagine how much better America would be? The remaining population of 220 million would be living in a wealthy and peaceful paradise.

    Recoiling in horror at Mao is due to the fact that one does not want to live in a State where you had a substantial chance of being killed by your own government in peacetime. Who care how well the survivors will live?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    "That is all Mao did…get rid of the surplus population of the useless"
     
    No, that's not at all what happened. Your idea is another one of the bulls..t memes that pop into many Westerners heads about things they know nothing. Lazy, semi-educated minds lacking real experience tend to have shallow stereotypical thoughts like that.

    I can point you to demographic data, etc... but I suspect that it wouldn't help. You are not interested in learning what really happened.

    One part of your argument that I agree with is that repudiating debts was very helpful to Russia after 1917. But they were also kept from any Western credit until 1980's. So there are two sides to that story (small exception was WWII for military equipment). But discharging debts is incredible liberating for any country, or a person - that's why it happens again and agin in history. The Bolshevik revolution was worth it just for getting rid of debts.

    Mao built modern China. Most of the population benefitted dramatically, probably 80-90%. Some didn't. All we hear is about the ones who didn't. The article points out that in historical perspective, the 1950-90 years were actually incredibly successful. There is no way any objective person could deny that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. @Joe Wong
    In 1981 (25 years after the event) Judith Banister at the US Bureau of the Census proposed 30 millions killed in the Great Leap Forward (GLF) based on her “massive death toll” hypothesis, this figure is the mother of all subsequent numbers when the westerns write about the GLF; Frank Dikotter quoted 45 millions murdered in the GLF to win the Samuel Johnson prize for non-fiction; recently Jung Chang and Jon Halliday said 70 millions killed in the GLF in their book “Mao: the Unknown Story.” All of them claimed their number based on secret sources in china. The latest number is 100 millions murdered in the GLF in some western current affairs analysis sites.

    Verymuchalive, how many do you believe deaths (or percentage) would attribute to polices of the Great Leap Forward?

    The millions killed by the Chinese Communist Party before, during and after the Second World War are certainly in the tens of millions. No definitive answer can be arrived at whilst the Chinese Communist Party still remains in power.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Wong
    Are you saying the American have been lying all along, they lies about the present, about the past, even about the future, they lie day and night, relentlessly? And American's lies have never been exposed because the American enforce their lies as given truth with bombing, killing and waterboarding on the fabricated phantom WMD allegations as humanitarian intervention?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @godfree Roberts
    Did I lie? Were any of my statements incorrect? Or are you offended because you were unfamiliar with this information?

    In other words, what's your problem?

    Did I lie? Were any of my statements incorrect? Or are you offended because you were unfamiliar with this information?

    Mr. Roberts, your problem is deeper and simpler than your use of facts or data. It’s your mindset.

    This here blog says you grew up in Australia(and later moved to the US and then to Thigh-land).

    http://godfreeroberts.blogspot.com/

    You see, you still have the British Imperial Mindset. So, your Maoitis is simply a symptom of a deeper disease. Now, British Mindset can be healthy, but anything can grow cancerous. And boy, has the Anglo-mindset gotten cancerous lately. (A still healthy kind can be found in John Derbyshire even though he too suffers from the negative side of the BIM or British Imperial Mindset.)

    Now, you will surely object and ask, “How can I have BIM when I spent much of my time in the US? And how can I be BIM-ish when I’m praising the anti-imperialist freedom fighter Mao?”

    Well, your formative yrs were spent in Australia that never had a real national identity. Even as independent nation, it continued to be defined by colonial mindset. Formative yrs are very important. So, you’ve been infected with BIM all your life.

    Also, mindset is ‘structurally’ deeper than mere belief systems. So, even if someone like you rejects British Imperial Ideology, the mindset — habits of thinking and emoting — still remain BIM-ish. It’s like even Chinese communists who rejected Confucianism remained, on some level, very Confucian in their way of thinking. And it’s like even post-Christian whites in Europe remain puritanical with their PC. To some extent, mindset is genetic. Negroes tend to have the Bongo-mindset. Look at Negroes anywhere in the world and they live in a World of Sheeeeeiiiit. But some mindsets are cultural. I don’t think there’s much genetic difference between Chinese and Japanese, but Japanese mindset is different — moral ‘anal’ — due to cultural factors… though it could be genetic. In Japan, samurai cut off heads of anyone who got out of line, so more wolfish genes got weeded out. That may account for the sheepish manners of Japanese.

    Given the structural factors of BIM, even Anglos with very different ideologies can have similar attitudes and styles of outlook. It’s like two Jews can disagree on ideology but still share the JHM or Jewish-Hyper-Mentality. It’s like Neocons and Liberal Zionists can disagree on ideas but still approach the world with a restless anxious outlook.

    British Imperial Mindset is an odd blend of several attitudes, sensibilities, and perspectives. And it is this fusion of contradictory tendencies that had led to the current neurosis in people like yourself.

    BIM is arrogant. It’s like the scene in HOPE AND GLORY where a teacher tells students that the British Empire rules 2/5th of the empire.

    [MORE]

    Now, YOU may deny having such attitude since you praise Mao the anti-imperialist… BUT, you still retain the arrogance of superior knowledge. It’s not enough to say Mao did some good things or wasn’t totally bad. No, you have to say he was 100% good. It’s just BIM in action. It’s like you pointing to the blackboard and asking students, ‘what percentage of Mao was good?’ The answer is of course 100%. Richard Dawkins and JK Rohwling have the same kind of hoity-toity know-all-ness. Godfree being Australian, you’d think he’d be more common-sensical like Crocodile Dundee and Mad Max, but all that book-learning got to him, esp in radical California.

    So, even after the Brits lost their empire, their imperial mindset remained in some corner of their psyche. They still like to make Grand Pronouncements to the world, so as to speak. And your Bold Pronouncement is that Mao was 100% jolly good, old boy. It’s like you’re the 007 of Mao’s secret service.

    Another aspect of British Imperial Mindset is the Adventurous Outlook. Brits became expert sea-voyagers and conquerors. And you have some of that mentality. You got financially wiped out but decided on something adventurous… like settle in Thigh-land.

    And I’ll bet a part of you love doing the John-Milius-Fantasy bit. The Great White Man among the natives. THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING(on retirement). The Brits got so good at discovering and conquering much of the world that they find excitement in men of adventure. So, BIM tends to identify with excitement and crises. We see this is LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. Lawrence the fruit adventurer finds the Arab rebellion thrilling. Instead of just serving God, King, and Country, he gets to play the role of god, king, and savior to the Arabs. Of course, his adventure comes with great contradictions. He sees himself as a modern-day prophet, a white muhammad leading the Arabs to freedom and liberty. He believes himself to be writing his own fate and destiny. But he is a pawn moved about by his imperialist superiors. And on some level, he is an agent of British Imperialism even as he leads the Arabs against it but then also for it. After all, it is in British interest that the Arabs rise up against the Turks. As Lawrence sees it, the Arabs shouldn’t stop at fighting the Turks but also resist British and French attempts to gain control over Arabia. But he must also know that the British Empire has the power to turn off the spigot just as easily it was turned on. The empire will provide water for warfare as long as Arabs kill Turks. But once Arabs challenge British rule? Turn off the water. Lawrence is an idealist but also a liar. He willfully deluded himself that he was serving the Arabs when he must have known that it would turn out differently. Also, the Arab of his imagination is a fantasy. Real Arabs are a little people who can’t create an ocean of power since each side guards its own tribal wells. As Lawrence sees it, the desert can be like an ocean for all Arabs. But in the end, Arab tribalism remains and it is easily manipulated by the West… as still happens to this day.

    BIM is a funny thing. Even when it goes in to humble-pie mode, it has to bake the cake in MacArthur’s Park. It’s like Bowie in MERRY X-MAS MR. LAWRENCE. He is racked with guilt over something that happened to his brother, so how does he redeem himself? By playing the christ role. Roberts’ cake is melting in the rain.

    Now, the contradictory nature of Lawrence can be seen in many Anglos with BIM. There are elements of adventurism, egotism, worship of power, and obedience & humility. After all, despite his big ego, Lawrence was also a good soldier who did, in the end, dutifully serve the British Empire.

    When the British Empire was around, people like Godfree Roberts could support the empire to satisfy their need for adventure, great-power-worship, and humility. A British imperialist had to be a combination of ego and servitude. The ego of being part of a great empire provided pride, courage, and the will. But values of humility and servitude made him a disciplined soldier or agent who worked as a team and ultimately did what he did for something bigger than himself: God, King or Queen, Country, Empire, Tea and Crumpets.

    But that empire is no more. It’s like what the traitor says in TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY.

    With the decline and fall of empire, the BIM needed something to latch onto. For some, it was pro-Americanism. It was the idea that the US was really the child of UK. So, what was good for America was good for Britain, its closest ally(now replaced by Israel, Israel, Israel).
    But for others, it was anti-Americanism. Since there was no more British Empire to play rival of US power, the thing was to side with ANY power opposed to Americanism.

    In the end, both streams more or less ended up in the same pool of globalism as both global capitalism and global leftism came to be dominated by Jewish globalists. For those who went pro-American, it’s all about praising Wall Street, Hollywood, and Wars for Israel. For those who went anti-American, it’s all about praising homos and Diversity… funded by the same globalists who support Wall Street and Israel.

    So, we have Godfree Roberts of the Australian School of BIM. There is no more empire, but he feels a need to admire and praise something big and strong. And he sees it in Mao and China. China seems like the rising new empire, and Mao was like its emperor. So, there is a lot of servile power-worship on the part of Roberts. This servitude is one part of BIM. It’s like the guy who takes umbrage at an American journalist’s cynical remark about Lawrence.

    BENTLEY
    He was also the most shameless
    exhibitionist since Barnum and Bailey.

    MAN
    You, sir. Who are you?

    BENTLEY
    My name is Jackson Bentley.

    MAN
    Well, whoever you are, I overheard your
    last remark and I take the gravest
    possible exception. He was a very great
    man.

    BENTLEY
    Did you know him?

    MAN
    No, sir. I can’t claim to have known him.
    I once had the honour to shake his hand
    in Damascus.

    You see, the man never knew Lawrence but the Great Man shook his hand once, and he feels honored to have been in his presence.

    And Godfree Roberts has the same mentality in relation to Mao. He doesn’t care about the Mao the Man. He’s enthralled with Mao the Myth just like Americans worship MLK the myth that has nothing to do with the man. The real MLK was Fartin’ Poother Bling, a lying cheat and thug. But that’s just how myths go. There are plenty of morons who worship Tupac as some kind of messiah. And Eminem the demento is supposed to be some kind of prophet.

    Godfree Roberts is too old to admire rappers, so he looks to the giants of his youth, and Mao was one of them. He was the Revolutionary Gangsta. To be sure, Che is the safer bet for this kind of adulation. As Che died before he did any real damage — he failed — , he can’t be blamed for mass tyranny and murder, which surely would have followed communist takeover of Latin America.

    BIM is addicted to greatness and adventure. Even John Derbyshire ended up in China at one time. But BIM is also into servitude to a higher glory. This is why British soldiers were such great fighters. They were willing to sacrifice their lives to God, King or Queen, Country, the espirit de corps(even as they turned into spirits departing corpses). Look at the discipline of British soldiers as they march in battle in BARRY LYNDON.

    In a way, the man with biggest ego tend not to be the best warrior. After all, an egotist wants to live and others to serve him. Why should he stick his neck out if it could mean death? It’s like Italians have big egos and talk big. But when faced with danger, they poop their pants and run like a mofo to hide under mama’s dress to survive. Mussolini ran in the end like a rat.
    To be a good soldier, your own ego must be suppressed and be made to serve a higher glory. It could be queen or country. Or it could be a sense of camaraderie. Brits were very mindful of how OTHERS thought of them. This is why Lord Jim freaks out. He chickened out and can’t live with the shame. In contrast, an Italian or Greek has no such shame. They act like #1 and act big and tough and manly but when the going gets tough, they act like the Latino in RAIDERS. Esp them lowlife Greeks. Mafia has to stress honor precisely because no one has any.

    Among the British, self-ego was suppressed to be part of a Greater Good and Glory. Consider the men in ZULU and how they fight to the end. If they were Italian or Greek, they would have run like a mothafuc*a and got on the first ship back to Italy or Greece. And even if the deaths are wasteful in GALLIPOLI, those are brave soldiers.
    And yet, British bravery was also built on cowardice. Brits were more fearful of being shunned than dying. If Lord Jim were an Italian, his attitude would have been, “who cares what others think? I’m alive and I’m gonna go home and eat mama’s pastas and go out and pinch women’s asses.” But the BIM works differently. Brits are fearful and cowardly in face of what others thinks. So a Brits prefers to DIE than be looked down upon. And this mindset is behind both the brave soldiers in ZULU & GALLIPOLI and in the current demise of UK under Afro-Islamic colonization. Today’s Brit is so fearful of being called ‘racist’ and being looked down upon that he will bravely face death by demographic imperialism of the darkies. He would rather go down with the ship than be called a ‘coward’. In contrast, a craven Italian or Greek captain will be the first one to jump a sinking ship. This is why I say BIM has gotten cancerous. In the past, it was harnessed to take over the world. Now, it’s is leading to demise of UK.

    Anyway, there is a kind of BIM mentality in both Derbyshire and Godfree.
    Just like Godfree feels a need to admire and praise Great Mao, Derbyshire is also into hero-worship.

    Now, Jared has no greater admirer than me. As I have told him myself: If our republic survives, there will be statues to Jared in public squares one day.

    Rule, Tayloria! Tayloria, rule the waves!
    Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

    I find myself wondering again, for the umpteenth time, why shallow mediocrities like David Brooks or John Podhoretz have high-paid opinionating slots at major mainstream publications while Steve’s material is out beyond the fringes of respectability.

    Rule, Saileria! Saileria, rule the waves!
    Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

    That hymn is interesting. It says Brits shall never be slaves, but British Freedom is ensured by a certain slavishness on the part of Brits. While Anglos pioneered individualism, it came with the caveat of the willingness to self-sacrifice for the common good. It balanced the grasshopper with the ant. And we see this contradiction in movies about British Education, at least until Pink Floyd destroyed it with ‘We don’t need no education’.

    After all, if a society had two options, which is preferable?

    Option #1 forbids freedom and forces everyone to do the right thing. And everyone does the right and proper thing and society survives and even thrives.

    Option #2 allows freedom to individuals and individuals freely choose to do the wrong thing and mess things up royally like Negroes in Detroit or hillbillies addicted to meth as the new moonshine.

    Now, we all like freedom, but wouldn’t tyranny and survival be preferable to freedom and demise?

    But what if there is a third option? Suppose there is freedom and suppose individuals freely do the right thing and society thrives and survives. But how could such a society be created when individuals, when allowed to be free, so often act foolish?

    The solution is to deny freedom to young ones. Educate them, work them hard, discipline them. Force them to attend school where teachers instill in them proper values and manners. And then let them graduate to a higher freedom. After all, if clay is to turn into a pottery, it has to be molded and then heated. If allowed to remain clay-ish, the pottery will fall apart in rain or crack in sunlight. So, British adult freedom was founded on strict molding of the young ones. Later social critics saw this as cruel and inhuman, but the only way individual freedom could be constructive was by molding the young ones to be respectable, dignified, and reasonably deferential to traditional, authority, and all that. That way, even if freed, they would act properly. It’s like dogs have to be trained before they are allowed to run around without a leash. An untrained dog has to remain on leash.
    Sadly, this model has vanished in the West. Pop Culture encourages children to act like total louts and whores and punks and thugs. PC tells kids that white teachers are oppressors. Blacks in schools see anything ‘white’ as weak, wussy, and punkass. People of Color are indoctrinated with resentment for whiteness, and that means white traditions and institutions that made the Modern World possible are denigrated. Girls are not raised to be proper respectable women but whores and sluts or Oleannic demento-bitches. Imagine if Pat Buchanan had been raised by a single mother who whores around with Negroes and her homo friends. He might have an earring, tattoos on his ass, and be rapping like Eminem. Boomer parenting was disastrous but maybe it goes back further. Maybe Greatest Gen parenting was too lax and materialistic. After all, it’s Archie Bunker who raised the insipid Gloria, and Meathead is the son of ‘Polack’ GG parents.

    With PC having it made it taboo for whites to admire their own identity and tradition, whites with BIM are latching onto the Other as something to serve. So, UK is now into worship of the Negro. BBC’s official line is white blokes must worship the Big Negro Dong. BBC features white women worship the Great Negro as the new ideal. Among Canada and Australia, the worship is for Great Asia. Let Anglo-nations be handed over to People of Dot and People of Dog(eating) on a silver platter. What lunacy.

    And we now have Godfree Roberts rhapsodizing about Mao when he should be worrying about how to save the white race from Negroes, People of Dot, and People of Dog. His mindset is still in the mode of BIM. He thinks bigly in imperial terms. After all, even though Mao kicked out the imperialists, he ruled China like a new emperor and Maoism was once promoted around the world as something like new muhammadism, the Chinese heresy of islam-communism as rebellion against chrito-communism of the Soviet Union.

    So, Godfree has to be free himself of this silly BIM. When Australia is about to be overrun by People of Dot, People of Dog, Muslim crazies, and Sudanese thugs who go around kicking white butt, what is Godfree doing living in Thigh-land and singing East is Red?

    Anglos were at their best with their race-ism. Race-ism ultimately saved both Anglo-nations and non-white nations under Anglo rule. It led to the transference of best Anglos ideas to non-white world and creating new business/trade opportunities while maintaining racial and cultural integrity of both worlds. Because Anglo race-ism abhorred race-mixing, there was less mixing between Brits and their non-white subjects. This was good for the subjects cuz it meant their womenfolk were less sexually conquered by Anglos. In contrast, the race-mixing Latinos changed the bloodline of the natives of Latin America forever. And they also messed up white bloodlines. This made it near-impossible for natives of ‘Latin America’ to rise up and kick out the Spanish imperialists. With so many people with mixed-blood, they didn’t know if they were white or Indio.
    In contrast, Anglo race-ism ensured that most darkies keep their racial integrity. So when the time came for resistance and national liberation, it was easy for Asians, Africans, or other people to unify and kick out the Brits. Why do Han Chinese promote race-mixing with Tibetans and Uighurs? They are trying to do what the Hispanics and Portuguese did to the natives of the Americas.

    Another thing about the Anglos was they were snobbish and sneering, and this was also good for the non-white natives. It prevented their full cooperation and collaboration with the British Empire. Many non-white elites studied in Britain and wanted to be accepted in the white world. And had they been allowed in, they never would have returned home and become national leaders. Even as Brits educated these non-whites to serve the empire, they also always made sure that non-white elites understood who was the real boss. So, even an educated Hindu was a ‘wog’, an educated Chinese was ‘chinaman’, and educated African was a ‘coon’, sometimes accented with ‘bloody’. This made it impossible for someone like Gandhi to serve the empire. I mean he was there in Africa serving the British Empire to control the Negroes but the whites were calling him a ‘wog’ too. He took it personally, and he decided to lead his own people. Same with Lee Kuan Yew. He had great admiration from the Brits and learned much from them. But the Brits must also have called him ‘chinaman’ at some point, and he became a great leader over his own kind.

    So, if the Anglos really wanna do the world a favor, they should become race-ist once again. That way, the non-white elites will be less likely to serve globalism and go back to their nations and be good nationalists once again. It’s like what the great uncle Victor says in HAROLD AND MAUDE.

    And so I ask you – why the hell did
    we give up on the Germans? Those
    damn politicians in Washington
    chalked them up on our side and the
    wars ever since have been a national
    disgrace. Hell, look at history.
    The two best wars this country has
    fought were against the Jerries.
    Now I say, get the Krauts on the
    other side of the fence where they
    belong, and let’s get back to the
    kind of enemy worth killing and the
    kind of war this whole country can
    support.

    When the ‘krauts’ were on the other side, things were so much simpler. And the world would be simpler and things would be clearer if Anglos were race-ists. Then, non-Anglo world could learn good ideas from Anglos and fix their own nations. That way, their own nations would improve and Anglo nations would remain white. Everyone wins. But today, Anglo mode is both neo-imperialist and apologetic-suicidal. Anglo-America calls itself ‘exceptional’ and ‘indispensable’, a new jingoism. But supposedly, the New America is so great cuz it’s about ‘diversity’. It’s all so confusing. Also, even though Anglosphere is still the richest and most powerful part of the world, it’s not even ruled by Anglos anymore but by Jewish globalists and their homo allies whose main object of worship is the homo anus and the Negro dong and black woman’s ass ‘twerking’. Yes, ‘twerk’ is now part of Western Culture. Anglo-world from Work Ethic to Twerk Antic.

    Anyway, what about Mao?

    Godfree’s Mao-worship is nothing new. Indeed, such opinions and lit were commonplace prior to the 80s. I went to college in mid 80s and a lot of book on Russia, China, and etc were from 60s and 70s. Most China Scholars prior to the 80s had very limited access to Chinese affairs, and much of it depended on Chinese sources or CIA estimates that later proved to be very wrong. Also, most China Scholars were on the left and sympathetic to communists. My professor told me he was a student in the late 50s and his professors all dismissed reports of famine in China as Taiwanese propaganda. Read most books on China on 60s and 70s and, even as they admit Mao was a tyrant, they talk glowingly of progress.

    But then, China opened up in the 80s and the full extent of the horrors poured out from so many sources. Also, Westerners had freer access to people, voices, and accounts in China. Prior to that, every Westerner was carefully shown Potemkin village versions of China. A good book on this is Steven Mosher’s CHINA MISPERCEIVED. Now, over the yrs, Mosher became overly anti-Chinese and is dismissive of EVERYTHING done by the CCP, but his book details how so many Western scholars and reporters were fooled, not least because their political sympathies wanted to be duped(like so many sympathizers, left or right, were fooled by Soviet Union and Nazi Germany).

    https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-465-09805-7

    As for Robert’s stats showing economic growth under China, much of it seems based on outdated and discredited data. When Mao died, Time magazine, relying on CIA sources, said China’s economic growth under communism had been ‘staggering’. We are talking about a nation where a car factory might churn out 100 cars a year. It was a nation of bicycles called the Flying Pigeon.

    Also, some of the achievements of Mao would have happened under Chiang. Mao had the advantage of unity, stability, and peace. Chiang never got a chance because he had to deal with Japanese invasion and then lost the Civil War. But the fact is much had been done during the Nanking Decade from 1927 to 1937 and if China hadn’t end up fighting Japan, much more could have been done. Sure, Chiang’s way wasn’t to drive out the imperialists overnight, but he knew time was on his side. If China kept developing and gaining greater economic might, the foreigners would eventually have to return their territories. Also, the foreigners could be useful in facilitating greater trade between China and the rest of the world. After all, wasn’t it good for China that Mao didn’t kick out the imperialists in Hong Kong? Those HK’ers later taught so much to Mainland Chinese. And Taiwan’s independence also turned out to be beneficial to China. Many Taiwanese succeeded in capitalism and later, with many other overseas Chinese, invested heavily in China.

    If Chiang could have avoided war with Japan or had he prevailed over Communists in the Civil War, he would surely have done much more for China. He too wanted to end the opium epidemic. He also believed in Westernization. He also believed in modernization. Indeed, individuals and women in Taiwan and Hong Kong lived with more freedom and dignity than women in China. To be sure, Taiwanese and HKer’s didn’t have national dignity as Taiwan as protectorate of US and HK was whore of UK. But UK wasn’t such a bad pimp. Check out NOBLE HOUSE.

    Chiang was a sort of a Christo-Confucian fascist. He converted to Christianity, respected Confucian traditions and hierarchy. But he also believed in reforms and modernization. He sought to balance the left and right, past and future. But he never got a chance. The war with Japan ruined him. And he was prescient. He feared that if KMT fights Japan, it would be crushed and it would give the commies a second chance. His fears were borne out by events. Mao came to power ONLY BECAUSE Japan crushed KMT that was pushed to the south. With KMT and Japan exhausting one another, the commies waited for their opportunity, and they took it when WWII ended and Japan retreated, esp as Soviet occupiers of North China handed over so much to the Commies.

    Was the KMT corrupt? Yes, very, but in some ways, it was a sign of health. It meant bad use of freedom but it still meant freedom. In contrast, the communists were pure and far less corrupt, BUT there was no freedom at all. It was a iron-fisted world of spartan ruthlessness. Chiang trusted his followers because he didn’t like to be cruel or paranoid. He could be ruthless when necessary but it was not something he exulted in. IN contrast, Mao loved violence and he purged his own men who’d served him loyally over and over. This process ensured no spies among the communists and total devotion to Mao. In contrast, Chiang’s humane tolerance did lead to more corruption and also more communist spies in KMT. Indeed, it turned out KMT was filled with commie spies because Chiang was overly nice and trusting.

    Mao did have Great Man qualities. His path to power from son of farmer to ruler of China is the most epic story in the 20th century. Hitler’s path to power was relatively easy. He won elections with backing of rich Germans. Lenin and Trotsky led the revolution and then Stalin the bureaucrat took over. But Mao was at the center from the beginning of communism of China to his victory in 1949. So, there’s no doubt he had a lot of intelligence, a kind of political vision, and shrewdness. But he was also a boor, a vulgarian, and a fool. He was arrogant, vindictive, cruel, and nasty. Or just plain childish. He had a great opportunity after Stalin died. Khrushchev wanted to reboot relations on good terms. He visited China, but Mao kept trying to drown him like a water polo ball in a the swimming pool. Khrush could hardly swim and this freaked him out. And Mao kept blowing smoke in his face even though Khrush didn’t smoke. I mean here’s Khrush, leader of the other great superpower, trying to make nice with Mao, and Mao is acting like the king of the hillbillies. The main reason for Sino-Soviet rift was Mao’s a**hole behavior and egotism as he wanted to be the new leader of the communist world after Stalin died. Now, had Mao been more sensible, the communist world could have been greatly strengthened. If Chinese manpower and Russian knowhow and resources could have been combined, communism would have been stronger(even if ultimately doomed cuz it’s not a good system). But instead, Mao’s megalomania led to the rift and the Soviets and Chinese were working AGAINST one another than for each other.

    Another thing that Mao messed up royally was talent. Communists had lots of talent. Indeed, one of Chiang’s complaints was that so many of the Best and the Brightest of the Chinese went over to the Communists. So many educated and idealistic Chinese were so angry with Japan and Western powers that they wanted to join a great movement for national liberation and progress. And many were drawn to the communists. Zhou Enlai, Liu Shaochi, Deng Xiaoping, and many others were men of great intelligence and ability. Even with communism being ultimately a bad system, the fact is there was enough talent in the CCP for it to make considerable progress if Mao hadn’t gotten in the way. Mao knew guerrilla warfare and leadership, but he was unfit to rule and manage. Stalin was cruel, but he had bureaucratic patience and diligence to get things done, which is why USSR did make great leaps in industry(even if at huge human cost). Mao was too impatient for gradual progress in economics. Instead of letting things develop organically, he carried out campaigns that, more often than not, did more harm than good. Like the idiotic idea about getting rid of sparrows. The mass culling of sparrows was like playing chess like a retard. It’s like going for short-term gain of a piece while falling into a trap of checkmate. Killing sparrows meant fewer birds eating crops, but it also meant fewer birds eating bugs that eat many more crops. But Mao’s hysterical view of progress didn’t allow for complexity and nuance.
    Many idealistic intellectuals, teachers, scientists, doctors, engineers, and managers joined Communist China. Even the Chinese atomic bomb owed to Chinese engineers trained in the US who returned out of patriotism and idealism. But Mao sent so many educated people to carry dung in farms. A backward nation like China needed all the talent it could gather to do scientific and technological stuff. But Mao used many of them badly, esp during the Cultural Revolution that also destroyed so much art and culture.
    Now, there was a theme in communism that was good for China. A corrupted version of Confucianism had created a culture of snobbery, contempt, and elitism among the rich and educated. And surely, Mao suffered many such slights as a farmboy in the city. The ‘better kind’ of people never took him seriously. So, communism emphasis on the dignity of farmers and workers was good. But did Mao have to send educated people to carry pig shi*? What a total waste.
    Worse, some of these people were driven to suicide or were tortured to death because they refused to admit guilt to some false accusation.

    As for all the achievements of Mao’s China, let’s compare them with developments in other non-communist Asian nations. Which achieved far more? Mao’s China or Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore? And did China achieve more between 1980 and 2010 or between 1949 and 1976?
    Didn’t new China beginning with Deng follow the model of Japan and the ‘Asian tigers’?

    Roberts talks of women’s rights, but Asian women were ‘liberated’ without communism in Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Roberts talks of ending foot-binding, but Chiang would have ended foot-binding too. And he too would have carried out a campaign against opium, though probably less brutal than Mao’s that rounded and shot all the dealers and even some of the users.

    Now, one could argue that China under Mao achieved less in economic development than, say, Japan or Taiwan, since it was closed off from the world market. True to some extent, but Mao could have had good relations with USSR and its Warsaw Pact nations. But he messed up the relations. The souring of relations between USSR and China meant China would also be shout out from Warsaw Pact nations.
    Also, when Nixon met with Mao, he wanted faster negotiations for more trade. It was Mao who held back. It was only after Mao died and the Gang of Four was neutralized that China could really join the world trading community. But even if China had been shut off from world trade, it could at least have fed itself. But Mao’s crazy agricultural plans led to stagnation in agriculture and even mass famine during Great Leap.
    As for the huge population growth, how is that an accomplishment? Look at Africa today. Poorest part of the world has the highest population growth. Mao pushed for more babies because he thought like a peasant: “Every mouth comes with two hands”. He thought everything in terms of manual labor. Also, he wanted many Chinese because he feared new wars with USSR and US. Since China lagged in technology, he figured he needed as many cannon fodders as possible in case of war. After all, the only reason why the Japanese failed to conquer China was there were TOO MANY Chinese.

    That said, there are some good things to be said for Mao’s victory. If Mao(nor Chiang) had not prevailed in the Civil War, China today might be two nations like Korea. North China and South China. Mao’s victory did lead to a nationalist and independent China. Also, as this government was based on indigenous rule, it had genuine sovereignty. Chiang was a patriot too, but his aides were too close with the imperialists. The Soong Family was intertwined with American oligarchs. As for the governments of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, they became total whores of the US. US was a good generous pimp, but they were whores nevertheless.
    Communist victory did establish a fully independent national government in China, and that is a blessing. And even though Mao’s rift with the Soviets was stupid as hell at the time, it also turned out to have benefits. If Mao had played along with Soviets, China may have remained a junior partner of Russia. But because of the rift, China became independent of both the West and Russia. This led to much hardship but also a greater sense of national sovereignty.

    Also, who would have known that the US the good pimp would turn into a bad pimp? When US was ruled by Anglos, it was truly a great nation like in BIG COUNTRY. Proud, tough, moral, Christian, patriotic, and sensibly race-ist. But once the Jewish globalists, homos, and Negroes took over, it’s been a total disgrace. What is the white man in the US? A cuck who serves Israel-firsters, homo degenerates, Negro ‘muh dic*ers’, and skanky feminists. Because US is the center of globalism, this filth is being spread all over.

    This is where the rise of Putin, CCP rule in China, and Iranian Revolution turned out to have positive aspects. Putin’s autocracy is deeply flawed but it holds back against globalist degeneracy like homo ‘pride’ parades. China won’t allow homomania as proxy of US-globalist imperialism. Sure, China is repressive state that needs more freedom, but much of today’s ‘freedom’ just means cucking to evil sick degenerate globalism. And even though I don’t like theocracy, Iranian revolution did put in place a truly nationalist power bloc that says NO to the garbage that comes out of the US.

    So, what seems like a curse at one time could later turn out to be a blessing. It’s like how history plays out in the cosmic-chess-game prophecy of Isaac Asimov’s FOUNDATION series.

    Read More
    • Replies: @godfree Roberts
    One more time: Did I lie?

    Were any of my statements incorrect?

    This is not the forum for ad hominem silliness.
    , @utu
    It was very good, Priss. Not sure that BIM necessarily explains Roberts but certainly you made good observation about BIM itself. I even thought that this time you will not bring up the dongs. But you did at the end. It is stronger than you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. some of the comments are really good. after this series of articles, I wonder if mr roberts can stick around and answer some questions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  110. Predictably people come out in droves to regurgitate the narrative of the GLF’s “50 million deaths” as unmitigated evil, without putting things into context and perspective:

    - A similar level of population depression took place in the US in the 30′s.

    - China was cut off from the world: it was on the brink of war with the USSR and was under embargo by the USA, which contributed greatly to the hardship and deaths. The US in the 30′s wasn’t.

    - There is great uncertainty in the actual number of deaths

    - Many estimates relied heavily on comparing census numbers before/after the events, taking the difference between projections from prior trends and actual reported numbers from after GLF. I.e. the estimates are of population depression, as a negative deviation from a long term steep growth trend. The estimates include increase in deaths as well as decrease in births, and that’s not nearly pure evil as outright killings. It’s a measure of the hardship caused by Nature, the GLF, and the international embargo

    - China coincidentally was in the process of removing numerous doubly registered individuals from the Hukuo system that resulted from mass internal migration in the prior years. The double registration inflated census numbers prior to the GLF

    - There was drought and other nature disasters. Normally, international borrowing and trade would smooth out such fluctuations in production

    -Indeed the GLF was primarily a man made disaster, but the intention was for industrial self reliance. The keen desire for self-reliance is again a product of the break up with the USSR and the continuing USA-led embargo. It’s folly, hubris, and desperation; it is not pure evil.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  111. Mao’s primary goal was to unhitch China from her cultural and intellectual legacy. It took 2 nukes and complete capitulation for Japan to obtain the same ends.

    In context of UNZ, the interesting question is revisiting China in a 1000 years or so and considering the long term effects of China’s violent divorce from her own past. Was it merely Chinese DNA clusters that carries this people forward or was there something to that musty Chinese civilization that maintained the middle kingdom for so many thousands of years. I personally think the Chinese have merely re-evaluated the collective meaning of “mandate of Heaven” and for now the 90 million strong CPC has it.

    TBD.

    (p.s. Mr. Godfree forgot to give devil his due and neglected to mention the absolutely critical role the Rockefellers played in transfering technology, capital, and customers to the CPC and genius Deng.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Mr. Godfree forgot to give devil his due and neglected to mention the absolutely critical role the Rockefellers played in transfering technology, capital, and customers to the CPC and genius Deng.

    Can you write more about or recommend some sources? I always wondered where and when decisions were made to enable China's growth. And the question why is the most important.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. Beckow says:
    @map
    What a ridiculous argument.

    Do you not realize that killing off surplus populations of useless eaters will always lead to better lives for those that remain alive? There is nothing remarkable about doing this and nothing prescient about Mao resorting to these means. The results would always be positive.

    That is all Mao did...get rid of the surplus population of the useless. The remainder that survived the purges would then enjoy a much higher standard of living because per capita GDP is going up.

    Duh!!

    Russia did really well under Communism by repudiating the debts they owed and killing off the surplus population. Germany did really well under Hitler by repudiating debts and getting rid of the surplus population. There is nothing remarkable about this.

    Here is a thought experiment.

    Just imagine if America could get rid of its useless population. Imagine how much better America would be? The remaining population of 220 million would be living in a wealthy and peaceful paradise.

    Recoiling in horror at Mao is due to the fact that one does not want to live in a State where you had a substantial chance of being killed by your own government in peacetime. Who care how well the survivors will live?

    “That is all Mao did…get rid of the surplus population of the useless”

    No, that’s not at all what happened. Your idea is another one of the bulls..t memes that pop into many Westerners heads about things they know nothing. Lazy, semi-educated minds lacking real experience tend to have shallow stereotypical thoughts like that.

    I can point you to demographic data, etc… but I suspect that it wouldn’t help. You are not interested in learning what really happened.

    One part of your argument that I agree with is that repudiating debts was very helpful to Russia after 1917. But they were also kept from any Western credit until 1980′s. So there are two sides to that story (small exception was WWII for military equipment). But discharging debts is incredible liberating for any country, or a person – that’s why it happens again and agin in history. The Bolshevik revolution was worth it just for getting rid of debts.

    Mao built modern China. Most of the population benefitted dramatically, probably 80-90%. Some didn’t. All we hear is about the ones who didn’t. The article points out that in historical perspective, the 1950-90 years were actually incredibly successful. There is no way any objective person could deny that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @map
    So what are you arguing?

    That nobody died?

    You want me to trust self-serving demographic data generated by Communist liars?

    Modern China was built on the deaths of millions of their own citizens...deaths that were generated by orders from their own government, whether intentional, an error of omission or an error of commission. Once the surplus population was removed, the rest was Western technology transfer.

    This is hardly remarkable.

    Any nation could get these results with this recipe.
    , @phil
    Mr. Unz has really outdone himself with this article! Check, for example, Angus Maddison's website on historical living standards (which has been coordinated with World Bank research). Average living standards in China in 1978 (after Mao's death) were still below those of the US in 1775. You can also check the Penn World Tables and compare China with Zaire, Kenya, Nigeria, and Mozambique (in 1978).

    In November of 1978 Deng Xiaoping visited Southeast Asia and was shocked to see just how far behind Singapore China had fallen. When he returned, Deng convened a meeting of the Politburo and a decision was made to launch economic reforms (i.e., big departures from Chairman Mao)--later known as "the Open Door Policy". Reforms concerning land use greatly improved the productivity of agriculture, and starvation deaths declined. Joint ventures with foreign companies began. Forms of partial privatization were slowly introduced.

    The Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution were truly catastrophic. Was the author of the article ever in China during either of those episodes? I sit around the dinner table on a regular basis with people who were.

    Deng Xiaoping was far from a libertarian or a Swedish Social Democrat, but he, more so than Mao, was the father of modern China. Even so, China is still behind Mexico in terms of average living standards. (Check the most recent World Bank numbers for real purchasing power.)

    In retrospect, Mao was an especially perverse Chinese emperor.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Logan says:

    “When Mao stepped onto the world stage in 1945, … Women’s feet were bound”

    Quite simply untrue. The practice had disappeared everywhere but the most backward regions by the 1920s.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  114. @Priss Factor
    Did I lie? Were any of my statements incorrect? Or are you offended because you were unfamiliar with this information?

    Mr. Roberts, your problem is deeper and simpler than your use of facts or data. It's your mindset.

    This here blog says you grew up in Australia(and later moved to the US and then to Thigh-land).

    http://godfreeroberts.blogspot.com/

    You see, you still have the British Imperial Mindset. So, your Maoitis is simply a symptom of a deeper disease. Now, British Mindset can be healthy, but anything can grow cancerous. And boy, has the Anglo-mindset gotten cancerous lately. (A still healthy kind can be found in John Derbyshire even though he too suffers from the negative side of the BIM or British Imperial Mindset.)

    Now, you will surely object and ask, "How can I have BIM when I spent much of my time in the US? And how can I be BIM-ish when I'm praising the anti-imperialist freedom fighter Mao?"

    Well, your formative yrs were spent in Australia that never had a real national identity. Even as independent nation, it continued to be defined by colonial mindset. Formative yrs are very important. So, you've been infected with BIM all your life.

    Also, mindset is 'structurally' deeper than mere belief systems. So, even if someone like you rejects British Imperial Ideology, the mindset -- habits of thinking and emoting -- still remain BIM-ish. It's like even Chinese communists who rejected Confucianism remained, on some level, very Confucian in their way of thinking. And it's like even post-Christian whites in Europe remain puritanical with their PC. To some extent, mindset is genetic. Negroes tend to have the Bongo-mindset. Look at Negroes anywhere in the world and they live in a World of Sheeeeeiiiit. But some mindsets are cultural. I don't think there's much genetic difference between Chinese and Japanese, but Japanese mindset is different -- moral 'anal' -- due to cultural factors... though it could be genetic. In Japan, samurai cut off heads of anyone who got out of line, so more wolfish genes got weeded out. That may account for the sheepish manners of Japanese.

    Given the structural factors of BIM, even Anglos with very different ideologies can have similar attitudes and styles of outlook. It's like two Jews can disagree on ideology but still share the JHM or Jewish-Hyper-Mentality. It's like Neocons and Liberal Zionists can disagree on ideas but still approach the world with a restless anxious outlook.

    British Imperial Mindset is an odd blend of several attitudes, sensibilities, and perspectives. And it is this fusion of contradictory tendencies that had led to the current neurosis in people like yourself.

    BIM is arrogant. It's like the scene in HOPE AND GLORY where a teacher tells students that the British Empire rules 2/5th of the empire.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QDIDYXj3Qc

    Now, YOU may deny having such attitude since you praise Mao the anti-imperialist... BUT, you still retain the arrogance of superior knowledge. It's not enough to say Mao did some good things or wasn't totally bad. No, you have to say he was 100% good. It's just BIM in action. It's like you pointing to the blackboard and asking students, 'what percentage of Mao was good?' The answer is of course 100%. Richard Dawkins and JK Rohwling have the same kind of hoity-toity know-all-ness. Godfree being Australian, you'd think he'd be more common-sensical like Crocodile Dundee and Mad Max, but all that book-learning got to him, esp in radical California.

    So, even after the Brits lost their empire, their imperial mindset remained in some corner of their psyche. They still like to make Grand Pronouncements to the world, so as to speak. And your Bold Pronouncement is that Mao was 100% jolly good, old boy. It's like you're the 007 of Mao's secret service.

    Another aspect of British Imperial Mindset is the Adventurous Outlook. Brits became expert sea-voyagers and conquerors. And you have some of that mentality. You got financially wiped out but decided on something adventurous... like settle in Thigh-land.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kL4N6zKgrSg

    And I'll bet a part of you love doing the John-Milius-Fantasy bit. The Great White Man among the natives. THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING(on retirement). The Brits got so good at discovering and conquering much of the world that they find excitement in men of adventure. So, BIM tends to identify with excitement and crises. We see this is LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. Lawrence the fruit adventurer finds the Arab rebellion thrilling. Instead of just serving God, King, and Country, he gets to play the role of god, king, and savior to the Arabs. Of course, his adventure comes with great contradictions. He sees himself as a modern-day prophet, a white muhammad leading the Arabs to freedom and liberty. He believes himself to be writing his own fate and destiny. But he is a pawn moved about by his imperialist superiors. And on some level, he is an agent of British Imperialism even as he leads the Arabs against it but then also for it. After all, it is in British interest that the Arabs rise up against the Turks. As Lawrence sees it, the Arabs shouldn't stop at fighting the Turks but also resist British and French attempts to gain control over Arabia. But he must also know that the British Empire has the power to turn off the spigot just as easily it was turned on. The empire will provide water for warfare as long as Arabs kill Turks. But once Arabs challenge British rule? Turn off the water. Lawrence is an idealist but also a liar. He willfully deluded himself that he was serving the Arabs when he must have known that it would turn out differently. Also, the Arab of his imagination is a fantasy. Real Arabs are a little people who can't create an ocean of power since each side guards its own tribal wells. As Lawrence sees it, the desert can be like an ocean for all Arabs. But in the end, Arab tribalism remains and it is easily manipulated by the West... as still happens to this day.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdSz8WsNSYY

    BIM is a funny thing. Even when it goes in to humble-pie mode, it has to bake the cake in MacArthur's Park. It's like Bowie in MERRY X-MAS MR. LAWRENCE. He is racked with guilt over something that happened to his brother, so how does he redeem himself? By playing the christ role. Roberts' cake is melting in the rain.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6a_KFJ5Ksc

    Now, the contradictory nature of Lawrence can be seen in many Anglos with BIM. There are elements of adventurism, egotism, worship of power, and obedience & humility. After all, despite his big ego, Lawrence was also a good soldier who did, in the end, dutifully serve the British Empire.

    When the British Empire was around, people like Godfree Roberts could support the empire to satisfy their need for adventure, great-power-worship, and humility. A British imperialist had to be a combination of ego and servitude. The ego of being part of a great empire provided pride, courage, and the will. But values of humility and servitude made him a disciplined soldier or agent who worked as a team and ultimately did what he did for something bigger than himself: God, King or Queen, Country, Empire, Tea and Crumpets.

    But that empire is no more. It's like what the traitor says in TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY.

    https://youtu.be/lDk7wSx0b7o?t=26m44s

    With the decline and fall of empire, the BIM needed something to latch onto. For some, it was pro-Americanism. It was the idea that the US was really the child of UK. So, what was good for America was good for Britain, its closest ally(now replaced by Israel, Israel, Israel).
    But for others, it was anti-Americanism. Since there was no more British Empire to play rival of US power, the thing was to side with ANY power opposed to Americanism.

    In the end, both streams more or less ended up in the same pool of globalism as both global capitalism and global leftism came to be dominated by Jewish globalists. For those who went pro-American, it's all about praising Wall Street, Hollywood, and Wars for Israel. For those who went anti-American, it's all about praising homos and Diversity... funded by the same globalists who support Wall Street and Israel.

    So, we have Godfree Roberts of the Australian School of BIM. There is no more empire, but he feels a need to admire and praise something big and strong. And he sees it in Mao and China. China seems like the rising new empire, and Mao was like its emperor. So, there is a lot of servile power-worship on the part of Roberts. This servitude is one part of BIM. It's like the guy who takes umbrage at an American journalist's cynical remark about Lawrence.

    BENTLEY
    He was also the most shameless
    exhibitionist since Barnum and Bailey.

    MAN
    You, sir. Who are you?

    BENTLEY
    My name is Jackson Bentley.

    MAN
    Well, whoever you are, I overheard your
    last remark and I take the gravest
    possible exception. He was a very great
    man.

    BENTLEY
    Did you know him?

    MAN
    No, sir. I can't claim to have known him.
    I once had the honour to shake his hand
    in Damascus.

    You see, the man never knew Lawrence but the Great Man shook his hand once, and he feels honored to have been in his presence.

    And Godfree Roberts has the same mentality in relation to Mao. He doesn't care about the Mao the Man. He's enthralled with Mao the Myth just like Americans worship MLK the myth that has nothing to do with the man. The real MLK was Fartin' Poother Bling, a lying cheat and thug. But that's just how myths go. There are plenty of morons who worship Tupac as some kind of messiah. And Eminem the demento is supposed to be some kind of prophet.

    Godfree Roberts is too old to admire rappers, so he looks to the giants of his youth, and Mao was one of them. He was the Revolutionary Gangsta. To be sure, Che is the safer bet for this kind of adulation. As Che died before he did any real damage -- he failed -- , he can't be blamed for mass tyranny and murder, which surely would have followed communist takeover of Latin America.

    BIM is addicted to greatness and adventure. Even John Derbyshire ended up in China at one time. But BIM is also into servitude to a higher glory. This is why British soldiers were such great fighters. They were willing to sacrifice their lives to God, King or Queen, Country, the espirit de corps(even as they turned into spirits departing corpses). Look at the discipline of British soldiers as they march in battle in BARRY LYNDON.

    https://youtu.be/SBFpw-459VU?t=33s

    In a way, the man with biggest ego tend not to be the best warrior. After all, an egotist wants to live and others to serve him. Why should he stick his neck out if it could mean death? It's like Italians have big egos and talk big. But when faced with danger, they poop their pants and run like a mofo to hide under mama's dress to survive. Mussolini ran in the end like a rat.
    To be a good soldier, your own ego must be suppressed and be made to serve a higher glory. It could be queen or country. Or it could be a sense of camaraderie. Brits were very mindful of how OTHERS thought of them. This is why Lord Jim freaks out. He chickened out and can't live with the shame. In contrast, an Italian or Greek has no such shame. They act like #1 and act big and tough and manly but when the going gets tough, they act like the Latino in RAIDERS. Esp them lowlife Greeks. Mafia has to stress honor precisely because no one has any.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws8btF36O1Q

    Among the British, self-ego was suppressed to be part of a Greater Good and Glory. Consider the men in ZULU and how they fight to the end. If they were Italian or Greek, they would have run like a mothafuc*a and got on the first ship back to Italy or Greece. And even if the deaths are wasteful in GALLIPOLI, those are brave soldiers.
    And yet, British bravery was also built on cowardice. Brits were more fearful of being shunned than dying. If Lord Jim were an Italian, his attitude would have been, "who cares what others think? I'm alive and I'm gonna go home and eat mama's pastas and go out and pinch women's asses." But the BIM works differently. Brits are fearful and cowardly in face of what others thinks. So a Brits prefers to DIE than be looked down upon. And this mindset is behind both the brave soldiers in ZULU & GALLIPOLI and in the current demise of UK under Afro-Islamic colonization. Today's Brit is so fearful of being called 'racist' and being looked down upon that he will bravely face death by demographic imperialism of the darkies. He would rather go down with the ship than be called a 'coward'. In contrast, a craven Italian or Greek captain will be the first one to jump a sinking ship. This is why I say BIM has gotten cancerous. In the past, it was harnessed to take over the world. Now, it's is leading to demise of UK.

    Anyway, there is a kind of BIM mentality in both Derbyshire and Godfree.
    Just like Godfree feels a need to admire and praise Great Mao, Derbyshire is also into hero-worship.

    Now, Jared has no greater admirer than me. As I have told him myself: If our republic survives, there will be statues to Jared in public squares one day.

    Rule, Tayloria! Tayloria, rule the waves!
    Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

    I find myself wondering again, for the umpteenth time, why shallow mediocrities like David Brooks or John Podhoretz have high-paid opinionating slots at major mainstream publications while Steve’s material is out beyond the fringes of respectability.

    Rule, Saileria! Saileria, rule the waves!
    Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

    That hymn is interesting. It says Brits shall never be slaves, but British Freedom is ensured by a certain slavishness on the part of Brits. While Anglos pioneered individualism, it came with the caveat of the willingness to self-sacrifice for the common good. It balanced the grasshopper with the ant. And we see this contradiction in movies about British Education, at least until Pink Floyd destroyed it with 'We don't need no education'.

    After all, if a society had two options, which is preferable?

    Option #1 forbids freedom and forces everyone to do the right thing. And everyone does the right and proper thing and society survives and even thrives.

    Option #2 allows freedom to individuals and individuals freely choose to do the wrong thing and mess things up royally like Negroes in Detroit or hillbillies addicted to meth as the new moonshine.

    Now, we all like freedom, but wouldn't tyranny and survival be preferable to freedom and demise?

    But what if there is a third option? Suppose there is freedom and suppose individuals freely do the right thing and society thrives and survives. But how could such a society be created when individuals, when allowed to be free, so often act foolish?

    The solution is to deny freedom to young ones. Educate them, work them hard, discipline them. Force them to attend school where teachers instill in them proper values and manners. And then let them graduate to a higher freedom. After all, if clay is to turn into a pottery, it has to be molded and then heated. If allowed to remain clay-ish, the pottery will fall apart in rain or crack in sunlight. So, British adult freedom was founded on strict molding of the young ones. Later social critics saw this as cruel and inhuman, but the only way individual freedom could be constructive was by molding the young ones to be respectable, dignified, and reasonably deferential to traditional, authority, and all that. That way, even if freed, they would act properly. It's like dogs have to be trained before they are allowed to run around without a leash. An untrained dog has to remain on leash.
    Sadly, this model has vanished in the West. Pop Culture encourages children to act like total louts and whores and punks and thugs. PC tells kids that white teachers are oppressors. Blacks in schools see anything 'white' as weak, wussy, and punkass. People of Color are indoctrinated with resentment for whiteness, and that means white traditions and institutions that made the Modern World possible are denigrated. Girls are not raised to be proper respectable women but whores and sluts or Oleannic demento-bitches. Imagine if Pat Buchanan had been raised by a single mother who whores around with Negroes and her homo friends. He might have an earring, tattoos on his ass, and be rapping like Eminem. Boomer parenting was disastrous but maybe it goes back further. Maybe Greatest Gen parenting was too lax and materialistic. After all, it's Archie Bunker who raised the insipid Gloria, and Meathead is the son of 'Polack' GG parents.

    With PC having it made it taboo for whites to admire their own identity and tradition, whites with BIM are latching onto the Other as something to serve. So, UK is now into worship of the Negro. BBC's official line is white blokes must worship the Big Negro Dong. BBC features white women worship the Great Negro as the new ideal. Among Canada and Australia, the worship is for Great Asia. Let Anglo-nations be handed over to People of Dot and People of Dog(eating) on a silver platter. What lunacy.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byrNW6eokWM

    And we now have Godfree Roberts rhapsodizing about Mao when he should be worrying about how to save the white race from Negroes, People of Dot, and People of Dog. His mindset is still in the mode of BIM. He thinks bigly in imperial terms. After all, even though Mao kicked out the imperialists, he ruled China like a new emperor and Maoism was once promoted around the world as something like new muhammadism, the Chinese heresy of islam-communism as rebellion against chrito-communism of the Soviet Union.

    So, Godfree has to be free himself of this silly BIM. When Australia is about to be overrun by People of Dot, People of Dog, Muslim crazies, and Sudanese thugs who go around kicking white butt, what is Godfree doing living in Thigh-land and singing East is Red?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4lztE1KZ2k

    Anglos were at their best with their race-ism. Race-ism ultimately saved both Anglo-nations and non-white nations under Anglo rule. It led to the transference of best Anglos ideas to non-white world and creating new business/trade opportunities while maintaining racial and cultural integrity of both worlds. Because Anglo race-ism abhorred race-mixing, there was less mixing between Brits and their non-white subjects. This was good for the subjects cuz it meant their womenfolk were less sexually conquered by Anglos. In contrast, the race-mixing Latinos changed the bloodline of the natives of Latin America forever. And they also messed up white bloodlines. This made it near-impossible for natives of 'Latin America' to rise up and kick out the Spanish imperialists. With so many people with mixed-blood, they didn't know if they were white or Indio.
    In contrast, Anglo race-ism ensured that most darkies keep their racial integrity. So when the time came for resistance and national liberation, it was easy for Asians, Africans, or other people to unify and kick out the Brits. Why do Han Chinese promote race-mixing with Tibetans and Uighurs? They are trying to do what the Hispanics and Portuguese did to the natives of the Americas.

    Another thing about the Anglos was they were snobbish and sneering, and this was also good for the non-white natives. It prevented their full cooperation and collaboration with the British Empire. Many non-white elites studied in Britain and wanted to be accepted in the white world. And had they been allowed in, they never would have returned home and become national leaders. Even as Brits educated these non-whites to serve the empire, they also always made sure that non-white elites understood who was the real boss. So, even an educated Hindu was a 'wog', an educated Chinese was 'chinaman', and educated African was a 'coon', sometimes accented with 'bloody'. This made it impossible for someone like Gandhi to serve the empire. I mean he was there in Africa serving the British Empire to control the Negroes but the whites were calling him a 'wog' too. He took it personally, and he decided to lead his own people. Same with Lee Kuan Yew. He had great admiration from the Brits and learned much from them. But the Brits must also have called him 'chinaman' at some point, and he became a great leader over his own kind.

    So, if the Anglos really wanna do the world a favor, they should become race-ist once again. That way, the non-white elites will be less likely to serve globalism and go back to their nations and be good nationalists once again. It's like what the great uncle Victor says in HAROLD AND MAUDE.

    And so I ask you - why the hell did
    we give up on the Germans? Those
    damn politicians in Washington
    chalked them up on our side and the
    wars ever since have been a national
    disgrace. Hell, look at history.
    The two best wars this country has
    fought were against the Jerries.
    Now I say, get the Krauts on the
    other side of the fence where they
    belong, and let's get back to the
    kind of enemy worth killing and the
    kind of war this whole country can
    support.


    https://youtu.be/oxomZHzw7Nc?t=37s

    When the 'krauts' were on the other side, things were so much simpler. And the world would be simpler and things would be clearer if Anglos were race-ists. Then, non-Anglo world could learn good ideas from Anglos and fix their own nations. That way, their own nations would improve and Anglo nations would remain white. Everyone wins. But today, Anglo mode is both neo-imperialist and apologetic-suicidal. Anglo-America calls itself 'exceptional' and 'indispensable', a new jingoism. But supposedly, the New America is so great cuz it's about 'diversity'. It's all so confusing. Also, even though Anglosphere is still the richest and most powerful part of the world, it's not even ruled by Anglos anymore but by Jewish globalists and their homo allies whose main object of worship is the homo anus and the Negro dong and black woman's ass 'twerking'. Yes, 'twerk' is now part of Western Culture. Anglo-world from Work Ethic to Twerk Antic.

    Anyway, what about Mao?

    Godfree's Mao-worship is nothing new. Indeed, such opinions and lit were commonplace prior to the 80s. I went to college in mid 80s and a lot of book on Russia, China, and etc were from 60s and 70s. Most China Scholars prior to the 80s had very limited access to Chinese affairs, and much of it depended on Chinese sources or CIA estimates that later proved to be very wrong. Also, most China Scholars were on the left and sympathetic to communists. My professor told me he was a student in the late 50s and his professors all dismissed reports of famine in China as Taiwanese propaganda. Read most books on China on 60s and 70s and, even as they admit Mao was a tyrant, they talk glowingly of progress.

    But then, China opened up in the 80s and the full extent of the horrors poured out from so many sources. Also, Westerners had freer access to people, voices, and accounts in China. Prior to that, every Westerner was carefully shown Potemkin village versions of China. A good book on this is Steven Mosher's CHINA MISPERCEIVED. Now, over the yrs, Mosher became overly anti-Chinese and is dismissive of EVERYTHING done by the CCP, but his book details how so many Western scholars and reporters were fooled, not least because their political sympathies wanted to be duped(like so many sympathizers, left or right, were fooled by Soviet Union and Nazi Germany).

    https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-465-09805-7

    As for Robert's stats showing economic growth under China, much of it seems based on outdated and discredited data. When Mao died, Time magazine, relying on CIA sources, said China's economic growth under communism had been 'staggering'. We are talking about a nation where a car factory might churn out 100 cars a year. It was a nation of bicycles called the Flying Pigeon.

    Also, some of the achievements of Mao would have happened under Chiang. Mao had the advantage of unity, stability, and peace. Chiang never got a chance because he had to deal with Japanese invasion and then lost the Civil War. But the fact is much had been done during the Nanking Decade from 1927 to 1937 and if China hadn't end up fighting Japan, much more could have been done. Sure, Chiang's way wasn't to drive out the imperialists overnight, but he knew time was on his side. If China kept developing and gaining greater economic might, the foreigners would eventually have to return their territories. Also, the foreigners could be useful in facilitating greater trade between China and the rest of the world. After all, wasn't it good for China that Mao didn't kick out the imperialists in Hong Kong? Those HK'ers later taught so much to Mainland Chinese. And Taiwan's independence also turned out to be beneficial to China. Many Taiwanese succeeded in capitalism and later, with many other overseas Chinese, invested heavily in China.

    If Chiang could have avoided war with Japan or had he prevailed over Communists in the Civil War, he would surely have done much more for China. He too wanted to end the opium epidemic. He also believed in Westernization. He also believed in modernization. Indeed, individuals and women in Taiwan and Hong Kong lived with more freedom and dignity than women in China. To be sure, Taiwanese and HKer's didn't have national dignity as Taiwan as protectorate of US and HK was whore of UK. But UK wasn't such a bad pimp. Check out NOBLE HOUSE.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_63CZoyoYJc

    Chiang was a sort of a Christo-Confucian fascist. He converted to Christianity, respected Confucian traditions and hierarchy. But he also believed in reforms and modernization. He sought to balance the left and right, past and future. But he never got a chance. The war with Japan ruined him. And he was prescient. He feared that if KMT fights Japan, it would be crushed and it would give the commies a second chance. His fears were borne out by events. Mao came to power ONLY BECAUSE Japan crushed KMT that was pushed to the south. With KMT and Japan exhausting one another, the commies waited for their opportunity, and they took it when WWII ended and Japan retreated, esp as Soviet occupiers of North China handed over so much to the Commies.

    Was the KMT corrupt? Yes, very, but in some ways, it was a sign of health. It meant bad use of freedom but it still meant freedom. In contrast, the communists were pure and far less corrupt, BUT there was no freedom at all. It was a iron-fisted world of spartan ruthlessness. Chiang trusted his followers because he didn't like to be cruel or paranoid. He could be ruthless when necessary but it was not something he exulted in. IN contrast, Mao loved violence and he purged his own men who'd served him loyally over and over. This process ensured no spies among the communists and total devotion to Mao. In contrast, Chiang's humane tolerance did lead to more corruption and also more communist spies in KMT. Indeed, it turned out KMT was filled with commie spies because Chiang was overly nice and trusting.

    Mao did have Great Man qualities. His path to power from son of farmer to ruler of China is the most epic story in the 20th century. Hitler's path to power was relatively easy. He won elections with backing of rich Germans. Lenin and Trotsky led the revolution and then Stalin the bureaucrat took over. But Mao was at the center from the beginning of communism of China to his victory in 1949. So, there's no doubt he had a lot of intelligence, a kind of political vision, and shrewdness. But he was also a boor, a vulgarian, and a fool. He was arrogant, vindictive, cruel, and nasty. Or just plain childish. He had a great opportunity after Stalin died. Khrushchev wanted to reboot relations on good terms. He visited China, but Mao kept trying to drown him like a water polo ball in a the swimming pool. Khrush could hardly swim and this freaked him out. And Mao kept blowing smoke in his face even though Khrush didn't smoke. I mean here's Khrush, leader of the other great superpower, trying to make nice with Mao, and Mao is acting like the king of the hillbillies. The main reason for Sino-Soviet rift was Mao's a**hole behavior and egotism as he wanted to be the new leader of the communist world after Stalin died. Now, had Mao been more sensible, the communist world could have been greatly strengthened. If Chinese manpower and Russian knowhow and resources could have been combined, communism would have been stronger(even if ultimately doomed cuz it's not a good system). But instead, Mao's megalomania led to the rift and the Soviets and Chinese were working AGAINST one another than for each other.

    Another thing that Mao messed up royally was talent. Communists had lots of talent. Indeed, one of Chiang's complaints was that so many of the Best and the Brightest of the Chinese went over to the Communists. So many educated and idealistic Chinese were so angry with Japan and Western powers that they wanted to join a great movement for national liberation and progress. And many were drawn to the communists. Zhou Enlai, Liu Shaochi, Deng Xiaoping, and many others were men of great intelligence and ability. Even with communism being ultimately a bad system, the fact is there was enough talent in the CCP for it to make considerable progress if Mao hadn't gotten in the way. Mao knew guerrilla warfare and leadership, but he was unfit to rule and manage. Stalin was cruel, but he had bureaucratic patience and diligence to get things done, which is why USSR did make great leaps in industry(even if at huge human cost). Mao was too impatient for gradual progress in economics. Instead of letting things develop organically, he carried out campaigns that, more often than not, did more harm than good. Like the idiotic idea about getting rid of sparrows. The mass culling of sparrows was like playing chess like a retard. It's like going for short-term gain of a piece while falling into a trap of checkmate. Killing sparrows meant fewer birds eating crops, but it also meant fewer birds eating bugs that eat many more crops. But Mao's hysterical view of progress didn't allow for complexity and nuance.
    Many idealistic intellectuals, teachers, scientists, doctors, engineers, and managers joined Communist China. Even the Chinese atomic bomb owed to Chinese engineers trained in the US who returned out of patriotism and idealism. But Mao sent so many educated people to carry dung in farms. A backward nation like China needed all the talent it could gather to do scientific and technological stuff. But Mao used many of them badly, esp during the Cultural Revolution that also destroyed so much art and culture.
    Now, there was a theme in communism that was good for China. A corrupted version of Confucianism had created a culture of snobbery, contempt, and elitism among the rich and educated. And surely, Mao suffered many such slights as a farmboy in the city. The 'better kind' of people never took him seriously. So, communism emphasis on the dignity of farmers and workers was good. But did Mao have to send educated people to carry pig shi*? What a total waste.
    Worse, some of these people were driven to suicide or were tortured to death because they refused to admit guilt to some false accusation.

    As for all the achievements of Mao's China, let's compare them with developments in other non-communist Asian nations. Which achieved far more? Mao's China or Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore? And did China achieve more between 1980 and 2010 or between 1949 and 1976?
    Didn't new China beginning with Deng follow the model of Japan and the 'Asian tigers'?

    Roberts talks of women's rights, but Asian women were 'liberated' without communism in Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Roberts talks of ending foot-binding, but Chiang would have ended foot-binding too. And he too would have carried out a campaign against opium, though probably less brutal than Mao's that rounded and shot all the dealers and even some of the users.

    Now, one could argue that China under Mao achieved less in economic development than, say, Japan or Taiwan, since it was closed off from the world market. True to some extent, but Mao could have had good relations with USSR and its Warsaw Pact nations. But he messed up the relations. The souring of relations between USSR and China meant China would also be shout out from Warsaw Pact nations.
    Also, when Nixon met with Mao, he wanted faster negotiations for more trade. It was Mao who held back. It was only after Mao died and the Gang of Four was neutralized that China could really join the world trading community. But even if China had been shut off from world trade, it could at least have fed itself. But Mao's crazy agricultural plans led to stagnation in agriculture and even mass famine during Great Leap.
    As for the huge population growth, how is that an accomplishment? Look at Africa today. Poorest part of the world has the highest population growth. Mao pushed for more babies because he thought like a peasant: "Every mouth comes with two hands". He thought everything in terms of manual labor. Also, he wanted many Chinese because he feared new wars with USSR and US. Since China lagged in technology, he figured he needed as many cannon fodders as possible in case of war. After all, the only reason why the Japanese failed to conquer China was there were TOO MANY Chinese.

    That said, there are some good things to be said for Mao's victory. If Mao(nor Chiang) had not prevailed in the Civil War, China today might be two nations like Korea. North China and South China. Mao's victory did lead to a nationalist and independent China. Also, as this government was based on indigenous rule, it had genuine sovereignty. Chiang was a patriot too, but his aides were too close with the imperialists. The Soong Family was intertwined with American oligarchs. As for the governments of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, they became total whores of the US. US was a good generous pimp, but they were whores nevertheless.
    Communist victory did establish a fully independent national government in China, and that is a blessing. And even though Mao's rift with the Soviets was stupid as hell at the time, it also turned out to have benefits. If Mao had played along with Soviets, China may have remained a junior partner of Russia. But because of the rift, China became independent of both the West and Russia. This led to much hardship but also a greater sense of national sovereignty.

    Also, who would have known that the US the good pimp would turn into a bad pimp? When US was ruled by Anglos, it was truly a great nation like in BIG COUNTRY. Proud, tough, moral, Christian, patriotic, and sensibly race-ist. But once the Jewish globalists, homos, and Negroes took over, it's been a total disgrace. What is the white man in the US? A cuck who serves Israel-firsters, homo degenerates, Negro 'muh dic*ers', and skanky feminists. Because US is the center of globalism, this filth is being spread all over.

    This is where the rise of Putin, CCP rule in China, and Iranian Revolution turned out to have positive aspects. Putin's autocracy is deeply flawed but it holds back against globalist degeneracy like homo 'pride' parades. China won't allow homomania as proxy of US-globalist imperialism. Sure, China is repressive state that needs more freedom, but much of today's 'freedom' just means cucking to evil sick degenerate globalism. And even though I don't like theocracy, Iranian revolution did put in place a truly nationalist power bloc that says NO to the garbage that comes out of the US.

    So, what seems like a curse at one time could later turn out to be a blessing. It's like how history plays out in the cosmic-chess-game prophecy of Isaac Asimov's FOUNDATION series.

    One more time: Did I lie?

    Were any of my statements incorrect?

    This is not the forum for ad hominem silliness.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    One more time: Did I lie?
    Were any of my statements incorrect?


    One can be totally honest in one's statement and still be wrong.

    I don't think Wally(a commenter) is being dishonest when he insists the holocaust didn't happen... just like you will certainly be sincere in your rejection of all those reports of mass deaths under Mao.

    Both you and Wally are being sincere. But sincerity is not the truth.

    I can sincerely believe that I saw a unicorn. It doesn't make it true.

    As for whether your assertions are correct, MANY China scholars would fervently disagree with you.
    Are they incorrect?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @Ron Unz

    I think Mao was necessary in the same sense that Qin Shi Huang was necessary – to break the stagnation that China has gotten herself in – but it hardly just makes him 100% good.
     
    That's very similar to my own perspective. I think Mao's place in history would be far better if he'd tripped and broken his neck during the early 1950s. I'm pretty skeptical of attempts to explain away the gigantic disasters of the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution, but I suppose we'll see.

    I tend to agree that Mao was indeed a "feminist" but back in those days, I think "Chinese feminism" meant opposition to foot-binding, buying wives, and polygamy, and would also have accorded with the views of American reactionaries, let alone Christian missionaries. My guess is that he'd regard today's American or Chinese "feminists" as decadent lunatics, and ship them all off to harsh Reeducation Camps.

    I also strongly disagreed with various other parts of the article. For example, is doubling Chinese's population necessarily a positive achievement? The governments of many totally impoverished African nations are increasing their populations by 10x or more. So are they vastly more successful than Mao?

    Closely related to this issue is the fact that the economic growth chart is *total* GDP rather than per capita GDP, which means that a good chunk of the economic improvement wasn't real. That's the same trick journalists often play these days with "African growth." Also, totally backward, devastated, and impoverished countries like China are naturally going to grow more rapidly than the post-WWII USA, which was already the richest country in the world, so the comparison isn't a sensible one.

    I think it would be much better to compare the growth in per capita Chinese GDP from the chart vs. that during the following decades under Deng's anti-Maoist economic policies, which was *vastly* greater.

    I'd summarized this in my own China article of a few years ago, which I'd still currently stand by:

    By the late 1970s, three decades of Communist central planning had managed to increase China’s production at a respectable rate, but with tremendous fits and starts, and often at a terrible cost: 35 million or more Chinese had starved to death during the disastrous 1959–1961 famine caused by Mao’s forced industrialization policy of the Great Leap Forward.

    China’s population had also grown very rapidly during this period, so the typical standard of living had improved only slightly, perhaps 2 percent per year between 1958 and 1978, and this from an extremely low base. Adjusted for purchasing power, most Chinese in 1980 had an income 60–70 percent below that of the citizens in other major Third World countries such as Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Kenya, none of which were considered great economic success stories. In those days, even Haitians were far wealthier than Chinese.

    All this began to change very rapidly once Deng Xiaoping initiated his free-market reforms in 1978, first throughout the countryside and eventually in the smaller industrial enterprises of the coastal provinces. By 1985, The Economist ran a cover story praising China’s 700,000,000 peasants for having doubled their agricultural production in just seven years, an achievement almost unprecedented in world history. Meanwhile, China’s newly adopted one-child policy, despite its considerable unpopularity, had sharply reduced population growth rates in a country possessing relatively little arable land.

    A combination of slowing population growth and rapidly accelerating economic output has obvious implications for national prosperity. During the three decades to 2010, China achieved perhaps the most rapid sustained rate of economic development in the history of the human species, with its real economy growing almost 40-fold between 1978 and 2010. In 1978, America’s economy was 15 times larger, but according to most international estimates, China is now set to surpass America’s total economic output within just another few years.
     
    http://www.unz.com/runz/chinas-rise-americas-fall/#china-shakes-the-world

    That’s very similar to my own perspective.

    Yeah, everything that Mao does would make much more sense if you look at him as the founding emperor of a new dynasty (which in fact he was). The Great Leap Forward was one of those epic projects that emperors like to undertake (e.g. The Great Wall) except the Great Leap Forward was a stupid plan and tens of millions ended up dead. The Cultural Revolution is more interesting because it wasn’t a “disaster” for Mao personally. What the Cultural Revolution really was was a naked Machiavellian power grab to take back power since Mao was effectively sidelined in the Party after the Great Leap Forward. You can tell how Mao clearly didn’t care all that much about the ideological aspect of the Cultural Revolution when he told the army to quell the Red Guards and force them to the countryside. Of course, neither the Great Leap Forward nor the Cultural Revolution was good for the country and there’s no point defending them.

    The reason it is hard to judge Mao as “good” or “bad” is because there isn’t really “good” or “bad” back then. The Guomindang really sucked. If they didn’t they wouldn’t have lost. They were effectively a loose alliance of rival clans with different power centres and incredible amounts of corruption and infighting. It is possible to argue that without the Communists to completely wipe out whatever power structures and terrible laws that existed under the Guomindang there would never have been a Deng to have the same amount of success.

    The Western MSM these days usually criticize Mao to denounce the whole of the CPC in general and then advocate that there should be regime change in China to install liberal democracy. A lot of defenses of Mao is also due to trying to refute the MSM’s utterly ridiculous logic. Of course there’s no reason to take the MSM seriously. The best way to judge Mao is as a founding emperor of a new dynasty and there’s no denying both the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution were disasters.

    Read More
    • Agree: Daniel Chieh
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. utu says:
    @survey-of-disinfo
    Mao's primary goal was to unhitch China from her cultural and intellectual legacy. It took 2 nukes and complete capitulation for Japan to obtain the same ends.

    In context of UNZ, the interesting question is revisiting China in a 1000 years or so and considering the long term effects of China's violent divorce from her own past. Was it merely Chinese DNA clusters that carries this people forward or was there something to that musty Chinese civilization that maintained the middle kingdom for so many thousands of years. I personally think the Chinese have merely re-evaluated the collective meaning of "mandate of Heaven" and for now the 90 million strong CPC has it.

    TBD.

    (p.s. Mr. Godfree forgot to give devil his due and neglected to mention the absolutely critical role the Rockefellers played in transfering technology, capital, and customers to the CPC and genius Deng.)

    Mr. Godfree forgot to give devil his due and neglected to mention the absolutely critical role the Rockefellers played in transfering technology, capital, and customers to the CPC and genius Deng.

    Can you write more about or recommend some sources? I always wondered where and when decisions were made to enable China’s growth. And the question why is the most important.

    Read More
    • Replies: @godfree Roberts
    To the credit of our much-vilified Western media, all the information you seek is publicly available. It's just scattered and lodged in obscure places, or simply presented in a form that non-specialists do not find accessible.

    I've spent the past 10 years gathering, verifying and organizing it into a book. This Mao episode, the first of three, is a sample. There are 30 chapters, each with material as unexpected as this information on Mao.

    The book will be published next year. If you want to be notified,you can sign up at this address NEXT WEEK: www.inpraiseofchina.com
    , @survey-of-disinfo
    I noted that in his reply Godfree Roberts failed to actually provide any insights beyond promoting his upcoming book.

    He also ignored my question regarding his neglecting this entirely salient matter: China would still be a basket case even with Deng if the West Inc. had not determined that integrating the Chinese elite into the global mafia is a win-win for the outfit.

    A very expensive book with no substantive reviews on the internet (at least per Google):
    https://www.amazon.com/Prospect-America-Rockefeller-Panel-Reports/dp/B000FMPMHY

    As Mr. Roberts has admitted, West Inc.'s information control strategy is a few generations ahead of the old fashioned censorship of the old world. Censorship through obscurity was a viable approach until the internet reduced the obscurity factor, but this is currently being addressed via soft ("fake news") firm (the tech platforms and their owners) and hard (laws) mechanisms.

    The key, in my opinion, is understanding how the demise of the American superpower could be in the interest of the outfit. Once you see that, everything else starts to make sense.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. map says:
    @Beckow

    "That is all Mao did…get rid of the surplus population of the useless"
     
    No, that's not at all what happened. Your idea is another one of the bulls..t memes that pop into many Westerners heads about things they know nothing. Lazy, semi-educated minds lacking real experience tend to have shallow stereotypical thoughts like that.

    I can point you to demographic data, etc... but I suspect that it wouldn't help. You are not interested in learning what really happened.

    One part of your argument that I agree with is that repudiating debts was very helpful to Russia after 1917. But they were also kept from any Western credit until 1980's. So there are two sides to that story (small exception was WWII for military equipment). But discharging debts is incredible liberating for any country, or a person - that's why it happens again and agin in history. The Bolshevik revolution was worth it just for getting rid of debts.

    Mao built modern China. Most of the population benefitted dramatically, probably 80-90%. Some didn't. All we hear is about the ones who didn't. The article points out that in historical perspective, the 1950-90 years were actually incredibly successful. There is no way any objective person could deny that.

    So what are you arguing?

    That nobody died?

    You want me to trust self-serving demographic data generated by Communist liars?

    Modern China was built on the deaths of millions of their own citizens…deaths that were generated by orders from their own government, whether intentional, an error of omission or an error of commission. Once the surplus population was removed, the rest was Western technology transfer.

    This is hardly remarkable.

    Any nation could get these results with this recipe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    "That nobody died?
     
    What? I hope you are familiar with the whole set-up we have here on earth with birth, childhood, etc...you know, people do die in all societies.

    "Modern China was built on the deaths of millions of their own citizens…"
     
    So was Britain, France, Germany, Russia, US,...all modern societies were built on top of enormous suffering in the past. Millions died in all of them.

    Take Britain and add up all the people who died as part of its 'industrialisation', wars, colonisation, famines (Irish, Highlanders, Bengalis...), all the premature deaths from lack of food, health care, and deplorable working conditions in19th and 20th century - you will get tens of millions that you can count as 'dead victims' of the British government. Or you can just see it as part of life, but then why wouldn't the millions who perished in China mostly out of starvation and overwork not be the same?

    If you apply the same standard to all societies, Mao's China was no worse than let's Victorian England. But of course you refuse to apply same standards to all, because you are 'special', right? I think there is a psychiatric term for people - and societies - who think that they are 'special'. Look it up, do the diagnosis, and maybe start the treatment. It starts with seeing the same things as actually being the same...try it.

    , @Anonymous
    China's population is almost 3 times the size it was at the start of Mao's rule. The surplus population wasn't removed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. utu says:
    @Priss Factor
    Did I lie? Were any of my statements incorrect? Or are you offended because you were unfamiliar with this information?

    Mr. Roberts, your problem is deeper and simpler than your use of facts or data. It's your mindset.

    This here blog says you grew up in Australia(and later moved to the US and then to Thigh-land).

    http://godfreeroberts.blogspot.com/

    You see, you still have the British Imperial Mindset. So, your Maoitis is simply a symptom of a deeper disease. Now, British Mindset can be healthy, but anything can grow cancerous. And boy, has the Anglo-mindset gotten cancerous lately. (A still healthy kind can be found in John Derbyshire even though he too suffers from the negative side of the BIM or British Imperial Mindset.)

    Now, you will surely object and ask, "How can I have BIM when I spent much of my time in the US? And how can I be BIM-ish when I'm praising the anti-imperialist freedom fighter Mao?"

    Well, your formative yrs were spent in Australia that never had a real national identity. Even as independent nation, it continued to be defined by colonial mindset. Formative yrs are very important. So, you've been infected with BIM all your life.

    Also, mindset is 'structurally' deeper than mere belief systems. So, even if someone like you rejects British Imperial Ideology, the mindset -- habits of thinking and emoting -- still remain BIM-ish. It's like even Chinese communists who rejected Confucianism remained, on some level, very Confucian in their way of thinking. And it's like even post-Christian whites in Europe remain puritanical with their PC. To some extent, mindset is genetic. Negroes tend to have the Bongo-mindset. Look at Negroes anywhere in the world and they live in a World of Sheeeeeiiiit. But some mindsets are cultural. I don't think there's much genetic difference between Chinese and Japanese, but Japanese mindset is different -- moral 'anal' -- due to cultural factors... though it could be genetic. In Japan, samurai cut off heads of anyone who got out of line, so more wolfish genes got weeded out. That may account for the sheepish manners of Japanese.

    Given the structural factors of BIM, even Anglos with very different ideologies can have similar attitudes and styles of outlook. It's like two Jews can disagree on ideology but still share the JHM or Jewish-Hyper-Mentality. It's like Neocons and Liberal Zionists can disagree on ideas but still approach the world with a restless anxious outlook.

    British Imperial Mindset is an odd blend of several attitudes, sensibilities, and perspectives. And it is this fusion of contradictory tendencies that had led to the current neurosis in people like yourself.

    BIM is arrogant. It's like the scene in HOPE AND GLORY where a teacher tells students that the British Empire rules 2/5th of the empire.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QDIDYXj3Qc

    Now, YOU may deny having such attitude since you praise Mao the anti-imperialist... BUT, you still retain the arrogance of superior knowledge. It's not enough to say Mao did some good things or wasn't totally bad. No, you have to say he was 100% good. It's just BIM in action. It's like you pointing to the blackboard and asking students, 'what percentage of Mao was good?' The answer is of course 100%. Richard Dawkins and JK Rohwling have the same kind of hoity-toity know-all-ness. Godfree being Australian, you'd think he'd be more common-sensical like Crocodile Dundee and Mad Max, but all that book-learning got to him, esp in radical California.

    So, even after the Brits lost their empire, their imperial mindset remained in some corner of their psyche. They still like to make Grand Pronouncements to the world, so as to speak. And your Bold Pronouncement is that Mao was 100% jolly good, old boy. It's like you're the 007 of Mao's secret service.

    Another aspect of British Imperial Mindset is the Adventurous Outlook. Brits became expert sea-voyagers and conquerors. And you have some of that mentality. You got financially wiped out but decided on something adventurous... like settle in Thigh-land.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kL4N6zKgrSg

    And I'll bet a part of you love doing the John-Milius-Fantasy bit. The Great White Man among the natives. THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING(on retirement). The Brits got so good at discovering and conquering much of the world that they find excitement in men of adventure. So, BIM tends to identify with excitement and crises. We see this is LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. Lawrence the fruit adventurer finds the Arab rebellion thrilling. Instead of just serving God, King, and Country, he gets to play the role of god, king, and savior to the Arabs. Of course, his adventure comes with great contradictions. He sees himself as a modern-day prophet, a white muhammad leading the Arabs to freedom and liberty. He believes himself to be writing his own fate and destiny. But he is a pawn moved about by his imperialist superiors. And on some level, he is an agent of British Imperialism even as he leads the Arabs against it but then also for it. After all, it is in British interest that the Arabs rise up against the Turks. As Lawrence sees it, the Arabs shouldn't stop at fighting the Turks but also resist British and French attempts to gain control over Arabia. But he must also know that the British Empire has the power to turn off the spigot just as easily it was turned on. The empire will provide water for warfare as long as Arabs kill Turks. But once Arabs challenge British rule? Turn off the water. Lawrence is an idealist but also a liar. He willfully deluded himself that he was serving the Arabs when he must have known that it would turn out differently. Also, the Arab of his imagination is a fantasy. Real Arabs are a little people who can't create an ocean of power since each side guards its own tribal wells. As Lawrence sees it, the desert can be like an ocean for all Arabs. But in the end, Arab tribalism remains and it is easily manipulated by the West... as still happens to this day.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdSz8WsNSYY

    BIM is a funny thing. Even when it goes in to humble-pie mode, it has to bake the cake in MacArthur's Park. It's like Bowie in MERRY X-MAS MR. LAWRENCE. He is racked with guilt over something that happened to his brother, so how does he redeem himself? By playing the christ role. Roberts' cake is melting in the rain.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6a_KFJ5Ksc

    Now, the contradictory nature of Lawrence can be seen in many Anglos with BIM. There are elements of adventurism, egotism, worship of power, and obedience & humility. After all, despite his big ego, Lawrence was also a good soldier who did, in the end, dutifully serve the British Empire.

    When the British Empire was around, people like Godfree Roberts could support the empire to satisfy their need for adventure, great-power-worship, and humility. A British imperialist had to be a combination of ego and servitude. The ego of being part of a great empire provided pride, courage, and the will. But values of humility and servitude made him a disciplined soldier or agent who worked as a team and ultimately did what he did for something bigger than himself: God, King or Queen, Country, Empire, Tea and Crumpets.

    But that empire is no more. It's like what the traitor says in TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY.

    https://youtu.be/lDk7wSx0b7o?t=26m44s

    With the decline and fall of empire, the BIM needed something to latch onto. For some, it was pro-Americanism. It was the idea that the US was really the child of UK. So, what was good for America was good for Britain, its closest ally(now replaced by Israel, Israel, Israel).
    But for others, it was anti-Americanism. Since there was no more British Empire to play rival of US power, the thing was to side with ANY power opposed to Americanism.

    In the end, both streams more or less ended up in the same pool of globalism as both global capitalism and global leftism came to be dominated by Jewish globalists. For those who went pro-American, it's all about praising Wall Street, Hollywood, and Wars for Israel. For those who went anti-American, it's all about praising homos and Diversity... funded by the same globalists who support Wall Street and Israel.

    So, we have Godfree Roberts of the Australian School of BIM. There is no more empire, but he feels a need to admire and praise something big and strong. And he sees it in Mao and China. China seems like the rising new empire, and Mao was like its emperor. So, there is a lot of servile power-worship on the part of Roberts. This servitude is one part of BIM. It's like the guy who takes umbrage at an American journalist's cynical remark about Lawrence.

    BENTLEY
    He was also the most shameless
    exhibitionist since Barnum and Bailey.

    MAN
    You, sir. Who are you?

    BENTLEY
    My name is Jackson Bentley.

    MAN
    Well, whoever you are, I overheard your
    last remark and I take the gravest
    possible exception. He was a very great
    man.

    BENTLEY
    Did you know him?

    MAN
    No, sir. I can't claim to have known him.
    I once had the honour to shake his hand
    in Damascus.

    You see, the man never knew Lawrence but the Great Man shook his hand once, and he feels honored to have been in his presence.

    And Godfree Roberts has the same mentality in relation to Mao. He doesn't care about the Mao the Man. He's enthralled with Mao the Myth just like Americans worship MLK the myth that has nothing to do with the man. The real MLK was Fartin' Poother Bling, a lying cheat and thug. But that's just how myths go. There are plenty of morons who worship Tupac as some kind of messiah. And Eminem the demento is supposed to be some kind of prophet.

    Godfree Roberts is too old to admire rappers, so he looks to the giants of his youth, and Mao was one of them. He was the Revolutionary Gangsta. To be sure, Che is the safer bet for this kind of adulation. As Che died before he did any real damage -- he failed -- , he can't be blamed for mass tyranny and murder, which surely would have followed communist takeover of Latin America.

    BIM is addicted to greatness and adventure. Even John Derbyshire ended up in China at one time. But BIM is also into servitude to a higher glory. This is why British soldiers were such great fighters. They were willing to sacrifice their lives to God, King or Queen, Country, the espirit de corps(even as they turned into spirits departing corpses). Look at the discipline of British soldiers as they march in battle in BARRY LYNDON.

    https://youtu.be/SBFpw-459VU?t=33s

    In a way, the man with biggest ego tend not to be the best warrior. After all, an egotist wants to live and others to serve him. Why should he stick his neck out if it could mean death? It's like Italians have big egos and talk big. But when faced with danger, they poop their pants and run like a mofo to hide under mama's dress to survive. Mussolini ran in the end like a rat.
    To be a good soldier, your own ego must be suppressed and be made to serve a higher glory. It could be queen or country. Or it could be a sense of camaraderie. Brits were very mindful of how OTHERS thought of them. This is why Lord Jim freaks out. He chickened out and can't live with the shame. In contrast, an Italian or Greek has no such shame. They act like #1 and act big and tough and manly but when the going gets tough, they act like the Latino in RAIDERS. Esp them lowlife Greeks. Mafia has to stress honor precisely because no one has any.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws8btF36O1Q

    Among the British, self-ego was suppressed to be part of a Greater Good and Glory. Consider the men in ZULU and how they fight to the end. If they were Italian or Greek, they would have run like a mothafuc*a and got on the first ship back to Italy or Greece. And even if the deaths are wasteful in GALLIPOLI, those are brave soldiers.
    And yet, British bravery was also built on cowardice. Brits were more fearful of being shunned than dying. If Lord Jim were an Italian, his attitude would have been, "who cares what others think? I'm alive and I'm gonna go home and eat mama's pastas and go out and pinch women's asses." But the BIM works differently. Brits are fearful and cowardly in face of what others thinks. So a Brits prefers to DIE than be looked down upon. And this mindset is behind both the brave soldiers in ZULU & GALLIPOLI and in the current demise of UK under Afro-Islamic colonization. Today's Brit is so fearful of being called 'racist' and being looked down upon that he will bravely face death by demographic imperialism of the darkies. He would rather go down with the ship than be called a 'coward'. In contrast, a craven Italian or Greek captain will be the first one to jump a sinking ship. This is why I say BIM has gotten cancerous. In the past, it was harnessed to take over the world. Now, it's is leading to demise of UK.

    Anyway, there is a kind of BIM mentality in both Derbyshire and Godfree.
    Just like Godfree feels a need to admire and praise Great Mao, Derbyshire is also into hero-worship.

    Now, Jared has no greater admirer than me. As I have told him myself: If our republic survives, there will be statues to Jared in public squares one day.

    Rule, Tayloria! Tayloria, rule the waves!
    Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

    I find myself wondering again, for the umpteenth time, why shallow mediocrities like David Brooks or John Podhoretz have high-paid opinionating slots at major mainstream publications while Steve’s material is out beyond the fringes of respectability.

    Rule, Saileria! Saileria, rule the waves!
    Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

    That hymn is interesting. It says Brits shall never be slaves, but British Freedom is ensured by a certain slavishness on the part of Brits. While Anglos pioneered individualism, it came with the caveat of the willingness to self-sacrifice for the common good. It balanced the grasshopper with the ant. And we see this contradiction in movies about British Education, at least until Pink Floyd destroyed it with 'We don't need no education'.

    After all, if a society had two options, which is preferable?

    Option #1 forbids freedom and forces everyone to do the right thing. And everyone does the right and proper thing and society survives and even thrives.

    Option #2 allows freedom to individuals and individuals freely choose to do the wrong thing and mess things up royally like Negroes in Detroit or hillbillies addicted to meth as the new moonshine.

    Now, we all like freedom, but wouldn't tyranny and survival be preferable to freedom and demise?

    But what if there is a third option? Suppose there is freedom and suppose individuals freely do the right thing and society thrives and survives. But how could such a society be created when individuals, when allowed to be free, so often act foolish?

    The solution is to deny freedom to young ones. Educate them, work them hard, discipline them. Force them to attend school where teachers instill in them proper values and manners. And then let them graduate to a higher freedom. After all, if clay is to turn into a pottery, it has to be molded and then heated. If allowed to remain clay-ish, the pottery will fall apart in rain or crack in sunlight. So, British adult freedom was founded on strict molding of the young ones. Later social critics saw this as cruel and inhuman, but the only way individual freedom could be constructive was by molding the young ones to be respectable, dignified, and reasonably deferential to traditional, authority, and all that. That way, even if freed, they would act properly. It's like dogs have to be trained before they are allowed to run around without a leash. An untrained dog has to remain on leash.
    Sadly, this model has vanished in the West. Pop Culture encourages children to act like total louts and whores and punks and thugs. PC tells kids that white teachers are oppressors. Blacks in schools see anything 'white' as weak, wussy, and punkass. People of Color are indoctrinated with resentment for whiteness, and that means white traditions and institutions that made the Modern World possible are denigrated. Girls are not raised to be proper respectable women but whores and sluts or Oleannic demento-bitches. Imagine if Pat Buchanan had been raised by a single mother who whores around with Negroes and her homo friends. He might have an earring, tattoos on his ass, and be rapping like Eminem. Boomer parenting was disastrous but maybe it goes back further. Maybe Greatest Gen parenting was too lax and materialistic. After all, it's Archie Bunker who raised the insipid Gloria, and Meathead is the son of 'Polack' GG parents.

    With PC having it made it taboo for whites to admire their own identity and tradition, whites with BIM are latching onto the Other as something to serve. So, UK is now into worship of the Negro. BBC's official line is white blokes must worship the Big Negro Dong. BBC features white women worship the Great Negro as the new ideal. Among Canada and Australia, the worship is for Great Asia. Let Anglo-nations be handed over to People of Dot and People of Dog(eating) on a silver platter. What lunacy.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byrNW6eokWM

    And we now have Godfree Roberts rhapsodizing about Mao when he should be worrying about how to save the white race from Negroes, People of Dot, and People of Dog. His mindset is still in the mode of BIM. He thinks bigly in imperial terms. After all, even though Mao kicked out the imperialists, he ruled China like a new emperor and Maoism was once promoted around the world as something like new muhammadism, the Chinese heresy of islam-communism as rebellion against chrito-communism of the Soviet Union.

    So, Godfree has to be free himself of this silly BIM. When Australia is about to be overrun by People of Dot, People of Dog, Muslim crazies, and Sudanese thugs who go around kicking white butt, what is Godfree doing living in Thigh-land and singing East is Red?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4lztE1KZ2k

    Anglos were at their best with their race-ism. Race-ism ultimately saved both Anglo-nations and non-white nations under Anglo rule. It led to the transference of best Anglos ideas to non-white world and creating new business/trade opportunities while maintaining racial and cultural integrity of both worlds. Because Anglo race-ism abhorred race-mixing, there was less mixing between Brits and their non-white subjects. This was good for the subjects cuz it meant their womenfolk were less sexually conquered by Anglos. In contrast, the race-mixing Latinos changed the bloodline of the natives of Latin America forever. And they also messed up white bloodlines. This made it near-impossible for natives of 'Latin America' to rise up and kick out the Spanish imperialists. With so many people with mixed-blood, they didn't know if they were white or Indio.
    In contrast, Anglo race-ism ensured that most darkies keep their racial integrity. So when the time came for resistance and national liberation, it was easy for Asians, Africans, or other people to unify and kick out the Brits. Why do Han Chinese promote race-mixing with Tibetans and Uighurs? They are trying to do what the Hispanics and Portuguese did to the natives of the Americas.

    Another thing about the Anglos was they were snobbish and sneering, and this was also good for the non-white natives. It prevented their full cooperation and collaboration with the British Empire. Many non-white elites studied in Britain and wanted to be accepted in the white world. And had they been allowed in, they never would have returned home and become national leaders. Even as Brits educated these non-whites to serve the empire, they also always made sure that non-white elites understood who was the real boss. So, even an educated Hindu was a 'wog', an educated Chinese was 'chinaman', and educated African was a 'coon', sometimes accented with 'bloody'. This made it impossible for someone like Gandhi to serve the empire. I mean he was there in Africa serving the British Empire to control the Negroes but the whites were calling him a 'wog' too. He took it personally, and he decided to lead his own people. Same with Lee Kuan Yew. He had great admiration from the Brits and learned much from them. But the Brits must also have called him 'chinaman' at some point, and he became a great leader over his own kind.

    So, if the Anglos really wanna do the world a favor, they should become race-ist once again. That way, the non-white elites will be less likely to serve globalism and go back to their nations and be good nationalists once again. It's like what the great uncle Victor says in HAROLD AND MAUDE.

    And so I ask you - why the hell did
    we give up on the Germans? Those
    damn politicians in Washington
    chalked them up on our side and the
    wars ever since have been a national
    disgrace. Hell, look at history.
    The two best wars this country has
    fought were against the Jerries.
    Now I say, get the Krauts on the
    other side of the fence where they
    belong, and let's get back to the
    kind of enemy worth killing and the
    kind of war this whole country can
    support.


    https://youtu.be/oxomZHzw7Nc?t=37s

    When the 'krauts' were on the other side, things were so much simpler. And the world would be simpler and things would be clearer if Anglos were race-ists. Then, non-Anglo world could learn good ideas from Anglos and fix their own nations. That way, their own nations would improve and Anglo nations would remain white. Everyone wins. But today, Anglo mode is both neo-imperialist and apologetic-suicidal. Anglo-America calls itself 'exceptional' and 'indispensable', a new jingoism. But supposedly, the New America is so great cuz it's about 'diversity'. It's all so confusing. Also, even though Anglosphere is still the richest and most powerful part of the world, it's not even ruled by Anglos anymore but by Jewish globalists and their homo allies whose main object of worship is the homo anus and the Negro dong and black woman's ass 'twerking'. Yes, 'twerk' is now part of Western Culture. Anglo-world from Work Ethic to Twerk Antic.

    Anyway, what about Mao?

    Godfree's Mao-worship is nothing new. Indeed, such opinions and lit were commonplace prior to the 80s. I went to college in mid 80s and a lot of book on Russia, China, and etc were from 60s and 70s. Most China Scholars prior to the 80s had very limited access to Chinese affairs, and much of it depended on Chinese sources or CIA estimates that later proved to be very wrong. Also, most China Scholars were on the left and sympathetic to communists. My professor told me he was a student in the late 50s and his professors all dismissed reports of famine in China as Taiwanese propaganda. Read most books on China on 60s and 70s and, even as they admit Mao was a tyrant, they talk glowingly of progress.

    But then, China opened up in the 80s and the full extent of the horrors poured out from so many sources. Also, Westerners had freer access to people, voices, and accounts in China. Prior to that, every Westerner was carefully shown Potemkin village versions of China. A good book on this is Steven Mosher's CHINA MISPERCEIVED. Now, over the yrs, Mosher became overly anti-Chinese and is dismissive of EVERYTHING done by the CCP, but his book details how so many Western scholars and reporters were fooled, not least because their political sympathies wanted to be duped(like so many sympathizers, left or right, were fooled by Soviet Union and Nazi Germany).

    https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-465-09805-7

    As for Robert's stats showing economic growth under China, much of it seems based on outdated and discredited data. When Mao died, Time magazine, relying on CIA sources, said China's economic growth under communism had been 'staggering'. We are talking about a nation where a car factory might churn out 100 cars a year. It was a nation of bicycles called the Flying Pigeon.

    Also, some of the achievements of Mao would have happened under Chiang. Mao had the advantage of unity, stability, and peace. Chiang never got a chance because he had to deal with Japanese invasion and then lost the Civil War. But the fact is much had been done during the Nanking Decade from 1927 to 1937 and if China hadn't end up fighting Japan, much more could have been done. Sure, Chiang's way wasn't to drive out the imperialists overnight, but he knew time was on his side. If China kept developing and gaining greater economic might, the foreigners would eventually have to return their territories. Also, the foreigners could be useful in facilitating greater trade between China and the rest of the world. After all, wasn't it good for China that Mao didn't kick out the imperialists in Hong Kong? Those HK'ers later taught so much to Mainland Chinese. And Taiwan's independence also turned out to be beneficial to China. Many Taiwanese succeeded in capitalism and later, with many other overseas Chinese, invested heavily in China.

    If Chiang could have avoided war with Japan or had he prevailed over Communists in the Civil War, he would surely have done much more for China. He too wanted to end the opium epidemic. He also believed in Westernization. He also believed in modernization. Indeed, individuals and women in Taiwan and Hong Kong lived with more freedom and dignity than women in China. To be sure, Taiwanese and HKer's didn't have national dignity as Taiwan as protectorate of US and HK was whore of UK. But UK wasn't such a bad pimp. Check out NOBLE HOUSE.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_63CZoyoYJc

    Chiang was a sort of a Christo-Confucian fascist. He converted to Christianity, respected Confucian traditions and hierarchy. But he also believed in reforms and modernization. He sought to balance the left and right, past and future. But he never got a chance. The war with Japan ruined him. And he was prescient. He feared that if KMT fights Japan, it would be crushed and it would give the commies a second chance. His fears were borne out by events. Mao came to power ONLY BECAUSE Japan crushed KMT that was pushed to the south. With KMT and Japan exhausting one another, the commies waited for their opportunity, and they took it when WWII ended and Japan retreated, esp as Soviet occupiers of North China handed over so much to the Commies.

    Was the KMT corrupt? Yes, very, but in some ways, it was a sign of health. It meant bad use of freedom but it still meant freedom. In contrast, the communists were pure and far less corrupt, BUT there was no freedom at all. It was a iron-fisted world of spartan ruthlessness. Chiang trusted his followers because he didn't like to be cruel or paranoid. He could be ruthless when necessary but it was not something he exulted in. IN contrast, Mao loved violence and he purged his own men who'd served him loyally over and over. This process ensured no spies among the communists and total devotion to Mao. In contrast, Chiang's humane tolerance did lead to more corruption and also more communist spies in KMT. Indeed, it turned out KMT was filled with commie spies because Chiang was overly nice and trusting.

    Mao did have Great Man qualities. His path to power from son of farmer to ruler of China is the most epic story in the 20th century. Hitler's path to power was relatively easy. He won elections with backing of rich Germans. Lenin and Trotsky led the revolution and then Stalin the bureaucrat took over. But Mao was at the center from the beginning of communism of China to his victory in 1949. So, there's no doubt he had a lot of intelligence, a kind of political vision, and shrewdness. But he was also a boor, a vulgarian, and a fool. He was arrogant, vindictive, cruel, and nasty. Or just plain childish. He had a great opportunity after Stalin died. Khrushchev wanted to reboot relations on good terms. He visited China, but Mao kept trying to drown him like a water polo ball in a the swimming pool. Khrush could hardly swim and this freaked him out. And Mao kept blowing smoke in his face even though Khrush didn't smoke. I mean here's Khrush, leader of the other great superpower, trying to make nice with Mao, and Mao is acting like the king of the hillbillies. The main reason for Sino-Soviet rift was Mao's a**hole behavior and egotism as he wanted to be the new leader of the communist world after Stalin died. Now, had Mao been more sensible, the communist world could have been greatly strengthened. If Chinese manpower and Russian knowhow and resources could have been combined, communism would have been stronger(even if ultimately doomed cuz it's not a good system). But instead, Mao's megalomania led to the rift and the Soviets and Chinese were working AGAINST one another than for each other.

    Another thing that Mao messed up royally was talent. Communists had lots of talent. Indeed, one of Chiang's complaints was that so many of the Best and the Brightest of the Chinese went over to the Communists. So many educated and idealistic Chinese were so angry with Japan and Western powers that they wanted to join a great movement for national liberation and progress. And many were drawn to the communists. Zhou Enlai, Liu Shaochi, Deng Xiaoping, and many others were men of great intelligence and ability. Even with communism being ultimately a bad system, the fact is there was enough talent in the CCP for it to make considerable progress if Mao hadn't gotten in the way. Mao knew guerrilla warfare and leadership, but he was unfit to rule and manage. Stalin was cruel, but he had bureaucratic patience and diligence to get things done, which is why USSR did make great leaps in industry(even if at huge human cost). Mao was too impatient for gradual progress in economics. Instead of letting things develop organically, he carried out campaigns that, more often than not, did more harm than good. Like the idiotic idea about getting rid of sparrows. The mass culling of sparrows was like playing chess like a retard. It's like going for short-term gain of a piece while falling into a trap of checkmate. Killing sparrows meant fewer birds eating crops, but it also meant fewer birds eating bugs that eat many more crops. But Mao's hysterical view of progress didn't allow for complexity and nuance.
    Many idealistic intellectuals, teachers, scientists, doctors, engineers, and managers joined Communist China. Even the Chinese atomic bomb owed to Chinese engineers trained in the US who returned out of patriotism and idealism. But Mao sent so many educated people to carry dung in farms. A backward nation like China needed all the talent it could gather to do scientific and technological stuff. But Mao used many of them badly, esp during the Cultural Revolution that also destroyed so much art and culture.
    Now, there was a theme in communism that was good for China. A corrupted version of Confucianism had created a culture of snobbery, contempt, and elitism among the rich and educated. And surely, Mao suffered many such slights as a farmboy in the city. The 'better kind' of people never took him seriously. So, communism emphasis on the dignity of farmers and workers was good. But did Mao have to send educated people to carry pig shi*? What a total waste.
    Worse, some of these people were driven to suicide or were tortured to death because they refused to admit guilt to some false accusation.

    As for all the achievements of Mao's China, let's compare them with developments in other non-communist Asian nations. Which achieved far more? Mao's China or Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore? And did China achieve more between 1980 and 2010 or between 1949 and 1976?
    Didn't new China beginning with Deng follow the model of Japan and the 'Asian tigers'?

    Roberts talks of women's rights, but Asian women were 'liberated' without communism in Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Roberts talks of ending foot-binding, but Chiang would have ended foot-binding too. And he too would have carried out a campaign against opium, though probably less brutal than Mao's that rounded and shot all the dealers and even some of the users.

    Now, one could argue that China under Mao achieved less in economic development than, say, Japan or Taiwan, since it was closed off from the world market. True to some extent, but Mao could have had good relations with USSR and its Warsaw Pact nations. But he messed up the relations. The souring of relations between USSR and China meant China would also be shout out from Warsaw Pact nations.
    Also, when Nixon met with Mao, he wanted faster negotiations for more trade. It was Mao who held back. It was only after Mao died and the Gang of Four was neutralized that China could really join the world trading community. But even if China had been shut off from world trade, it could at least have fed itself. But Mao's crazy agricultural plans led to stagnation in agriculture and even mass famine during Great Leap.
    As for the huge population growth, how is that an accomplishment? Look at Africa today. Poorest part of the world has the highest population growth. Mao pushed for more babies because he thought like a peasant: "Every mouth comes with two hands". He thought everything in terms of manual labor. Also, he wanted many Chinese because he feared new wars with USSR and US. Since China lagged in technology, he figured he needed as many cannon fodders as possible in case of war. After all, the only reason why the Japanese failed to conquer China was there were TOO MANY Chinese.

    That said, there are some good things to be said for Mao's victory. If Mao(nor Chiang) had not prevailed in the Civil War, China today might be two nations like Korea. North China and South China. Mao's victory did lead to a nationalist and independent China. Also, as this government was based on indigenous rule, it had genuine sovereignty. Chiang was a patriot too, but his aides were too close with the imperialists. The Soong Family was intertwined with American oligarchs. As for the governments of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, they became total whores of the US. US was a good generous pimp, but they were whores nevertheless.
    Communist victory did establish a fully independent national government in China, and that is a blessing. And even though Mao's rift with the Soviets was stupid as hell at the time, it also turned out to have benefits. If Mao had played along with Soviets, China may have remained a junior partner of Russia. But because of the rift, China became independent of both the West and Russia. This led to much hardship but also a greater sense of national sovereignty.

    Also, who would have known that the US the good pimp would turn into a bad pimp? When US was ruled by Anglos, it was truly a great nation like in BIG COUNTRY. Proud, tough, moral, Christian, patriotic, and sensibly race-ist. But once the Jewish globalists, homos, and Negroes took over, it's been a total disgrace. What is the white man in the US? A cuck who serves Israel-firsters, homo degenerates, Negro 'muh dic*ers', and skanky feminists. Because US is the center of globalism, this filth is being spread all over.

    This is where the rise of Putin, CCP rule in China, and Iranian Revolution turned out to have positive aspects. Putin's autocracy is deeply flawed but it holds back against globalist degeneracy like homo 'pride' parades. China won't allow homomania as proxy of US-globalist imperialism. Sure, China is repressive state that needs more freedom, but much of today's 'freedom' just means cucking to evil sick degenerate globalism. And even though I don't like theocracy, Iranian revolution did put in place a truly nationalist power bloc that says NO to the garbage that comes out of the US.

    So, what seems like a curse at one time could later turn out to be a blessing. It's like how history plays out in the cosmic-chess-game prophecy of Isaac Asimov's FOUNDATION series.

    It was very good, Priss. Not sure that BIM necessarily explains Roberts but certainly you made good observation about BIM itself. I even thought that this time you will not bring up the dongs. But you did at the end. It is stronger than you.

    Read More
    • LOL: Daniel Chieh
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. @godfree Roberts
    One more time: Did I lie?

    Were any of my statements incorrect?

    This is not the forum for ad hominem silliness.

    One more time: Did I lie?
    Were any of my statements incorrect?

    One can be totally honest in one’s statement and still be wrong.

    I don’t think Wally(a commenter) is being dishonest when he insists the holocaust didn’t happen… just like you will certainly be sincere in your rejection of all those reports of mass deaths under Mao.

    Both you and Wally are being sincere. But sincerity is not the truth.

    I can sincerely believe that I saw a unicorn. It doesn’t make it true.

    As for whether your assertions are correct, MANY China scholars would fervently disagree with you.
    Are they incorrect?

    Read More
    • Replies: @kauchai
    "As for whether your assertions are correct, MANY China scholars would fervently disagree with you."

    Are the "MANY china scholars" correct? Or are they given in to "group-think" and big fat paychecks?

    Shouldn't this issue of GLF be examined and studied under the strictest of proofs rather than "manipulated" statistics or personal recollections or past perceptions? Don't you think it is time we do so?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @Verymuchalive
    Certainly, Lenin didn't personally kill anyone either. The same holds for Stalin, I think. I'm sure Godfree ( who said Communist parents didn't have a sense of humour ! ) could write similar articles for these gentlemen.

    Lincoln killed more American soldiers and civilians than Hitler and Tojo ever did.

    Is he a criminal?

    Should we never have built statues for him?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_Native_Americans

    And strangely no one is responsible for the following:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bengal_famine_of_1770

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_Famine_of_1945

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    Lincoln killed more American soldiers and civilians than Hitler and Tojo ever did.

    Reasons matter. Lincoln wanted to restore the Union and keep American unified.

    Very bloody but justifiable. And it also ended slavery.

    Surely, it's different from Germans invading Russia to turn people into slaves or corpses.

    In the end, the South should have worked with Lincoln to free the slaves and send them back to Africa. Lincoln was opposed to slavery but was also a rational race-ist who understood the dangers posed by Negroes.

    , @Ramin Mazaheri
    Persian Famine of 1917 - orchestrated by England, 8-10 million deaths, majng Iran the biggest victim of WWI.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_famine_of_1917–1919

    Exceptionally good article!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @Mao Cheng Ji

    By the time he retired, he had reunited, reimagined, reformed and revitalized the largest, oldest civilization on earth, modernized it after a century of failed modernizations and ended thousands of years of famines.
     
    Your piece concentrates on China, but he also crated a whole new universal political philosophy; a school of thought popular all over the world even today.

    Not very popular here, it seems!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @Langley
    Mao said that "killing ten million people" was nothing compared to the good he would accomplish.

    https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE2.HTM

    There seems to be a concerted effort to rehabilitate the mass murderers of the last century.

    Mao said nothing of the kind, but you’ll have to wait for Part Two of this trilogy, Whose Famine? to find out what he did say.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @Ron Unz

    I think Mao was necessary in the same sense that Qin Shi Huang was necessary – to break the stagnation that China has gotten herself in – but it hardly just makes him 100% good.
     
    That's very similar to my own perspective. I think Mao's place in history would be far better if he'd tripped and broken his neck during the early 1950s. I'm pretty skeptical of attempts to explain away the gigantic disasters of the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution, but I suppose we'll see.

    I tend to agree that Mao was indeed a "feminist" but back in those days, I think "Chinese feminism" meant opposition to foot-binding, buying wives, and polygamy, and would also have accorded with the views of American reactionaries, let alone Christian missionaries. My guess is that he'd regard today's American or Chinese "feminists" as decadent lunatics, and ship them all off to harsh Reeducation Camps.

    I also strongly disagreed with various other parts of the article. For example, is doubling Chinese's population necessarily a positive achievement? The governments of many totally impoverished African nations are increasing their populations by 10x or more. So are they vastly more successful than Mao?

    Closely related to this issue is the fact that the economic growth chart is *total* GDP rather than per capita GDP, which means that a good chunk of the economic improvement wasn't real. That's the same trick journalists often play these days with "African growth." Also, totally backward, devastated, and impoverished countries like China are naturally going to grow more rapidly than the post-WWII USA, which was already the richest country in the world, so the comparison isn't a sensible one.

    I think it would be much better to compare the growth in per capita Chinese GDP from the chart vs. that during the following decades under Deng's anti-Maoist economic policies, which was *vastly* greater.

    I'd summarized this in my own China article of a few years ago, which I'd still currently stand by:

    By the late 1970s, three decades of Communist central planning had managed to increase China’s production at a respectable rate, but with tremendous fits and starts, and often at a terrible cost: 35 million or more Chinese had starved to death during the disastrous 1959–1961 famine caused by Mao’s forced industrialization policy of the Great Leap Forward.

    China’s population had also grown very rapidly during this period, so the typical standard of living had improved only slightly, perhaps 2 percent per year between 1958 and 1978, and this from an extremely low base. Adjusted for purchasing power, most Chinese in 1980 had an income 60–70 percent below that of the citizens in other major Third World countries such as Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Kenya, none of which were considered great economic success stories. In those days, even Haitians were far wealthier than Chinese.

    All this began to change very rapidly once Deng Xiaoping initiated his free-market reforms in 1978, first throughout the countryside and eventually in the smaller industrial enterprises of the coastal provinces. By 1985, The Economist ran a cover story praising China’s 700,000,000 peasants for having doubled their agricultural production in just seven years, an achievement almost unprecedented in world history. Meanwhile, China’s newly adopted one-child policy, despite its considerable unpopularity, had sharply reduced population growth rates in a country possessing relatively little arable land.

    A combination of slowing population growth and rapidly accelerating economic output has obvious implications for national prosperity. During the three decades to 2010, China achieved perhaps the most rapid sustained rate of economic development in the history of the human species, with its real economy growing almost 40-fold between 1978 and 2010. In 1978, America’s economy was 15 times larger, but according to most international estimates, China is now set to surpass America’s total economic output within just another few years.
     
    http://www.unz.com/runz/chinas-rise-americas-fall/#china-shakes-the-world

    I tend to agree that Mao was indeed a “feminist” but back in those days, I think “Chinese feminism” meant opposition to foot-binding, buying wives, and polygamy, and would also have accorded with the views of American reactionaries, let alone Christian missionaries.

    I realize that the end of foot-binding has been strongly associated with the Communists, but could even this be a case of them stealing other people’s achievements?

    From the Wiki article on foot-banding:

    In 1912, the new Republic of China government banned foot binding (though not actively implemented), and leading intellectuals of the May Fourth Movement saw footbinding as a major symbol of China’s backwardness. Local warlords such as Yan Xishan in Shanxi engaged in their own sustained campaign against footbinding with feet inspectors and fines for those who continued with the practice, and regional governments of the later Nanjing regime also enforced the ban. The campaign against footbinding was very successful in some regions; in one province, a 1929 survey showed that while only 2.3% of girls born before 1910 had unbound feet, 95% of those born after were not bound. In a region south of Beijing, Dingxian, where over 99% of women were once bound, no new cases were found among those born after 1919. In Taiwan, the practice was also discouraged by the ruling Japanese from the beginning of Japanese rule, and from 1911 to 1915 it was gradually made illegal. The practice however lingered on in some regions in China; in 1928, a census in rural Shanxi found that 18% of women had bound feet, while in some remote rural areas such as Yunnan Province it continued to be practiced until the 1950s. In most parts of China, however, the practice had virtually disappeared by 1949. The practice was also stigmatized in Communist China, and the last vestiges of footbinding were stamped out, with the last new case of footbinding reported in 1957.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    in one province, a 1929 survey showed that while only 2.3% of girls born before 1910 had unbound feet, 95% of those born after were not bound.
     
    That's very interesting. I'd vaguely known that the Chinese Republicans and other "progressive elements" had opposed foot-binding, but it sounds like they'd been much more successful than I'd realized.

    Probably a better example, which I'd forgotten to include in my earlier comment, was the very widespread practice of female infanticide. From what I've read in books on rural China, for centuries something like 10-15% of all female infants were killed at birth by their unfortunate parents, and this continued as late as into the 1940s. Certainly one of the leading "feminist" causes among the Chinese Communists was trying to stamp out female infanticide.

    I think even the hardest-core anti-feminist rightwing ideologues in the West tended to agree on that particular issue.
    , @FKA Max
    Mr. Karlin,

    I found some interesting research on this topic a while back:

    Unraveling a brutal custom

    Foot binding in China tied to hand weaving, study finds

    http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/12/unraveling-a-brutal-custom/
    [...]
    Bossen said the research points to a clear connection between foot binding and hand labor. Mothers needed their daughters’ help to produce both cloth for the family and extra cloth for sale. They needed to keep their “willful, playful” young daughters at their sides, she said, to have them learn how to spin, wind, twist, and weave fibers they could sell when the crops failed or fell short at harvest.

    “For girls who are doing handwork for income, the odds are 4.5 to 1 that they will be bound,” said Bossen of the studies they conducted in China’s Yunnan Province.
    [...]
    And as the value of women’s hand labor decreased, so did foot binding.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/isteve/56-years-a-slave/#comment-1875379
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @Hieronymus of Canada

    He wasn’t a dictator, remember.
     
    So what was he?

    Chairman of the Board. Neither more nor less.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hieronymus of Canada

    Chairman of the Board. Neither more nor less.
     
    When do Chairmen of the Board have massive personality cults?

    Dissent is punished much more leniently, imprisonment is rare by comparison, as is death at the hands of the government.
     
    How so? If you run afoul of the received knowledge in the US, you will ostracized, but not imprisoned, unlike what can happen in China. I don't like the former but the later is worse. I would agree on the second point, but the third point I am not sure. State executions are much higher in the PRC (extimated to be in the thousands) than the USA (20 in 2016), but that doesn't include shooting deaths by police officers (about a thousand in the US, unknown in China).

    Or WHY Mao won so easily despite massive US support for Chiang?
     
    Because Mao had massive support from the USSR?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. Santos says:
    @Beckow
    To call it 'controversial' is evasive and shows inability to understand the way the world works. Our past is full of suffering, injustice and famines. And one can describe most of human history as one long 'economic mis-management'. What matters is how most people live. And not what a few frustrated, absurdist intellectuals feel, or the formerly rich who lose out.

    In 1945, China was substantially worse off than India: poorer, backward, lacking in everything. Then China got Mao and India got a bunch of 'liberal' talkers. Today China is head and shoulders above India in terms of development and overall quality of life. And suffering? If you count apples as apples, there has been as much famine and injustice in India as in China.

    I understand that evaluating post-WWII revolutions (or 'communism') is hard because of the extreme visibility all screw-ups and oppression were given in the Western media and consciousness. After all it was 'the enemy' so it had to be demonised. And the victims were mostly high-visibility and often exiles living bitter lives in the West.

    But the massive and very successful transformation of China is simply not something that one can dismiss as 'controversial'. It was real - more people than ever in history dramatically improved their lives. And this is true also for most places in eastern Europe. If you look at the data, you see the same pattern: suddenly after hundreds of years of incredible poverty and brutal oppression, regular people started to live normal lives with housing, jobs, education, medical care, basic safety, etc... And it happened within 1-2 generations.

    Would it had happened anyway? Was the dramatic 1950-90 improvement for so many, so fast, going to happen regardless of the revolutions? Were the elites after hundreds of years of no interest in how most people lived suddenly going to change on their own? Yeah, sure they were. Right.

    Meanwhile people in China lived in a prison, literally, China was a prison for most Chinese unless you were a higher up in the Communist Party.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    "people in China lived in a prison"
     
    How was it a 'prison'? Prison as a term has a precise meaning, living in China during Mao doesn't fit that meaning. Unless you mean it poetically as in 'we all on this earth are really living in a prison'...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @Daniel Chieh
    His own sexual activities might imply otherwise; at any rate, feminism is not healthy for the country. As mp said, a return to tradition is in order. Xi Dada does seem to be aware of this, for which I am most grateful.

    I think Mao was necessary in the same sense that Qin Shi Huang was necessary - to break the stagnation that China has gotten herself in - but it hardly just makes him 100% good.

    I think Mao was necessary in the same sense that Qin Shi Huang was necessary – to break the stagnation that China has gotten herself in – but it hardly just makes him 100% good.

    Isn’t it better to say ‘someone-like-Mao was necessary’ than ‘Mao was necessary’?

    Yes, China needed a strong leader who could unite and rule the nation with authority. Someone like Mao with his good qualities. But there were so many bad qualities in the particular figure of Mao.

    Now, if you argue that ONLY Mao could have done the job, doesn’t this make Chinese look really stupid? You mean, out of those 100s of millions of people, ONLY ONE person has the will and ability to rule a nation?

    As it turned out, Liu Shao-Chi did a pretty good job for several yrs after the the catastrophic Great Leap. He restored the economy and even wanted to restore ties with Russia. Also, Deng was a most able leader from the late 70s to the end. He combined iron hand with soft touch. He worked like what Teddy Roosevelt said: Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick.

    So, China didn’t have any shortage of able leaders. There were others who could have played the Mao role with much more sanity.

    It’s like saying Germany needed someone LIKE HITLER during the Great Depression. It needed a strong leader who could restore a sense of pride and purpose to the nation. ‘Someone like Hitler’ with his good qualities BUT not Hitler himself who was pathological and didn’t know when to stop and brought about WWII.

    Mao too was pathological. His failures weren’t just epic in scope, costing millions of lives and the near-total destruction of culture during the Cultural Revolution, a truly crazy time. Like Hitler, Mao didn’t know when to stop.

    Btw, the idea that China was stagnant when communists came to power is wrong. Chiang and KMT were fully aware of the problems, and they did much to improve things except that Japanese invasion messed everything up. Also, Chiang wanted to play for time, but Chinese popular opinion called for war against Japan in an alliance with communists. And that brought about the demise of KMT. China in the 1930s and 1940s was a dynamic place and far removed from 1840 when it was indeed stagnant.

    It was understandable why the Chinese people wanted the KMT to engage the Japanese over Manchuria, but Chiang knew China was not ready to fight Japan. He figured he must destroy the communists totally first before engaging Japan. But there was enough freedom in China under KMT to call for tough actions against Japan. And after the kidnapping by the Manchurian general, Chiang felt obligated to go into war mode against Japan.

    Now, imagine if Mao’s China was at war with Russia. Suppose KMT in Taiwan offered an alliance with the mainland to fight Russia. Do you think Mao would have agreed? No way. He would have known such an alliance would give KMT another foothold in the mainland.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_decade

    Chiang is truly a tragic figure in Chinese history, caught between a rock and a hard place. He wanted to unify China and modernize it, and he did have achievements during the Nanking Decade, but Japanese aggression in North China just put him at odds with not just Japan but the Chinese people who clamored for war when China was not ready. And the communists exploited this by appealing to the Chinese people. It called for unity with KMT to fight the Japanese. It was a cynical but masterly move on the part of Mao and Zhou. They got to witness the Japanese and KMT destroy one another while the communists waited patiently to fill the vacuum when the time was ripe.

    Anyway, I agree China needed someone like Mao but not Mao himself. And I agree Germany needed someone like Hitler but not Hitler. And Russia needed someone like Stalin but not Stalin. Those particular fellers were too pathological and extreme.

    It’s too bad they were not like Ataturk, a man who could be strong but had a real sense of humanity.

    Anyway, it’s better to say China needed a man like Deng.. and got him in the late 70s, and it was very good for China.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    We don't live in a world of ideal men and CKS effectively created a network of warlords; such a system could never have created an unified China. Perhaps the most damning recognition is that after having largely built up Taiwan, the KMT has been evicted from power and TaiDu is busy virtue signaling themselves to death. Its bad enough to advocate homopoz with some form of economic growth, but as far as I can tell, TaiDu is happy cargo culting itself into oblivion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. Beckow says:
    @map
    So what are you arguing?

    That nobody died?

    You want me to trust self-serving demographic data generated by Communist liars?

    Modern China was built on the deaths of millions of their own citizens...deaths that were generated by orders from their own government, whether intentional, an error of omission or an error of commission. Once the surplus population was removed, the rest was Western technology transfer.

    This is hardly remarkable.

    Any nation could get these results with this recipe.

    “That nobody died?

    What? I hope you are familiar with the whole set-up we have here on earth with birth, childhood, etc…you know, people do die in all societies.

    “Modern China was built on the deaths of millions of their own citizens…”

    So was Britain, France, Germany, Russia, US,…all modern societies were built on top of enormous suffering in the past. Millions died in all of them.

    Take Britain and add up all the people who died as part of its ‘industrialisation’, wars, colonisation, famines (Irish, Highlanders, Bengalis…), all the premature deaths from lack of food, health care, and deplorable working conditions in19th and 20th century – you will get tens of millions that you can count as ‘dead victims’ of the British government. Or you can just see it as part of life, but then why wouldn’t the millions who perished in China mostly out of starvation and overwork not be the same?

    If you apply the same standard to all societies, Mao’s China was no worse than let’s Victorian England. But of course you refuse to apply same standards to all, because you are ‘special’, right? I think there is a psychiatric term for people – and societies – who think that they are ‘special’. Look it up, do the diagnosis, and maybe start the treatment. It starts with seeing the same things as actually being the same…try it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @map
    Right...Britain ordered the death of millions of people in the course of industrialization and colonization, both events that actually lifted up millions of their own citizens out of poverty...along with pretty much inventing the entire modern world.

    Irish Highlanders and Bengalis are not their own citizens. Lack of food and healthcare had to do with general economic conditions, not a failure of provision...or are you one of these Communists who think that production just exists like manna from heaven and that a nation must provide for all the people of the world?

    You are basically arguing that Britain would have been better had it followed Mao's methods in developing England instead of what it actually did over the course of centuries.

    It's no wonder great men like Pinochet and Franco just shot Communists instead of wasting their time listening to Communist dissembling.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. Ron Unz says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    I tend to agree that Mao was indeed a “feminist” but back in those days, I think “Chinese feminism” meant opposition to foot-binding, buying wives, and polygamy, and would also have accorded with the views of American reactionaries, let alone Christian missionaries.
     
    I realize that the end of foot-binding has been strongly associated with the Communists, but could even this be a case of them stealing other people's achievements?

    From the Wiki article on foot-banding:

    In 1912, the new Republic of China government banned foot binding (though not actively implemented), and leading intellectuals of the May Fourth Movement saw footbinding as a major symbol of China's backwardness. Local warlords such as Yan Xishan in Shanxi engaged in their own sustained campaign against footbinding with feet inspectors and fines for those who continued with the practice, and regional governments of the later Nanjing regime also enforced the ban. The campaign against footbinding was very successful in some regions; in one province, a 1929 survey showed that while only 2.3% of girls born before 1910 had unbound feet, 95% of those born after were not bound. In a region south of Beijing, Dingxian, where over 99% of women were once bound, no new cases were found among those born after 1919. In Taiwan, the practice was also discouraged by the ruling Japanese from the beginning of Japanese rule, and from 1911 to 1915 it was gradually made illegal. The practice however lingered on in some regions in China; in 1928, a census in rural Shanxi found that 18% of women had bound feet, while in some remote rural areas such as Yunnan Province it continued to be practiced until the 1950s. In most parts of China, however, the practice had virtually disappeared by 1949. The practice was also stigmatized in Communist China, and the last vestiges of footbinding were stamped out, with the last new case of footbinding reported in 1957.

    in one province, a 1929 survey showed that while only 2.3% of girls born before 1910 had unbound feet, 95% of those born after were not bound.

    That’s very interesting. I’d vaguely known that the Chinese Republicans and other “progressive elements” had opposed foot-binding, but it sounds like they’d been much more successful than I’d realized.

    Probably a better example, which I’d forgotten to include in my earlier comment, was the very widespread practice of female infanticide. From what I’ve read in books on rural China, for centuries something like 10-15% of all female infants were killed at birth by their unfortunate parents, and this continued as late as into the 1940s. Certainly one of the leading “feminist” causes among the Chinese Communists was trying to stamp out female infanticide.

    I think even the hardest-core anti-feminist rightwing ideologues in the West tended to agree on that particular issue.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @Joe Wong
    The Europeans including their offshoots is where is now, still filthy rich (although always complaining), because of those hundreds of millions of people all over the world who were robbed and murdered, those who become victims of their very madness of colonialism and orientalism, of the crusades and the slave and Opium trades. Cathedrals and palaces, museums and theaters, train stations – all had been constructed on horrid foundations of bones and blood, and amalgamated by tears. There were so many centuries of plunder that the acts of looting the world for the sole benefit of the few, turned into inseparable part of the ‘Western existence and culture’, something that gets almost never addressed, let alone criticized.

    Yeah, anybody who dares to expose such dark truth about the White who claims they are civilized, they are the final form of civilization is a bad thing, and anything that can make China escape the dark age of unequal treaties imposed on her by the barbaric and greedy western imperialists is also a bad thing. The concerted effort to keep the ‘Western existence and culture’ never addressed, let alone criticized, remains strong and relentless.

    Let’s grant that your premise is correct–that our wealth is founded upon plunder and pillage of colored peoples.

    Should I feel bad about that?

    If anything, it makes me feel proud that we vanquished and subjugated an entire world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Wong
    You should be awarded with a brownie point in honesty, at least you have the courage to admit you are the dark side of humanity that need to be eradicated so that the humanity can improve themselves to be a better creature. It is petty that the elite of the USA and unrepentant war criminal Japanese do not have your courage, they are still lying, they lie abut the present, about the past, even about the future, they lie day and night, relentlessly to cover up their ugly past, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace; they are cowards and hypocrites.

    So please do not whine about other people stealing the American jobs, as you said it is only fair for other people to feel proud that they can vanquish and subjugate others including the American.
    , @Anonymous
    It's not about feeling good or bad. It doesn't matter how one feels. It's like being proud to be a pimp or a slave driver. It's indicative of psychopaths that are to be eradicated.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. As through the 1950′s-70′s Taiwan advanced more rapidly than Red China and enjoyed broader-based prosperity, it’s arguable that a China united under Chiang Kai Shek might well have advanced far more rapidly than it did under Mao and the Communists. It’s eminently arguable that under Chiang, China would have accelerated rapidly from the massive foreign investment and technological aid that Chiang would have cultivated – as he indeed cultivated it in Taiwan, foreign investment and technological aid that the Chinese Communists aggressively spurned and thus failed to encourage or cultivate.

    Chiang was no altar boy, yet he was not nearly as murderous as Mao was, as Chiang routinely had his countrymen executed for their disloyalty to the Kuomintang and even for lackluster military performance in the war against the occupying Japanese.

    By 1917 opium addiction in China had been massively reduced, as this goal was a high priority for Sun Yat-sen’s republicans. It was the Japanese occupiers of Manchukuo and China’s northern and eastern provinces who reintroduced opium on a gigantic scale, as the Japanese used the huge profits they reaped from the poppy to fund their war in China as well as their total-war machine in their home islands. (Source: Harries, Meirion and Susan, Soldiers of the Sun, pp. 240-46)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  131. Beckow says:
    @Santos
    Meanwhile people in China lived in a prison, literally, China was a prison for most Chinese unless you were a higher up in the Communist Party.

    “people in China lived in a prison”

    How was it a ‘prison’? Prison as a term has a precise meaning, living in China during Mao doesn’t fit that meaning. Unless you mean it poetically as in ‘we all on this earth are really living in a prison’…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @godfree Roberts
    Lincoln killed more American soldiers and civilians than Hitler and Tojo ever did.

    Is he a criminal?

    Should we never have built statues for him?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_Native_Americans

    And strangely no one is responsible for the following:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bengal_famine_of_1770

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_Famine_of_1945

    Lincoln killed more American soldiers and civilians than Hitler and Tojo ever did.

    Reasons matter. Lincoln wanted to restore the Union and keep American unified.

    Very bloody but justifiable. And it also ended slavery.

    Surely, it’s different from Germans invading Russia to turn people into slaves or corpses.

    In the end, the South should have worked with Lincoln to free the slaves and send them back to Africa. Lincoln was opposed to slavery but was also a rational race-ist who understood the dangers posed by Negroes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    "South should have worked with Lincoln to free the slaves and send them back to Africa"
     
    They could work on it together, and work on it some more - but it was never going to happen. Not in a way that would make enough of a demographic difference. The original error - or sin - of the greedy settlers who just thought that bringing millions of slaves from Africa was such a great idea, and that it would have no long-term catastrophic consequences, that error by 1850 couldn't be undone.

    There was also the issue of many Southerners having most of their wealth in the ownership of slaves, and the value of their plantations was based on that slave labor. So there really was no solution available. If Confederacy successfully separated, it would had slowly collapsed in 1-2 generations into a South America latifundia like state. There would be 'Brazil' in North America by 1900. As it is, we will have to wait a few more years before the pleasures of being a 'Brazil' are fully available in North America. Some mistakes are fatal.

    , @Bronson
    I agree that it would have been better if Lincoln's plan of re-repatriating the slaves had actually occured - however - you might want to do more research. The Emancipation Proclamation wasn't signed until the third year of the War of Northern Aggression. Lincoln never had a problem with slavery - he was just hoping that freeing the slaves IN THE SOUTHERN STATES ONLY would cause them to rise up and kill their owner's families while they were at the front fighting. Southern (freed) Slaves that ran into Union troops were put to work ... as slaves ... in Union Army camps. To get a better idea of what the world thought of his attempt to murder Southern families by proxy, it's worth looking at French and British papers of the time - they thought he was monstrous for doing it (because they knew the intended outcome).

    Lincoln violated the intent of the Constitution with the War of Northern Aggression. The Southern States had every RIGHT to secede - and 60% of Northern newspapers at the time agreed ... and Lincoln threw those reporters and editors in jail for expressing that truth.

    Very few Southerners had slaves, and there was a significant component of BLACK slave owners as well. Additionally, there were WHITE slaves.

    Read: Lincoln Unmasked and The Real Lincoln by Thomas Dilorenzo

    It's also worth reading Sherman and Grant's biographies - you'll soon learn that Lincoln said things, and wrote down different things - because he knew that history would judge his writing, not his orders to his generals.

    As far as the Germans "invading" Russia, it was a counter-attack. If you are basing your opinions on "mainstream" History, I'd suggest looking for more primary source information. You might also get some perspective from "Hellstorm" by Thomas Goodrich.
    , @jacques sheete

    And it also ended slavery.
     
    It may have hastened the final end to the obsolete practice of chattel slavery, but does the end always justify the means?

    Perhaps in the interest of corporatism and the hegemony of Northern money interests over Southern agrarian interests...


    “...the abolition of serfdom and of slavery was only the abolition of an obsolete form of slavery that had become unnecessary, and the substitution for it of a firmer form of slavery and one that holds a greater number of people in bondage.”

    - Leo Tolstoy
    A few typos, but otherwise a fine summary: Tolstoy, Slavery of Our Times, Chap 8, 11 July, 1900 http://ebooks.gutenberg.us/WorldeBookLibrary.com/slaverytol.htm#1_0_7
     

    How do we end wage and tax slavery? Who do you suggest should be killed off this time?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. Joe Wong says:
    @Verymuchalive
    The millions killed by the Chinese Communist Party before, during and after the Second World War are certainly in the tens of millions. No definitive answer can be arrived at whilst the Chinese Communist Party still remains in power.

    Are you saying the American have been lying all along, they lies about the present, about the past, even about the future, they lie day and night, relentlessly? And American’s lies have never been exposed because the American enforce their lies as given truth with bombing, killing and waterboarding on the fabricated phantom WMD allegations as humanitarian intervention?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. Joe Wong says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    Let's grant that your premise is correct--that our wealth is founded upon plunder and pillage of colored peoples.

    Should I feel bad about that?

    If anything, it makes me feel proud that we vanquished and subjugated an entire world.

    You should be awarded with a brownie point in honesty, at least you have the courage to admit you are the dark side of humanity that need to be eradicated so that the humanity can improve themselves to be a better creature. It is petty that the elite of the USA and unrepentant war criminal Japanese do not have your courage, they are still lying, they lie abut the present, about the past, even about the future, they lie day and night, relentlessly to cover up their ugly past, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace; they are cowards and hypocrites.

    So please do not whine about other people stealing the American jobs, as you said it is only fair for other people to feel proud that they can vanquish and subjugate others including the American.

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @survey-of-disinfo

    You should be awarded with a brownie point in honesty, at least you have the courage to admit you are the dark side of humanity that need to be eradicated so that the humanity can improve themselves to be a better creature.
     
    Thorfinnsson has the "honesty" of a dog that struts "proudly" because his master is rich.

    You also fail to address the asymmetry of the equation here: The grand parents of Thorfinnsson were canon fodder and rope monkeys that operated the machines of the Corporation. Of course, clearly, being the dog of the master is better than being the prey, don't you think? Something to be "proud" of, I suppose, if you are a dog-man.

    As for you and your rejoinder regarding "vanquishing" American workers, it is rather disappointing as your posts indicate finer, more human, sensibilities. Sweeheart, you and yours have not "vanquished" anyone. Your masters made a deal with dog-man's masters. (Re. the above mentioned Asymmetry: It was not due to superior skills in any domain that the American workers are losing their jobs to you. It was just a waste seeing all those potential man-dogs go to waste running along per the latest guidance form God-man Mao, for example. A waste of potential productive slaves.)

    And behold what they did to their own loyal dogs.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @utu
    Mr. Godfree forgot to give devil his due and neglected to mention the absolutely critical role the Rockefellers played in transfering technology, capital, and customers to the CPC and genius Deng.

    Can you write more about or recommend some sources? I always wondered where and when decisions were made to enable China's growth. And the question why is the most important.

    To the credit of our much-vilified Western media, all the information you seek is publicly available. It’s just scattered and lodged in obscure places, or simply presented in a form that non-specialists do not find accessible.

    I’ve spent the past 10 years gathering, verifying and organizing it into a book. This Mao episode, the first of three, is a sample. There are 30 chapters, each with material as unexpected as this information on Mao.

    The book will be published next year. If you want to be notified,you can sign up at this address NEXT WEEK: http://www.inpraiseofchina.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    To the credit of our much-vilified Western media, all the information you seek is publicly available.
     
    To the credit of?

    How about in spite of?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @CanSpeccy

    Did I lie? Were any of my statements incorrect? Or are you offended because you were unfamiliar with this information?

    In other words, what’s your problem?
     

    If you are going to refute the accepted narrative, you should follow your own advice and begin by telling us which of the statements comprising the accepted historical account are incorrect, and which of those statements offended you because you were unfamiliar with the "information".

    In other words, what's your problem with those who dismiss your account as ridiculous trash?

    Altogether, one of the silliest articles on a site devoted to a great many silly articles.

    I made assertions and produced evidence to support them.

    The usual practice is for others to question the assertions or the evidence, make counter-assertions and advance counter-evidence.

    No-one has done so, thus far, so I assume that commenters are simply angry because they cannot refute my argument–like old white guys get angry when you present them with evidence of anthropogenic climate change.

    Insulting the person who presents unfamiliar ideas and substantiates them–or dismissing them all, out of hand, like the old white guys do– is generally considered poor form.

    Do you consider either acceptable?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    now this is a good reply :) but I would argue that comments by anatoly do fit the requirements?
    , @Sam J.
    "...dismissing them all, out of hand, like the old white guys do..."

    Ok I said he was either Robert Lindsay or a Jew. Bringing out the old tripe about "old white guys" is a sure ringer for a Jew as Lindsay doesn't hate White people in general.

    There is some small possibility he's Asian but the last comment really puts him in the Jew category as the Jews can't help themselves when it comes to attacking White guys. It's like some kind of reflex.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @Peter Lund
    Yes, one accent grave and one accent circonflexe.

    Ending the civil war was great but couldn't he have accomplished that far easier and with much less bloodshed by simply surrendering? And who says "uniting" China was even a good thing?

    Do you have any idea what Chiang did to China before Mao chased him away? Or WHY Mao won so easily despite massive US support for Chiang? Seriously.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam J.
    "...WHY Mao won so easily despite massive US support for Chiang? Seriously..."

    Propaganda. The US commie State department filled with Jews failed to deliver arms to Chaing and cut funds to him every chance they got. They whole time pushing propaganda that he was stealing any money that did get to him in the Jew owned papers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @whorefinder
    It seems the commies are funding some extreme whitewashing of history. I guess they're not trying to cleanse Stalin/Soviet Union, so they're trying to cleanse Mao, who's rep is less well known in the U.S. and whom any criticism of can be called "racist".

    Plus since the commies are following Mao's playbook with their Struggle Sessions, I guess he's the hero du jour. After all, Obama was surreptitiously quoting Mao's during his first campaign and had an adviser openly quoting Mao. -

    The murder of a hundred million people, and then cannibalism, torture and oppression? Yeah, let's pretend it never happened.

    Truth: Mao is the greatest mass murderer in history. Literally worse than Hitler.

    wait for Part 2

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @Jus' Sayin'...
    When Mao took control of China the country had been in a state of anarchic turmoil for a century and a half. The country, and particularly the economy, was a shambles. Even a brutal incompetent like Mao couldn't help but oversee an improvement in conditions in a country that was finally unified, at peace, and rid of foreign invaders.

    Mao's major contribution to the process was to serially interfere with China's natural progress in a way that caused tens of millions of deaths and unimaginable suffering and retarded economic growth to a shocking degree. To appreciate this, one has only to compare Chinese progress under Mao's thumb to the economic and social progress that occurred after this creature and his infantile ideological legacy lost control of the country.

    The facts, which I presented, beg to differ.

    If you wish to make assertions that run counter to my evidence, then produce them. Don’t just windily repeat what you heard on Fox News.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    If you wish to make assertions that run counter to my evidence, then produce them. Don’t just windily repeat what you heard on Fox News.
     
    Amen to that!

    Parroting outrageous BS is the best they can do.
    , @jacques sheete

    If you wish to make assertions that run counter to my evidence, then produce them. Don’t just windily repeat what you heard on Fox News.
     
    Since the type can't think outside the box and are typically totally unable to honor your request, they'll likely resort to calling you names and mocking you.

    They also seem to enjoy the use of strawman arguments; they'll deliberately distort your claims in an effort to make your claims appear ridiculous. There is little point in countering them because they are impervious to reason, logic, truth or facts.

    They also love to divert attention away from the main point and typically engage in silly moral equivalencies.

    I know you know all that but I'm stating it so that you may rest assured that some of us are on to them and that they only succeed in making themselves appear as ridiculous as they are detestable. I've found that they're generally only good for either ignoring or laughing at.
    , @Disordered
    Of course Mao, the PLA, and the Party (helped a bit by the Soviets, by the way) were going to be a much more effective government than the incredibly backward pre-revolutionary Chinese society. China at that time precisely needed some redistribution, centralization, social reform, and popular cohesion (which a redistributionist regime with a charismatic rural leader that had just defeated the Japanese was definitely going to get). It is obvious why so many still visit his tomb. That said... was all the blood really necessary? And what about the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, which as you show on the graph almost destroyed all progress - and both of them being the Paramount Leader's personal economic projects. If it had not been for the stabilizing counter-forces of Zhou and then Deng inside the Party, Mao could have been just another Generalissimo Chiang, this time under a red flag and yellow star. Lenin at the very least thought of NEP temporarily, would a longer-living Mao like "socialism with Chinese characteristics", aka Deng's red corporatism? All this said, I do recognize that Mao was sage enough in the end to approach the US in order to counter the influence of the Army - but he had encouraged this influence in order to finally curb the Red Guards "struggle sessions" that he initiated in the first place. To me, it is more like 60% right and 40% wrong. And yeah, I like his poetry enough I guess - by the way, Hitler's architecturally-minded drawings and paintings were punctiliously accurate...

    A simile: this reminds me of how fascist Franco modernized Spain. El Caudillo de España was a relic of the brown 30s, mass graves and Picasso's Guernica show; but him and his arch-Catholic technocrats were relativelymuch better than the awfully antiquated and useless monarchy, and much more stable and unifying than the radical Second Republic and its anarchist columns. Without the reset he gave, there would have been no Spanish Miracle, nor would the return to the monarchy have been so golden... Then again, his successor had to die assassinated by leftists terrorists for the king to even be enthroned in the first place; and the facade of cooperation eventually and inevitably devolved into Weimarian politics again due in no small part to unhealed wounds (the PSOE left increasingly becoming obnoxious, and the PP right increasingly even more elitist). All this ending in economic debacle and sluggishness post-2008, and a political stalemate that has lasted years, almost devolving into civil war due to the claims of independence of the Catalonia region that Franco oppressed culturally (while ironically helping them economically). So not even in his relatively more successful case did the supreme leader do everything, nor was every outcome beneficial - to say the least.

    Notice I used the words "at the time", and "relatively". You should not therefore, in my humble opinion, propagandize the net benefits only as if they were the only truths worth mentioning (one hundred percent good, as you say). Because the more try to portray your claim as approaching absolute truth, even if you sincerely portray only those net benefits, would mean having to be reminded even more of the negative aspects opposing your claim (which, I agree, some in the right exaggerate, but some in the left downplay too). And, defining these negatives as just "accidents" would imply that without massive bloodshed, failed social and economic experiments, purges, and oppression, there is no way to achieve structural societal change. Is that really the case? Do we really have to storm Bastille and revive the Terror every so often? Or at the very least, can we point out that there was incredible terror and destruction involved in these historical events, so we try to find ways to achieve change as peacefully as possible?

    Regards.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @chris m
    Henry Liu also made some interesting comparisons between MAO AND LINCOLN some years ago
    see MAO AND LINCOLN
    Henry C.K. Liu
    Part I: Demon and deity,
    This article appeared in AToL on March 31, 2004
    https://henryckl.ipower.com/page115.html

    although i think best comparison would be to compare Mao with the original architect of China
    Qin Shi Huang (whom Mao considered a progenitor of his)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qin_Shi_Huang

    ps but you still got to say that the accomplishments of Chinese people since 1945
    were generally made in spite of Mao, not because of Mao
    and i consider achievements of Deng Xiaoping to be greater.

    I’ve demonstrated Mao’s achievements in my article.

    Would you care to demonstrate Deng’s?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. @Seraphim
    No Communist leaders didn't 'personally' killed nobody no more. Nobody ever said
    that Lenin killed the Tsar shooting a rifle at him with his own hands, let alone bayoneting him and his family to make sure that they were dead for good. No siree! But who in his right mind would contend that he gave the order to kill him? Stalin did not shoot with his own hand ('personally') the Polish officers at Katyn, but he signed the order for their execution.
    Hey, even "Genghis Khan, proud Son of Heaven for a day, knew only shooting eagles, bow outstretched". Certainly he did not slaughter with his own hand the inhabitants of Khwarizmia!

    Now we’re supposed to shed crocodile tears for the Tsar!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Who's a crocodile?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @silversmith
    Centrally controlled thought , action and deeds with dissent punished with harassment,imprisonment and death should first two fail . Rule by the Iron Fist ! Bolshevism transported and perfected . Fear is a wondrous thing . The Police State Party Supreme . Why are all these wealthy Chinese bureaucrats and "entrepreneurs" inflating North American real estate markets if china is so great ? Pure Unadultrated Hogwash !!!!

    Get a grip. There is far more breadth of thought in China than in the USA. Dissent is punished much more leniently, imprisonment is rare by comparison, as is death at the hands of the government.

    What planet do you live on?

    Read More
    • LOL: iffen
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @mp
    @ godfree Roberts: In the Western sense, feminism is an anti-traditional, mostly Jewish, construct. This sort of thing had no counterpart in China, with the possible exception of the prior (to Mao) May Fourth Movement. But even that was a mixed bag.

    For his part, Mao was essentially a revolutionary opportunist whose liberal views on women did not particularly mirror anything reflected within his government, or his personal life. Had he lived longer, and had he been in better physical/mental condition, my guess is that he'd never have allowed the Jiang Qing clique their temporary triumph. As others have stated, once Mao was gone and the Gang of Four were retired, it was Deng who laid the groundwork for modern China--his Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. Women had some "rights," but they were not significantly included in government.

    It is my impression (for what it is worth) that the majority of Chinese are not happy with women leaders. Jiang Qing is remembered by the oldsters as the major force behind the disastrous CR, and newer Netcitizens are reminded by the fairly recent Gu Kailai affair, etc.

    Feminism (Western) will likely not take hold in China. Women work, and can make a lot of money. But there is too much tradition that mitigates against this family and nation destroying feminist ideology. One big reason it will not happen is that Chinese have not turned over their culture to an alien group whose intent is to dispossess the majority, as is the case in the West.

    Read what I said. Mao was not a feminist. He simply liberated China’s women for the first time in 5,000 years. There are more self-made billionaires in China today than in the rest of the world combined. China’s first Nobelist was a woman. The designer and builder of the world’s fastest computer is a woman. Women get equal pay. That’s more goddam liberation than all so-called womens libbers have done combined, ever.

    Read More
    • Replies: @mp
    Mao was not a feminist.

    Glad we agree to agree. The other stuff can be argued out later...

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @Joe Wong
    In 1981 (25 years after the event) Judith Banister at the US Bureau of the Census proposed 30 millions killed in the Great Leap Forward (GLF) based on her “massive death toll” hypothesis, this figure is the mother of all subsequent numbers when the westerns write about the GLF; Frank Dikotter quoted 45 millions murdered in the GLF to win the Samuel Johnson prize for non-fiction; recently Jung Chang and Jon Halliday said 70 millions killed in the GLF in their book “Mao: the Unknown Story.” All of them claimed their number based on secret sources in china. The latest number is 100 millions murdered in the GLF in some western current affairs analysis sites.

    Verymuchalive, how many do you believe deaths (or percentage) would attribute to polices of the Great Leap Forward?

    I address that in Part 2, next month

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @anonymous

    doubled China’s population from 542 million to 956 million

     

    This growth is actually quite low when compared with the population growth of other developing countries during the same time period. Based on those numbers (the 956m is higher than any other source I've seen), China's population grew by 76% in a span of about 30 years. On the other hand, many Latin American countries grew by close to 150% in the same time period. Even Indonesia and India recorded a larger percentage of growth in population during this time period. Many of these countries had similarly high rises in life expectancy during this time period as well. I haven't found any good data for national literacy rate increases for other countries that go back far enough to compare.

    Before laying all of the praise and none of the guilt at the feet of Mao, I would advise comparing China's gains to those of similarly developing countries, in order to determine if China's rising living conditions were unusual for a developing country at the time. It is also important to determine if the rising social development that did occur in China during this time period was the result of "Mao did it all!", or if it was perhaps due to a wide range of other factors and people. OTOH, China's rise in the four decades since Mao died is definitely unique and unparalleled among developing nations. Otherwise, this reads more like a colorful propaganda hit piece, the sort of which is all too common among the type of people of Roberts' class. Three parts and then a book coming out? Why doesn't that surprise me...

    I lay all of the praise and none of the guilt at the feet of Mao because, until now, writers have laid all of the guilt and none of the at the praise at the feet of Mao.

    It is normal to personify governments–the Reagan Years–for convenience. Nobody imagines that they performed all the functions themselves.

    Thank you for your comment on China’s population growth vs other countries’. I had never thought to compare them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    Mao achievements are undeniable and so are his massive failures and power lust.
    You cannot possibly call Great Leap forward or 100 Flowers or Cultural revolution a great success stories. Outcomes of those were not good at all and you forget to mention massive Soviet help and role in Mao victory and subsequent building of China industrial foundation and military.
    Anyway, Chinese wisely did not commit Soviet like blunder of denigrating Mao and his achievements.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. phil says:
    @Beckow

    "That is all Mao did…get rid of the surplus population of the useless"
     
    No, that's not at all what happened. Your idea is another one of the bulls..t memes that pop into many Westerners heads about things they know nothing. Lazy, semi-educated minds lacking real experience tend to have shallow stereotypical thoughts like that.

    I can point you to demographic data, etc... but I suspect that it wouldn't help. You are not interested in learning what really happened.

    One part of your argument that I agree with is that repudiating debts was very helpful to Russia after 1917. But they were also kept from any Western credit until 1980's. So there are two sides to that story (small exception was WWII for military equipment). But discharging debts is incredible liberating for any country, or a person - that's why it happens again and agin in history. The Bolshevik revolution was worth it just for getting rid of debts.

    Mao built modern China. Most of the population benefitted dramatically, probably 80-90%. Some didn't. All we hear is about the ones who didn't. The article points out that in historical perspective, the 1950-90 years were actually incredibly successful. There is no way any objective person could deny that.

    Mr. Unz has really outdone himself with this article! Check, for example, Angus Maddison’s website on historical living standards (which has been coordinated with World Bank research). Average living standards in China in 1978 (after Mao’s death) were still below those of the US in 1775. You can also check the Penn World Tables and compare China with Zaire, Kenya, Nigeria, and Mozambique (in 1978).

    In November of 1978 Deng Xiaoping visited Southeast Asia and was shocked to see just how far behind Singapore China had fallen. When he returned, Deng convened a meeting of the Politburo and a decision was made to launch economic reforms (i.e., big departures from Chairman Mao)–later known as “the Open Door Policy”. Reforms concerning land use greatly improved the productivity of agriculture, and starvation deaths declined. Joint ventures with foreign companies began. Forms of partial privatization were slowly introduced.

    The Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution were truly catastrophic. Was the author of the article ever in China during either of those episodes? I sit around the dinner table on a regular basis with people who were.

    Deng Xiaoping was far from a libertarian or a Swedish Social Democrat, but he, more so than Mao, was the father of modern China. Even so, China is still behind Mexico in terms of average living standards. (Check the most recent World Bank numbers for real purchasing power.)

    In retrospect, Mao was an especially perverse Chinese emperor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @kauchai
    Deng Xiaoping inherited the largess of the US/China rapproachment which was already set in motion with Nixon's visit in 1972 to play the china card against the soviet union. Suddenly, decades of empire led embargo against china was lifted. The extention of the famine in the late 50's was a direct result of the empire and its allies (with the exception of canada) refusing to sell grain to china to help alleviate the situation.

    So all things being fair, had Mao lived through the rapproachment period, china would still have enjoyed the same economic growth that Deng had brought, maybe even more so. The GLF maybe catastrophic, but it was not an EVIL design by the rulers of china then. It was an attempt by a besieged and encircled nation, newly formed and weak in all aspects, to stand on its own feet using whatever means it can find.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. @hyperbola
    Let's remember that the beginnings of such "revisionism" come from our very own totalitarian globalist criminals.

    David Rockefeller: “The Social Experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s Leadership is One of the Most Important and Successful in History.”
    http://historybud.com/david-rockefeller-the-social-experiment-in-china-under-chairman-maos-leadership-is-one-of-the-most-important-and-successful-in-history/

    Lets also remember what this same sort of "globalist totalitarianism" produced in the Soviet Union.

    Stalin's Jews
    We mustn't forget that some of greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish
    https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3342999,00.html

    Here's a particularly forlorn historical date: Almost 90 years ago, between the 19th and 20th of December 1917, in the midst of the Bolshevik revolution and civil war, Lenin signed a decree calling for the establishment of The All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage, also known as Cheka.
    Within a short period of time, Cheka became the largest and cruelest state security organization. Its organizational structure was changed every few years, as were its names: From Cheka to GPU, later to NKVD, and later to KGB.
    We cannot know with certainty the number of deaths Cheka was responsible for in its various manifestations, but the number is surely at least 20 million, including victims of the forced collectivization, the hunger, large purges, expulsions, banishments, executions, and mass death at Gulags.
    Whole population strata were eliminated: Independent farmers, ethnic minorities, members of the bourgeoisie, senior officers, intellectuals, artists, labor movement activists, "opposition members" who were defined completely randomly, and countless members of the Communist party itself....

    And us, the Jews? An Israeli student finishes high school without ever hearing the name "Genrikh Yagoda," the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century, the GPU's deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD. Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin's collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system. ..... In 1934, according to published statistics, 38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the Soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin. .... Turns out that Jews too, when they become captivated by messianic ideology, can become great murderers, among the greatest known by modern history.
    _______________________________________________________________
    Lets also remember who else the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations were supporting at the time.

    Eugenics and the Nazis -- the California connection
    http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Eugenics-and-the-Nazis-the-California-2549771.php
    .... the concept of a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master Nordic race didn't originate with Hitler. The idea was created in the United States, and cultivated in California, decades before Hitler came to power. California eugenicists played an important, although little-known, role in the American eugenics movement's campaign for ethnic cleansing.... Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America's most respected scientists from such prestigious universities as Stanford, Yale, Harvard and Princeton. These academicians espoused race theory and race science, and then faked and twisted data to serve eugenics' racist aims..... The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.....
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Lets ask ourselves why "godfree" doesn't tell us who weas behind converting tens of millions of chinese to drug addicts.

    The Jewish Opium Trade and Britain
    http://satyricon20.tripod.com/sat33-Sassoon.htm

    Controller Houses Of The East India Company: EIC Series Part IV
    http://greatgameindia.com/controller-houses-east-india-company-eic-series-part-iv/
    _______________________________________________________________
    Lets remember how long these groups have been applying thought-control propaganda to Americans.

    The Science of Thought Control
    https://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/07/21/the-science-of-thought-control/
    The Century of the Self is a four part BBC documentary that delves deeply into the life and work of Sigmund Freud’s nephew Edward Bernays. Bernays was the first to perfect the science of thought control. In the political sphere, he referred to mass psychological manipulation as “engineering consent.” When he used propaganda and psychological manipulation to condition consumers to purchase products, he called it “public relations.”....


    and lets remember that the "chosen people" are becoming ever more flagrant in that kind of abuse of Americans (and Aussies, Brits, .... ).

    No joke! Meet Obama's new 'nudge' czar
    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/no-joke-meet-obamas-new-nudge-czar/#B4B1wjCzVIH21oWl.99
    ___________________________________________________________________

    Sorry, but this article reads like more thought-control from the sect and its lackeys.

    “this article reads like more thought-control from the sect and its lackeys.”

    The article is a string of publicly available facts (or assertions) accompanied by evidence in support of them.

    What the hell does that have to do with thought-control, sects or lackeys?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. Joe Wong says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    So, do you get 五毛 per word or per post?

    Chieh, Chinese bloggers are here to protest when China is portrayed unfairly, to rebuke lies told about China, to correct distorted facts fabricated for China, to clear smear painted on China, as well as to expose the lies told about ‘Western existence and culture.’ Don’t you feel truth should be told and lies should be exposed? Perhaps you feel such honesty is an offense to your adoring living god, the White, who might strike you to hell, so you need to show your loyalty preemptively?

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    the dark side of humanity that need to be eradicated so that the humanity can improve themselves to be a better creature

    I am not sure where are you broadcasting from but if it is from China are the sentiments you express here shared by other Chinese? You know like eradicating white Europeans and Americans. You do not sound Chinese at al. Chinese sound smart and usually are very tactful. Are you by any chance an Afro-Chinese because you sound exactly like some ghetto blacks.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    I'm actually pretty pro-China. This does not mean I feel a need to ramble propaganda, however.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. @Ivan K.
    Godfree Roberts: [I]n life, Mao stood effortlessly, head and shoulders above them all, chastening or dismissing them at will while exhausting them with societal upheavals that required a level of heroic exertion that would have killed or maddened lesser men.

    According to Paul Theroux in Riding the Iron Rooster (1986), the Chinese tend to think that Mao became mentally ill in the 1950s.

    Paul would know, of course. (As would hundreds of world leaders who spent time with him after 1950–NOT ONE of whom made any such assertion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @Joe Wong
    This article shedding positive light on Mao is “Controversial Perspectives” only to those who have a mindset belonging to the past, stalled in the old days colonialism, and constrained by zero-sum cold war mentality and beggar-thy-neighbour culture. To them China is some sort of Orwellian police state, China in their eyes is a caricature caricature - and any articles or comment must fit into that caricature of repression, lack of freedoms, and evil, for the articles or comments to make sense to themselves or anyone surrounding them.

    Meanwhile themselves are bombing, killing, warterboarding, stealing, ethnic cleansing, carrying out racial discrimination, regime changing, spewing out skillful propaganda, etc. on the fabricated phantom WMD allegations without repentance, they call it American exceptionalism, whatever USA does is necessary with the best intention.

    You are Wong again Joe*. I haven’t read anyone complaining about an Orwellian police state in China nowadays, though they have some of it. Roberts’ article is about China in the time of Chairman Mao, 1947 to 1976. During that time, if they had had the electronics we have today, it would have been worse than that imagined in Orwell’s novel. During that time, America was the most free country the world had ever seen, excepting previous era America.

    You are confusing these different times in history, so this comment of yours does not relate well to the article in question, Joe.

    You criticisms of America, other than the silly “racist” angle, are all about things that are going on in the current era. I wouldn’t argue about much of what you have to day there. Additionally, I have no problem pointing out the positives of modern-day China, especially as a comparison to America. An example is personal experience with Chinese free-market healthcare. More of it is described here, here, and here.

    * And I’ll admit I was off by 3 years on the beginning of the one-child policy. I had thought that was still done during the time of the tyrant/butcher Chairman Mao. As it stands, overpopulation has been a problem for China for centuries. Do you all know that China had a larger population in the mid 1850′s than American had EVEN now?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. nsa says:

    Harry Franck traveled the world on foot in the early 1900s and authored numerous books describing local conditions, along with lots of pictures. His descriptions of life in the colonial concessions are astounding……essentially Britain with the USA, France, Germany, Russia, and Japan carved China up like a ripe melon into “concessions” and relegated the Chinese to second class citizenship in their own country. And the anglo-jooie run drug trade was beyond any bounds of decency, but about what you would expect from the rapacious anglo-jooies. It took extreme violence to evict the greedy bloodthirsty colonials and their local satraps. To this day the colonials resent their eviction and fear a Chinese dominated future……

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    That is a large exaggeration, nsa, on the “carving up like a ripe melon” business. The concessions were small pieces of land on the east (almost the only) coast, like Canton (Guangzhou now) in the southeast for the British and Tsingtao (think “beer”) for the Germans. Yeah, it was wrong, and the kind of colonialism nobody needs, as opposed to Africa. It was not a carving-up of the country, though. You should look at maps.

    I’ve seen history books without maps, and you can’t be a historian like that. You need MAPS, dammit, to understand anything about history.

    BTW, find out how many 10’s of millions of Chinamen were killed by other Chinamen in various wars* that we don’t even have freakin’ names for. They have a long history, and not many places in the world can look back and see a peaceful existence for very long, unfortunately.

    * not counting the 10’s of millions starved due to the stupidity of Chairman Mao. People were eating grass and the bark off trees. I have a family relative who’s granddad starved in the early 1960’s there in central China.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Anatoly Karlin

    I tend to agree that Mao was indeed a “feminist” but back in those days, I think “Chinese feminism” meant opposition to foot-binding, buying wives, and polygamy, and would also have accorded with the views of American reactionaries, let alone Christian missionaries.
     
    I realize that the end of foot-binding has been strongly associated with the Communists, but could even this be a case of them stealing other people's achievements?

    From the Wiki article on foot-banding:

    In 1912, the new Republic of China government banned foot binding (though not actively implemented), and leading intellectuals of the May Fourth Movement saw footbinding as a major symbol of China's backwardness. Local warlords such as Yan Xishan in Shanxi engaged in their own sustained campaign against footbinding with feet inspectors and fines for those who continued with the practice, and regional governments of the later Nanjing regime also enforced the ban. The campaign against footbinding was very successful in some regions; in one province, a 1929 survey showed that while only 2.3% of girls born before 1910 had unbound feet, 95% of those born after were not bound. In a region south of Beijing, Dingxian, where over 99% of women were once bound, no new cases were found among those born after 1919. In Taiwan, the practice was also discouraged by the ruling Japanese from the beginning of Japanese rule, and from 1911 to 1915 it was gradually made illegal. The practice however lingered on in some regions in China; in 1928, a census in rural Shanxi found that 18% of women had bound feet, while in some remote rural areas such as Yunnan Province it continued to be practiced until the 1950s. In most parts of China, however, the practice had virtually disappeared by 1949. The practice was also stigmatized in Communist China, and the last vestiges of footbinding were stamped out, with the last new case of footbinding reported in 1957.

    Mr. Karlin,

    I found some interesting research on this topic a while back:

    Unraveling a brutal custom

    Foot binding in China tied to hand weaving, study finds

    http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/12/unraveling-a-brutal-custom/

    [...]
    Bossen said the research points to a clear connection between foot binding and hand labor. Mothers needed their daughters’ help to produce both cloth for the family and extra cloth for sale. They needed to keep their “willful, playful” young daughters at their sides, she said, to have them learn how to spin, wind, twist, and weave fibers they could sell when the crops failed or fell short at harvest.

    “For girls who are doing handwork for income, the odds are 4.5 to 1 that they will be bound,” said Bossen of the studies they conducted in China’s Yunnan Province.
    [...]
    And as the value of women’s hand labor decreased, so did foot binding.

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/56-years-a-slave/#comment-1875379

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. denk says:

    John Pilger
    Murkkans are like mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed bushits all day ‘

    Ergo,
    Bushit in, bushit out. !

    ……………………….
    murkkans concocted propagandas hog the top hundred positions in the
    B.S. of the century chart.

    Sinking of the Maine,
    GUlf of Tonkin,
    Iraq WMD,
    Iraq baby incubators,
    Kosovo genocide,
    Libya,
    Syria,
    just to name a few,
    ……………
    tip of an iceberg.

    Some of its most egregrious lies all target China,
    1962 invasion of India,
    1998 TAM ‘massacre of peaceful students protestors’,
    2008 Tibet ‘massacre of peaceful Tibetan protestors’,
    2009 Xinjiang ‘massacre of peaceful moslem protestors’,
    Chinese state hackers have been stripping bare the secrets of Lockheed Martin,
    [sic]
    China is like Germany./Jp of the 1939 era, needs to be reined in by
    uncle scam the ‘world cop’ [sic]
    [All have been debunked]

    This ‘Mao the mass murderer’ meme was one of the cold war era product.

    Coming from the land of mass deception,
    The most charitable view is to take it with a huge pinch of salt,
    [1]

    As for me, it reeks like your typical adulterated murkkan bushit !

    It boggles the mind ,
    the way so many sheeples here lap it up with relish .

    I also notice that those who are so eager to pin the ‘mass murderer’ label on Mao,
    inspite of zero evidence, have never once criticised the true and unrefutable crimes committed by uncle scam, the undisputed ‘mass murderer’ of all time.
    Hypocrites !

    These are the ‘look the other way‘ guys,
    ‘good murkkans’ who enable uncle sham to get away with mass murder,
    all three hundred years of it !

    P.S.
    Kudos to Ron Unz and some of the more honest commentators !

    [1]

    https://monthlyreview.org/commentary/did-mao-really-kill-millions-in-the-great-leap-forward/

    Read More
    • Replies: @joe webb
    monthly review and pinger are communist...been so for ages. Joe Webb
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @FKA Max
    Very good points:

    Missing the point, but not surprising, because it has been almost totally edited out of the public discussion.

    Here is the core of what Mao did: when he took over, he started a pro-natalist program. Honest economists like Ma Yinchu were purged, women were encouraged to have six kids each, etc.

    I personally would grant most of China’s current success to the pragmatist post-Mao leadership.

    Mao's War Against Nature: Politics and the Environment in Revolutionary China (Studies in Environment and History) https://www.amazon.com/Maos-War-Against-Nature-Revolutionary/dp/0521786800

    Passage from a very good customer review of the book:

    When the president of Beijing University warned about the danger of rapid population growth, he was denounced and relieved of his responsibilities. Overpopulation could only be a problem in evil capitalist societies — never in a socialist paradise. China was already overpopulated in 1949, and it grew with spooky speed. Mao refused to believe the census numbers. In 1958, family planning programs were ended, and not resumed until 1971. Mao died in 1976, and in 1979, the one-child policy was implemented.
     

    - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/ROOXKIGOTP2RO/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0521786800

    http://www.china-profile.com/data/figures/fig_WPP2010_TotPop_TFR_1.gif

    Source: The very high fertility in the early 1950s and late 1960s corresponded well with Mao's political dogma that a huge population would promote China's military and political power. The high fertility caused the enormous population increase of modern China and is responsible for the huge momentum effect which is now incorporated in China's age structure.
    - http://www.china-profile.com/data/fig_WPP2010_TotPop_TFR.htm

    Coincidentally, just before this piece was published yesterday evening, I commented the following:

    I guess, technically Communism could/should also be classified as an organized religion, though.
    - http://www.unz.com/tsaker/is-communism-really-dead/#comment-2045037

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FcBeyEWgSM

    Mao refused to believe the census numbers. In 1958, family planning programs were ended, and not resumed until 1971.

    That was at the height of the Cold War, after the Sino-Soviet split, after China had lost half a million men fighting the US in the Korean War, after the US had threatened war with China, before Nixon went to China and relations thawed. Mao would have been foolish to promote population reduction policies under such circumstances.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. Escher says:
    @godfree Roberts
    If ever I want to know about Mao's sexual life, I turn first to the LA Times...

    That was just an example. Mao’s philandering was well known. But hey, keep smoking whatever it is you have.

    Read More
    • Replies: @godfree Roberts
    And its relevance?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. jlee1 says:
    @Peter Lund
    Hitler had such blue eyes. He was a painter, you know!

    artists are so sensitive, ergo…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. @Priss Factor
    That was the funniest shi* I ever read.

    I mean who's gonna be rehabilitated next? Stalin? Hitler?

    Please Stop!!

    ROTFL.

    Don’t knock the Hit Man,he was da bomb!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. @Joe Wong
    The Europeans including their offshoots is where is now, still filthy rich (although always complaining), because of those hundreds of millions of people all over the world who were robbed and murdered, those who become victims of their very madness of colonialism and orientalism, of the crusades and the slave and Opium trades. Cathedrals and palaces, museums and theaters, train stations – all had been constructed on horrid foundations of bones and blood, and amalgamated by tears. There were so many centuries of plunder that the acts of looting the world for the sole benefit of the few, turned into inseparable part of the ‘Western existence and culture’, something that gets almost never addressed, let alone criticized.

    Yeah, anybody who dares to expose such dark truth about the White who claims they are civilized, they are the final form of civilization is a bad thing, and anything that can make China escape the dark age of unequal treaties imposed on her by the barbaric and greedy western imperialists is also a bad thing. The concerted effort to keep the ‘Western existence and culture’ never addressed, let alone criticized, remains strong and relentless.

    We’re not going to bother about who did what to whom, we’ve overcome that. We’re not sorry!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Wong
    “the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.”
    –Samuel P. Huntington

    Not addressing or not criticizing one's crimes is not redeeming one's sin, it is merely burying one's head in the hole; it is a sign of weakness, immaturaity, and flaws in character, culture and civilization. The unaddressed crimes will forever hang over the West's head like Sword of Damocles.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @map
    So what are you arguing?

    That nobody died?

    You want me to trust self-serving demographic data generated by Communist liars?

    Modern China was built on the deaths of millions of their own citizens...deaths that were generated by orders from their own government, whether intentional, an error of omission or an error of commission. Once the surplus population was removed, the rest was Western technology transfer.

    This is hardly remarkable.

    Any nation could get these results with this recipe.

    China’s population is almost 3 times the size it was at the start of Mao’s rule. The surplus population wasn’t removed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. utu says:
    @Joe Wong
    Chieh, Chinese bloggers are here to protest when China is portrayed unfairly, to rebuke lies told about China, to correct distorted facts fabricated for China, to clear smear painted on China, as well as to expose the lies told about 'Western existence and culture.' Don't you feel truth should be told and lies should be exposed? Perhaps you feel such honesty is an offense to your adoring living god, the White, who might strike you to hell, so you need to show your loyalty preemptively?

    the dark side of humanity that need to be eradicated so that the humanity can improve themselves to be a better creature

    I am not sure where are you broadcasting from but if it is from China are the sentiments you express here shared by other Chinese? You know like eradicating white Europeans and Americans. You do not sound Chinese at al. Chinese sound smart and usually are very tactful. Are you by any chance an Afro-Chinese because you sound exactly like some ghetto blacks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Thorfinnsson
    Let's grant that your premise is correct--that our wealth is founded upon plunder and pillage of colored peoples.

    Should I feel bad about that?

    If anything, it makes me feel proud that we vanquished and subjugated an entire world.

    It’s not about feeling good or bad. It doesn’t matter how one feels. It’s like being proud to be a pimp or a slave driver. It’s indicative of psychopaths that are to be eradicated.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. Yee says:

    One of the most important achievement of Great Leap Forward was countless of irrigation systems, big or small, all over China.

    Here is just one of them.

    The most important achievement of Cultural Revolution was breaking the awe and fear of the lower class for the elite. Peasants and laborers stopped feeling themselves lesser people.

    Chinese Netizens generally agree that, unless India has a Cultural Revolution to truly break up their societal structure, we don’t have to worry about them catching up with us.

    Read More
    • Replies: @denk
    After two centuries of colonisation under the Brits, the Indians have became the perenial house trained sepoys, they enjoy serving their white masters,
    whether its the Brits./murkkans./or Russians, against fellow Asians.

    India needs a lobotomy to set it free.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. @Escher
    That was just an example. Mao's philandering was well known. But hey, keep smoking whatever it is you have.

    And its relevance?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @godfree Roberts
    Chairman of the Board. Neither more nor less.

    Chairman of the Board. Neither more nor less.

    When do Chairmen of the Board have massive personality cults?

    Dissent is punished much more leniently, imprisonment is rare by comparison, as is death at the hands of the government.

    How so? If you run afoul of the received knowledge in the US, you will ostracized, but not imprisoned, unlike what can happen in China. I don’t like the former but the later is worse. I would agree on the second point, but the third point I am not sure. State executions are much higher in the PRC (extimated to be in the thousands) than the USA (20 in 2016), but that doesn’t include shooting deaths by police officers (about a thousand in the US, unknown in China).

    Or WHY Mao won so easily despite massive US support for Chiang?

    Because Mao had massive support from the USSR?

    Read More
    • Replies: @denk

    'How so? If you run afoul of the received knowledge in the US, you will ostracized, but not imprisoned, '

     

    Sure you can bleat and whine, but the moment you run afoul of the lucrative MIC gravy train...
    http://sainthoward.blogspot.com/2014/

    'unlike what can happen in China.'
     
    Is that what you read in Wapo, GUardian, GlobenMail ?
    Accodring to these paragon of 'fair' journalism [cough cough]
    The CCP willy nilly 'persecutes dissidenters who speak out' eh ?

    http://www.voltairenet.org/article167396.html

    'I don’t like the former but the later is worse. I would agree on the second point, but the third point I am not sure. State executions are much higher in the PRC (extimated to be in the thousands) than the USA (20 in 2016), but that doesn’t include shooting deaths by police officers (about a thousand in the US, unknown in China).'
     
    How could you not factor in the population ?
    USA beats the rest of world hands down in terms of executions, prisoners/per head !

    Dont get me started on the 'extra judicial executions' and 'collateral damages' inflicted all over the world by the unitedsnake,
    , @DENK
    doesn’t include shooting deaths by police officers (about a thousand in the US, unknown in China).

    I'll let you in on another dirty secret.....
    Chinese cops never carried lethal 'side arms' like murkkans,
    not even after the deadly made in USA Tibet/TAM/Xinjiang bloodshed.
    The last straw came in 2016 when an avalanche of made in USA terrorists attacks erupted all over China including Beijing.

    These days Chinese cops in Beijing carry 'side arms' like the murkkans.
    Thank you murkkans for spreading your 'democrazy' all round!

    No gunning down of unarmed civilians in broad daylight like those in USA so far,
    Thank gawd for that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. @Joe Wong
    Chieh, Chinese bloggers are here to protest when China is portrayed unfairly, to rebuke lies told about China, to correct distorted facts fabricated for China, to clear smear painted on China, as well as to expose the lies told about 'Western existence and culture.' Don't you feel truth should be told and lies should be exposed? Perhaps you feel such honesty is an offense to your adoring living god, the White, who might strike you to hell, so you need to show your loyalty preemptively?

    I’m actually pretty pro-China. This does not mean I feel a need to ramble propaganda, however.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. Dan Hayes says:

    A Taiwanese-American friend of mine once told me that the Korean War death of his son unbalanced Chairman Mao and somewhat accounted for his later erratic behavior. Is there any truth to this conjecture?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  167. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @godfree Roberts
    All emigre groups contend that those who overthrew them 'destroyed so much of our culture'. It was and is bullshit. Wait for the sequel..

    Not sure what you mean by emigre group.

    China destroyed it’s own culture not some other group. But I will wait for the second part.

    Read More
    • Replies: @godfree Roberts
    I was there last weekend and the culture looked pretty healthy. What, precisely, do you mean when you say 'China destroyed it’s own culture'?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. Some Jap says:

    Yes yes, Japan’s always the unqualified evil in any and all discourse.
    We have our own way of conveying how we were not guilty of most allegations, by acting virtuously as we can. It was not through countering the propaganda during the war with Nationalist China, nor later on, much to our detriment today. From the Germans throwing babies upon their spiked helmets to the alleged ‘Jewish Holocaust,’ from Qaddafi’s troops fed viagra to go on rape rampages, to alleged gassing of al-Assad’s own citizens, recent history is full of demonstrable lies or unsubstantiated allegations that have become political truths. In like manner, Japan too has crimes attributed to it. I won’t defend what is provably obvious, but as evidence stands, the infamous war crimes alleged have mostly been unsubstantiated, while works of fiction, or a victor’s tribunal, are accepted at face value.
    I have respect for Mao for making the most of the situation he was placed during the war, (most likely) causing the Marco Polo bridge incident to create the great spark to ignite the second sino-jap war, and capturing Chiang and forcing him to reluctantly commit to fight Japan. And, after the devastation wrought by Japan and the ravenous Nationalists, it always gives me a smile to hear that he thanked Japan for destroying his rival; he has the honor and integrity to acknowledge as much. While blemished by great failures that did lead to deaths and destruction, and the cult of personality that developed, he reunited China and lay the foundation for Deng and a resurgent Dynasty, as yet to be named besides the unfashionable CCP.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peter Lund
    I was surprised to learn recently that the Japanese tried to promote literacy in occupied Korea early on -- only later did they force Japanese on the Koreans.
    , @jacques sheete
    Regarding propaganda, please see my comment #172.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    Tossing babies to land on their spiked helmets? That's pretty memorable propaganda. Any links?
    , @denk
    I heard most Jp hate/fear China. [sic]
    Thats a bit rich innit ?
    It has been a one way aggression from Jp since the Ming dynasty, thru the ww2
    and right up to the asia pivot .

    OTOH, murkka provoked Jp into attacking Pearl harbor and dropped two
    A-bombs on Hiroshima, Nagasaki.
    BUt most Jp like murkka and support Tokyo's role in the 'Asia pivot' to
    confront China .

    Whats the matter over there, something in the water ??
    , @Priss Factor
    Yes yes, Japan’s always the unqualified evil in any and all discourse.
    We have our own way of conveying how we were not guilty of most allegations, by acting virtuously as we can.


    Are you really 'some Jap'?

    In the 21st century, I don't much care what Japan did in WWII.

    What really matters is WHEN will Japan finally tell the US to go home, restore an adult culture, and become a normal nation again? Does Japan want to be the whore-bitch of the US forever against China?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. @Anonymous
    Not sure what you mean by emigre group.

    China destroyed it's own culture not some other group. But I will wait for the second part.

    I was there last weekend and the culture looked pretty healthy. What, precisely, do you mean when you say ‘China destroyed it’s own culture’?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Well, compare to Hong Kong for feng shui design:

    http://www.amusingplanet.com/2016/03/the-feng-shui-skyscrapers-of-hong-kong.html

    I don't think there's much debate that the Cultural Revolution destroyed a lot of culture, especially artisan crafts that were already dying before - the creation of compound bows, for one example and quite a few burial customs for another.

    I'm not entirely driven by nostalgia for them, or even much at all - some of them were horrific and all of them were in some ways, about superstition. I think that modern China is probably more capable of thriving than before, but there was beauty and stability in the past too, and such as that one Confucian scholar lamented to a European about the modernization of China, so I feel there's a place to lament for the loss of what was once tranquil, a culture with a past and a future, that knew its place under Heaven and had a rhyme and reason for everything.

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    I don't know if the guy you replied to meant culture as in arts and music. In terms of the basic culture of the society, Communism, if kept in place long enough, destroys culture. As summarized here, the Chinese people are about nothing but their own families and materialism in the present day. There is no serious Buddhism or Taoism, and even the Christians can't keep their raw materialism inside very much.

    Hard-core Communism had only a 30-odd year hold of China, and that is part of why China is doing so well compared to Russia, which had 70 years of it. (I'm not saying that's the only reason - the Chinese just work their asses off too.) However, the morals of most of the Chinese are just nothing to brag about. I was not around in < 1920's China, of course, but the Buddhism and that were taken more seriously. 30 years of the place being in abject poverty and ruled by a tyrant who could run the people's lives as he saw fit did a number on them. NEVER GIVE ONE MAN THAT MUCH POWER!

    From the article:

    There is no serious religion in China now, aside from the small (relative to 1,400,000,000 people) Christian sector, with more on that shortly. You will hear of the Grave-sweeping festival in summer, and that's a Buddhist thing. The idea is to visit the graves of close relatives, clean up a bit, and burn money to help them out on the other side. How the money helps, I'm not sure, but the point here is that nobody burns any real money. That's what I'm getting at. If they took this seriously religiously they would burn real money to show they mean it. I asked someone about this, and she said "well, we have to BUY that fake money". OK! Tomb-sweeping day is all about eating good dumplings, and that's fine, because good eating is a good reason for anything in China.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. @Daniel Chieh
    So, do you get 五毛 per word or per post?

    That’s the first time I’ve understood a pun in Chinese :)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. @godfree Roberts
    I lay all of the praise and none of the guilt at the feet of Mao because, until now, writers have laid all of the guilt and none of the at the praise at the feet of Mao.

    It is normal to personify governments–the Reagan Years–for convenience. Nobody imagines that they performed all the functions themselves.

    Thank you for your comment on China's population growth vs other countries'. I had never thought to compare them.

    Mao achievements are undeniable and so are his massive failures and power lust.
    You cannot possibly call Great Leap forward or 100 Flowers or Cultural revolution a great success stories. Outcomes of those were not good at all and you forget to mention massive Soviet help and role in Mao victory and subsequent building of China industrial foundation and military.
    Anyway, Chinese wisely did not commit Soviet like blunder of denigrating Mao and his achievements.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. Thanks to the author for this article.

    I know next to nothing about Mao, and am happy to hear this side of the argument.

    Mao should be reconsidered.

    Now, I also happen to believe that FDR and Churchill should be reconsidered as well.

    While we’re at it, Adolph Hitler also merits reconsideration, and a Jewish person, Murray Rothbard himself has said so.

    “… this entire myth, so prevalent then and even now about Hitler, and about the Japanese, is a tissue of fallacies from beginning to end. Every plank in this nightmare evidence is either completely untrue or not entirely the truth.

    If people should learn this intellectual fraud about Hitler’s Germany, then they will begin to ask questions, and searching questions…”

    Murray Rothbard, Revisionism for Our Time
    Mr. Rothbard was an American Jew and an historian of the very highest caliber.

    http://mises.org/daily/2592

    We been duped, goyz and churls!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  173. @Robert Magill
    Chairman Mao's 'Hero Mothers' (women who had 4 or more children were celebrated) did indeed raise the population to about 940 million before Mao died. The one child rule came later to stop the rise.

    https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2017/10/14/mankind-a-bogus-species/

    You missed my point.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. @Joe Hide
    Mao was the "Best of the Barely Okay." Any nation with people as intelligent, motivated, and hard working as the Chinese will make incredible progress if their leaders aren't completely incompetent, insane, and self-righteous. So, while I actually liked the article (It was well written), I came away from it realizing that way too much credit goes to rulers, and way too little to the people. By the way. I am a "people" so maybe I'm just biased?

    So, while I actually liked the article (It was well written), I came away from it realizing that way too much credit goes to rulers, and way too little to the people.

    True.

    People, in the US at least, tend to put too much faith in some messiah whether it be some person or some (invariably corrupt) institution.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. @Some Jap
    Yes yes, Japan's always the unqualified evil in any and all discourse.
    We have our own way of conveying how we were not guilty of most allegations, by acting virtuously as we can. It was not through countering the propaganda during the war with Nationalist China, nor later on, much to our detriment today. From the Germans throwing babies upon their spiked helmets to the alleged 'Jewish Holocaust,' from Qaddafi's troops fed viagra to go on rape rampages, to alleged gassing of al-Assad's own citizens, recent history is full of demonstrable lies or unsubstantiated allegations that have become political truths. In like manner, Japan too has crimes attributed to it. I won't defend what is provably obvious, but as evidence stands, the infamous war crimes alleged have mostly been unsubstantiated, while works of fiction, or a victor's tribunal, are accepted at face value.
    I have respect for Mao for making the most of the situation he was placed during the war, (most likely) causing the Marco Polo bridge incident to create the great spark to ignite the second sino-jap war, and capturing Chiang and forcing him to reluctantly commit to fight Japan. And, after the devastation wrought by Japan and the ravenous Nationalists, it always gives me a smile to hear that he thanked Japan for destroying his rival; he has the honor and integrity to acknowledge as much. While blemished by great failures that did lead to deaths and destruction, and the cult of personality that developed, he reunited China and lay the foundation for Deng and a resurgent Dynasty, as yet to be named besides the unfashionable CCP.

    I was surprised to learn recently that the Japanese tried to promote literacy in occupied Korea early on — only later did they force Japanese on the Koreans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. @godfree Roberts
    The facts, which I presented, beg to differ.

    If you wish to make assertions that run counter to my evidence, then produce them. Don't just windily repeat what you heard on Fox News.

    If you wish to make assertions that run counter to my evidence, then produce them. Don’t just windily repeat what you heard on Fox News.

    Amen to that!

    Parroting outrageous BS is the best they can do.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. @Some Jap
    Yes yes, Japan's always the unqualified evil in any and all discourse.
    We have our own way of conveying how we were not guilty of most allegations, by acting virtuously as we can. It was not through countering the propaganda during the war with Nationalist China, nor later on, much to our detriment today. From the Germans throwing babies upon their spiked helmets to the alleged 'Jewish Holocaust,' from Qaddafi's troops fed viagra to go on rape rampages, to alleged gassing of al-Assad's own citizens, recent history is full of demonstrable lies or unsubstantiated allegations that have become political truths. In like manner, Japan too has crimes attributed to it. I won't defend what is provably obvious, but as evidence stands, the infamous war crimes alleged have mostly been unsubstantiated, while works of fiction, or a victor's tribunal, are accepted at face value.
    I have respect for Mao for making the most of the situation he was placed during the war, (most likely) causing the Marco Polo bridge incident to create the great spark to ignite the second sino-jap war, and capturing Chiang and forcing him to reluctantly commit to fight Japan. And, after the devastation wrought by Japan and the ravenous Nationalists, it always gives me a smile to hear that he thanked Japan for destroying his rival; he has the honor and integrity to acknowledge as much. While blemished by great failures that did lead to deaths and destruction, and the cult of personality that developed, he reunited China and lay the foundation for Deng and a resurgent Dynasty, as yet to be named besides the unfashionable CCP.

    Regarding propaganda, please see my comment #172.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. mp says:
    @godfree Roberts
    Read what I said. Mao was not a feminist. He simply liberated China's women for the first time in 5,000 years. There are more self-made billionaires in China today than in the rest of the world combined. China's first Nobelist was a woman. The designer and builder of the world's fastest computer is a woman. Women get equal pay. That's more goddam liberation than all so-called womens libbers have done combined, ever.

    Mao was not a feminist.

    Glad we agree to agree. The other stuff can be argued out later…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. Despite a brutal U.S. blockade on food, finance and technology, and without incurring debt,Mao grew China’s economy by an average of 7.3 percent annually, compared to America’s postwar boom years’ 3.7 percent.

    I know nothing about that, but am interested. The “no debt” part is most interesting in that over on Phil Giraldi’s October 3rd UR article, How I got Fired, we’ve had a very interesting discussion centering around one wag’s originally unqualified statement that debt is good with the implication that it was somehow not only beneficial but necessary.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  180. Joe Wong says:
    @Lemurmaniac
    We're not going to bother about who did what to whom, we've overcome that. We're not sorry!

    “the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.”
    –Samuel P. Huntington

    Not addressing or not criticizing one’s crimes is not redeeming one’s sin, it is merely burying one’s head in the hole; it is a sign of weakness, immaturaity, and flaws in character, culture and civilization. The unaddressed crimes will forever hang over the West’s head like Sword of Damocles.

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @iffen
    The Sword of Damocles is a creation of Western Civilization, you can't culturally appropriate it to threaten us; it's agin the rules.
    , @Vinteuil
    Joe Wong, you're every bit as clueless as the Israeli hasbara folks who show up around here from time to time.

    Believe me - you're wasting your time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. @godfree Roberts
    The facts, which I presented, beg to differ.

    If you wish to make assertions that run counter to my evidence, then produce them. Don't just windily repeat what you heard on Fox News.

    If you wish to make assertions that run counter to my evidence, then produce them. Don’t just windily repeat what you heard on Fox News.

    Since the type can’t think outside the box and are typically totally unable to honor your request, they’ll likely resort to calling you names and mocking you.

    They also seem to enjoy the use of strawman arguments; they’ll deliberately distort your claims in an effort to make your claims appear ridiculous. There is little point in countering them because they are impervious to reason, logic, truth or facts.

    They also love to divert attention away from the main point and typically engage in silly moral equivalencies.

    I know you know all that but I’m stating it so that you may rest assured that some of us are on to them and that they only succeed in making themselves appear as ridiculous as they are detestable. I’ve found that they’re generally only good for either ignoring or laughing at.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. iffen says:
    @Joe Wong
    “the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.”
    –Samuel P. Huntington

    Not addressing or not criticizing one's crimes is not redeeming one's sin, it is merely burying one's head in the hole; it is a sign of weakness, immaturaity, and flaws in character, culture and civilization. The unaddressed crimes will forever hang over the West's head like Sword of Damocles.

    The Sword of Damocles is a creation of Western Civilization, you can’t culturally appropriate it to threaten us; it’s agin the rules.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. @godfree Roberts
    I made assertions and produced evidence to support them.

    The usual practice is for others to question the assertions or the evidence, make counter-assertions and advance counter-evidence.

    No-one has done so, thus far, so I assume that commenters are simply angry because they cannot refute my argument–like old white guys get angry when you present them with evidence of anthropogenic climate change.

    Insulting the person who presents unfamiliar ideas and substantiates them–or dismissing them all, out of hand, like the old white guys do– is generally considered poor form.

    Do you consider either acceptable?

    now this is a good reply :) but I would argue that comments by anatoly do fit the requirements?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. @godfree Roberts
    I was there last weekend and the culture looked pretty healthy. What, precisely, do you mean when you say 'China destroyed it’s own culture'?

    Well, compare to Hong Kong for feng shui design:

    http://www.amusingplanet.com/2016/03/the-feng-shui-skyscrapers-of-hong-kong.html

    I don’t think there’s much debate that the Cultural Revolution destroyed a lot of culture, especially artisan crafts that were already dying before – the creation of compound bows, for one example and quite a few burial customs for another.

    I’m not entirely driven by nostalgia for them, or even much at all – some of them were horrific and all of them were in some ways, about superstition. I think that modern China is probably more capable of thriving than before, but there was beauty and stability in the past too, and such as that one Confucian scholar lamented to a European about the modernization of China, so I feel there’s a place to lament for the loss of what was once tranquil, a culture with a past and a future, that knew its place under Heaven and had a rhyme and reason for everything.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. @Priss Factor
    I think Mao was necessary in the same sense that Qin Shi Huang was necessary – to break the stagnation that China has gotten herself in – but it hardly just makes him 100% good.

    Isn't it better to say 'someone-like-Mao was necessary' than 'Mao was necessary'?

    Yes, China needed a strong leader who could unite and rule the nation with authority. Someone like Mao with his good qualities. But there were so many bad qualities in the particular figure of Mao.

    Now, if you argue that ONLY Mao could have done the job, doesn't this make Chinese look really stupid? You mean, out of those 100s of millions of people, ONLY ONE person has the will and ability to rule a nation?

    As it turned out, Liu Shao-Chi did a pretty good job for several yrs after the the catastrophic Great Leap. He restored the economy and even wanted to restore ties with Russia. Also, Deng was a most able leader from the late 70s to the end. He combined iron hand with soft touch. He worked like what Teddy Roosevelt said: Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick.

    So, China didn't have any shortage of able leaders. There were others who could have played the Mao role with much more sanity.

    It's like saying Germany needed someone LIKE HITLER during the Great Depression. It needed a strong leader who could restore a sense of pride and purpose to the nation. 'Someone like Hitler' with his good qualities BUT not Hitler himself who was pathological and didn't know when to stop and brought about WWII.

    Mao too was pathological. His failures weren't just epic in scope, costing millions of lives and the near-total destruction of culture during the Cultural Revolution, a truly crazy time. Like Hitler, Mao didn't know when to stop.

    Btw, the idea that China was stagnant when communists came to power is wrong. Chiang and KMT were fully aware of the problems, and they did much to improve things except that Japanese invasion messed everything up. Also, Chiang wanted to play for time, but Chinese popular opinion called for war against Japan in an alliance with communists. And that brought about the demise of KMT. China in the 1930s and 1940s was a dynamic place and far removed from 1840 when it was indeed stagnant.

    It was understandable why the Chinese people wanted the KMT to engage the Japanese over Manchuria, but Chiang knew China was not ready to fight Japan. He figured he must destroy the communists totally first before engaging Japan. But there was enough freedom in China under KMT to call for tough actions against Japan. And after the kidnapping by the Manchurian general, Chiang felt obligated to go into war mode against Japan.

    Now, imagine if Mao's China was at war with Russia. Suppose KMT in Taiwan offered an alliance with the mainland to fight Russia. Do you think Mao would have agreed? No way. He would have known such an alliance would give KMT another foothold in the mainland.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_decade

    Chiang is truly a tragic figure in Chinese history, caught between a rock and a hard place. He wanted to unify China and modernize it, and he did have achievements during the Nanking Decade, but Japanese aggression in North China just put him at odds with not just Japan but the Chinese people who clamored for war when China was not ready. And the communists exploited this by appealing to the Chinese people. It called for unity with KMT to fight the Japanese. It was a cynical but masterly move on the part of Mao and Zhou. They got to witness the Japanese and KMT destroy one another while the communists waited patiently to fill the vacuum when the time was ripe.

    Anyway, I agree China needed someone like Mao but not Mao himself. And I agree Germany needed someone like Hitler but not Hitler. And Russia needed someone like Stalin but not Stalin. Those particular fellers were too pathological and extreme.

    It's too bad they were not like Ataturk, a man who could be strong but had a real sense of humanity.

    Anyway, it's better to say China needed a man like Deng.. and got him in the late 70s, and it was very good for China.

    We don’t live in a world of ideal men and CKS effectively created a network of warlords; such a system could never have created an unified China. Perhaps the most damning recognition is that after having largely built up Taiwan, the KMT has been evicted from power and TaiDu is busy virtue signaling themselves to death. Its bad enough to advocate homopoz with some form of economic growth, but as far as I can tell, TaiDu is happy cargo culting itself into oblivion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    We don’t live in a world of ideal men and CKS effectively created a network of warlords; such a system could never have created an unified China.

    Deng and Zhou were not ideal men. They had big faults, but they sane compared to Mao. I'm saying China could have used a saner strong man. Mao was off the charts in cuckoo-ness. Being a megalomaniac by nature, he went crazy once he gained total power.

    Chiang Kai-Shek didn't create the warlord system. He inherited it, and he was trying to move in stages to bring the warlords to heel, and he was succeeding yr after yr.

    Warlord era began with the fall of Yuan Shikai, the man who would be new emperor. With the demise of central authority, China came under the rule of warlords. Not all warlords were bad. Some were idealistic and nationalist, and they pushed for reforms in their territory.

    Chiang could NOT unify China all at once. He moved in stages for gradual reunification, and time was on his side. As Nanking grew stronger and richer, the warlords could be brought to heel, and they were falling behind Chiang. It's like Japan kept its feudal lords after unification under Obunaga-Hideoyoshi-Tokugawa, but the feudal lords pledged loyalty to Edo.

    Chiang had to work with what he had at the time. But Mao worked the same way. He also forged alliances with warlords. He even proposed alliance with KMT against China. So, both sides were working practically with the hand they were dealt. But the ultimate vision for both was a re-centralized China.

    Also, Mao didn't achieve reunification due to some special talent. Rather, historical events just came to favor communists. War between Japan and KMT opened up a huge opportunity for the communists. Mao was like a vulture who swooped in for the kill after the other predators destroyed each other. Also, Mao has the US and USSR to thank. US defeated Japan in the Pacific, and Japan was finished. USSR defeated Japanese in North China and handed over the territory to the communists. And KMT was exhausted from war with Japan. So, Mao filled the vacuum.

    Also, warlord system might have been better in some way under Mao's China. Certain warlords may have resisted Mao's crazy ideas like Great Leap and Cultural Revolution. Unfortunately, every corner of China -- except non-Han parts -- had to take part in every detail of Mao's harebrained plans. There was no local autonomy to resist Mao.

    Now, look at the US. It too gradually came together as a nation. In the beginning, each of the state has more power over itself than the federal government. It was the Civil War that finally decided who should have more power: the national government or individual states. Even without communists, China would have come together as a united nation because warlords couldn't last for long. They were an accident of history. The fall of Yuan Shikai and foreign meddling just created an opening for warlords. But within just several yrs of Nanking Decade, Chiang had done much to bring them in.

    As for Taiwan, the problem is the lack of national sovereignty. Taiwan, like South Korea and Japan, is a cuck-nation of the US. So, if US goes homo, they follow. They are like dogs. If Chiang had prevailed in China, Chinese might not be so slavish to the Americans.

    Another thing. The reason why KMT came to be resented by Taiwanese is because Taiwan-Chinese came under rule of Mainland exile community who were the minority. And there was even a bloody crackdown on the native Taiwanese. So, there was an anti-KMT resistance movement in Taiwan. Also, Taiwan sends its people to study overseas, and because Asians are slavish and doggish, they just obey whatever happens to be the Official Knowledge. But Mainland Chinese are same way. The reason why they became such running dogs of Mao was due to the doggish nature. Asians always follow and obey. If you take patriotic Mainland Chinese and put them in EU or US, they will eventually come around to sucking up to PC.

    Also, there's no guarantee that communism will save a nation from US crap. Look at Vietnam. It won the war and united, but now it has homo parades.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. Beckow says:
    @Priss Factor
    Lincoln killed more American soldiers and civilians than Hitler and Tojo ever did.

    Reasons matter. Lincoln wanted to restore the Union and keep American unified.

    Very bloody but justifiable. And it also ended slavery.

    Surely, it's different from Germans invading Russia to turn people into slaves or corpses.

    In the end, the South should have worked with Lincoln to free the slaves and send them back to Africa. Lincoln was opposed to slavery but was also a rational race-ist who understood the dangers posed by Negroes.

    “South should have worked with Lincoln to free the slaves and send them back to Africa”

    They could work on it together, and work on it some more – but it was never going to happen. Not in a way that would make enough of a demographic difference. The original error – or sin – of the greedy settlers who just thought that bringing millions of slaves from Africa was such a great idea, and that it would have no long-term catastrophic consequences, that error by 1850 couldn’t be undone.

    There was also the issue of many Southerners having most of their wealth in the ownership of slaves, and the value of their plantations was based on that slave labor. So there really was no solution available. If Confederacy successfully separated, it would had slowly collapsed in 1-2 generations into a South America latifundia like state. There would be ‘Brazil’ in North America by 1900. As it is, we will have to wait a few more years before the pleasures of being a ‘Brazil’ are fully available in North America. Some mistakes are fatal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    So there really was no solution available.

    They could have converted the slaves into indentured servants. Indentured them for 5, 10 years, freed the children at 16, 18, etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. @godfree Roberts
    Lincoln killed more American soldiers and civilians than Hitler and Tojo ever did.

    Is he a criminal?

    Should we never have built statues for him?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_Native_Americans

    And strangely no one is responsible for the following:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bengal_famine_of_1770

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_Famine_of_1945

    Persian Famine of 1917 – orchestrated by England, 8-10 million deaths, majng Iran the biggest victim of WWI.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_famine_of_1917–1919

    Exceptionally good article!

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    Thanks for that.

    I generally avoid Wiki for modern historical information since a significant part of it strikes me as the usual propaganda, but this may be somewhat of an exception.

    This quote struck me as likely true.

    Pat Walsh in a review of Majd's book written in Irish Foreign Affairs, a quarterly publication by Irish Political Review comments on claims of hoarding as causes of famine. He writes:[6]
    British attitudes towards the starving Persians were uncannily similar to those expressed against the Irish in a similar position half a century before. The Persians themselves, and particularly the Persian resistance, were blamed for the food shortages. Persian insurgents were blamed for hoarding food. When the British set up road-gangs to build roads for the military they suggested that this ‘relief measure’ was motivated by benevolence and that the Persians were ungrateful for it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_famine_of_1917%E2%80%931919
     

    "Blame others for your own sins."

    J. V. Stalin, Anarchism Or Socialism ? December, 1906 — January, 1907
    https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm

     

    No doubt Stalin learned that from watching the colonial empires in action.
    , @godfree Roberts
    Thanks for that Persian reference. I'll add it to the list!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. @Some Jap
    Yes yes, Japan's always the unqualified evil in any and all discourse.
    We have our own way of conveying how we were not guilty of most allegations, by acting virtuously as we can. It was not through countering the propaganda during the war with Nationalist China, nor later on, much to our detriment today. From the Germans throwing babies upon their spiked helmets to the alleged 'Jewish Holocaust,' from Qaddafi's troops fed viagra to go on rape rampages, to alleged gassing of al-Assad's own citizens, recent history is full of demonstrable lies or unsubstantiated allegations that have become political truths. In like manner, Japan too has crimes attributed to it. I won't defend what is provably obvious, but as evidence stands, the infamous war crimes alleged have mostly been unsubstantiated, while works of fiction, or a victor's tribunal, are accepted at face value.
    I have respect for Mao for making the most of the situation he was placed during the war, (most likely) causing the Marco Polo bridge incident to create the great spark to ignite the second sino-jap war, and capturing Chiang and forcing him to reluctantly commit to fight Japan. And, after the devastation wrought by Japan and the ravenous Nationalists, it always gives me a smile to hear that he thanked Japan for destroying his rival; he has the honor and integrity to acknowledge as much. While blemished by great failures that did lead to deaths and destruction, and the cult of personality that developed, he reunited China and lay the foundation for Deng and a resurgent Dynasty, as yet to be named besides the unfashionable CCP.

    Tossing babies to land on their spiked helmets? That’s pretty memorable propaganda. Any links?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. @nsa
    Harry Franck traveled the world on foot in the early 1900s and authored numerous books describing local conditions, along with lots of pictures. His descriptions of life in the colonial concessions are astounding......essentially Britain with the USA, France, Germany, Russia, and Japan carved China up like a ripe melon into "concessions" and relegated the Chinese to second class citizenship in their own country. And the anglo-jooie run drug trade was beyond any bounds of decency, but about what you would expect from the rapacious anglo-jooies. It took extreme violence to evict the greedy bloodthirsty colonials and their local satraps. To this day the colonials resent their eviction and fear a Chinese dominated future......

    That is a large exaggeration, nsa, on the “carving up like a ripe melon” business. The concessions were small pieces of land on the east (almost the only) coast, like Canton (Guangzhou now) in the southeast for the British and Tsingtao (think “beer”) for the Germans. Yeah, it was wrong, and the kind of colonialism nobody needs, as opposed to Africa. It was not a carving-up of the country, though. You should look at maps.

    I’ve seen history books without maps, and you can’t be a historian like that. You need MAPS, dammit, to understand anything about history.

    BTW, find out how many 10’s of millions of Chinamen were killed by other Chinamen in various wars* that we don’t even have freakin’ names for. They have a long history, and not many places in the world can look back and see a peaceful existence for very long, unfortunately.

    * not counting the 10’s of millions starved due to the stupidity of Chairman Mao. People were eating grass and the bark off trees. I have a family relative who’s granddad starved in the early 1960’s there in central China.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. iffen says:
    @Beckow

    "South should have worked with Lincoln to free the slaves and send them back to Africa"
     
    They could work on it together, and work on it some more - but it was never going to happen. Not in a way that would make enough of a demographic difference. The original error - or sin - of the greedy settlers who just thought that bringing millions of slaves from Africa was such a great idea, and that it would have no long-term catastrophic consequences, that error by 1850 couldn't be undone.

    There was also the issue of many Southerners having most of their wealth in the ownership of slaves, and the value of their plantations was based on that slave labor. So there really was no solution available. If Confederacy successfully separated, it would had slowly collapsed in 1-2 generations into a South America latifundia like state. There would be 'Brazil' in North America by 1900. As it is, we will have to wait a few more years before the pleasures of being a 'Brazil' are fully available in North America. Some mistakes are fatal.

    So there really was no solution available.

    They could have converted the slaves into indentured servants. Indentured them for 5, 10 years, freed the children at 16, 18, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    "They could have converted the slaves into indentured servants..."
     
    Yes, they could. And you would still have a Brazil-like environment by 1900 in the South. That's exactly what Brazil did in 1880's...once the original greedy step was done there really was no solution.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. @Daniel Chieh
    We don't live in a world of ideal men and CKS effectively created a network of warlords; such a system could never have created an unified China. Perhaps the most damning recognition is that after having largely built up Taiwan, the KMT has been evicted from power and TaiDu is busy virtue signaling themselves to death. Its bad enough to advocate homopoz with some form of economic growth, but as far as I can tell, TaiDu is happy cargo culting itself into oblivion.

    We don’t live in a world of ideal men and CKS effectively created a network of warlords; such a system could never have created an unified China.

    Deng and Zhou were not ideal men. They had big faults, but they sane compared to Mao. I’m saying China could have used a saner strong man. Mao was off the charts in cuckoo-ness. Being a megalomaniac by nature, he went crazy once he gained total power.

    Chiang Kai-Shek didn’t create the warlord system. He inherited it, and he was trying to move in stages to bring the warlords to heel, and he was succeeding yr after yr.

    Warlord era began with the fall of Yuan Shikai, the man who would be new emperor. With the demise of central authority, China came under the rule of warlords. Not all warlords were bad. Some were idealistic and nationalist, and they pushed for reforms in their territory.

    Chiang could NOT unify China all at once. He moved in stages for gradual reunification, and time was on his side. As Nanking grew stronger and richer, the warlords could be brought to heel, and they were falling behind Chiang. It’s like Japan kept its feudal lords after unification under Obunaga-Hideoyoshi-Tokugawa, but the feudal lords pledged loyalty to Edo.

    Chiang had to work with what he had at the time. But Mao worked the same way. He also forged alliances with warlords. He even proposed alliance with KMT against China. So, both sides were working practically with the hand they were dealt. But the ultimate vision for both was a re-centralized China.

    Also, Mao didn’t achieve reunification due to some special talent. Rather, historical events just came to favor communists. War between Japan and KMT opened up a huge opportunity for the communists. Mao was like a vulture who swooped in for the kill after the other predators destroyed each other. Also, Mao has the US and USSR to thank. US defeated Japan in the Pacific, and Japan was finished. USSR defeated Japanese in North China and handed over the territory to the communists. And KMT was exhausted from war with Japan. So, Mao filled the vacuum.

    Also, warlord system might have been better in some way under Mao’s China. Certain warlords may have resisted Mao’s crazy ideas like Great Leap and Cultural Revolution. Unfortunately, every corner of China — except non-Han parts — had to take part in every detail of Mao’s harebrained plans. There was no local autonomy to resist Mao.

    Now, look at the US. It too gradually came together as a nation. In the beginning, each of the state has more power over itself than the federal government. It was the Civil War that finally decided who should have more power: the national government or individual states. Even without communists, China would have come together as a united nation because warlords couldn’t last for long. They were an accident of history. The fall of Yuan Shikai and foreign meddling just created an opening for warlords. But within just several yrs of Nanking Decade, Chiang had done much to bring them in.

    As for Taiwan, the problem is the lack of national sovereignty. Taiwan, like South Korea and Japan, is a cuck-nation of the US. So, if US goes homo, they follow. They are like dogs. If Chiang had prevailed in China, Chinese might not be so slavish to the Americans.

    Another thing. The reason why KMT came to be resented by Taiwanese is because Taiwan-Chinese came under rule of Mainland exile community who were the minority. And there was even a bloody crackdown on the native Taiwanese. So, there was an anti-KMT resistance movement in Taiwan. Also, Taiwan sends its people to study overseas, and because Asians are slavish and doggish, they just obey whatever happens to be the Official Knowledge. But Mainland Chinese are same way. The reason why they became such running dogs of Mao was due to the doggish nature. Asians always follow and obey. If you take patriotic Mainland Chinese and put them in EU or US, they will eventually come around to sucking up to PC.

    Also, there’s no guarantee that communism will save a nation from US crap. Look at Vietnam. It won the war and united, but now it has homo parades.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    If you take patriotic Mainland Chinese and put them in EU or US, they will eventually come around to sucking up to PC.
     
    As represented by the fact that I am sucking up to PC. Or that all of the hai gui are returning to China to join NGOs to bring POZlandia values to China.

    Um, yeah. Not actually happening.

    What is probably fair is that there hasn't been much of a successful alternate system of thought which at the end of the day has to coincide with decent living standards - Islam certainly doesn't seem to be doing that. But Xi Jinping does seem to have an coherent idea and it seems hopeful.

    Communism in and of itself doesn't necessarily provide protection from poz; only a coherent alternative viewpoint will be able to do so. I think that Confucianism can pose an obstacle but like other religions, can be pozzed as well with the right approach.
    , @denk

    ' If Chiang had prevailed in China, Chinese might not be so slavish to the Americans. '
     
    WTF !
    Had Chiang won,China would've become the 52 state of the unitedsnake,
    like Jp, SK, TW.

    ' Asians are slavish and doggish, they just obey whatever happens to be the Official Knowledge. But Mainland Chinese are same way. The reason why they became such running dogs of Mao was due to the doggish nature.'
     
    You'r full of shit. !

    The Chinese just brought down two tyrannts in a row, the Qing court and
    Washington's poodle Chiang KS.

    When'll there be a revolution in Washington DC , big man ?
    Or are you and your ilks running dogs of Trump ?

    P.S.
    about 'doggish, slavish' Asians,
    cue the Indians and the Jp,
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. @utu
    Mr. Godfree forgot to give devil his due and neglected to mention the absolutely critical role the Rockefellers played in transfering technology, capital, and customers to the CPC and genius Deng.

    Can you write more about or recommend some sources? I always wondered where and when decisions were made to enable China's growth. And the question why is the most important.

    I noted that in his reply Godfree Roberts failed to actually provide any insights beyond promoting his upcoming book.

    He also ignored my question regarding his neglecting this entirely salient matter: China would still be a basket case even with Deng if the West Inc. had not determined that integrating the Chinese elite into the global mafia is a win-win for the outfit.

    A very expensive book with no substantive reviews on the internet (at least per Google):

    https://www.amazon.com/Prospect-America-Rockefeller-Panel-Reports/dp/B000FMPMHY

    As Mr. Roberts has admitted, West Inc.’s information control strategy is a few generations ahead of the old fashioned censorship of the old world. Censorship through obscurity was a viable approach until the internet reduced the obscurity factor, but this is currently being addressed via soft (“fake news”) firm (the tech platforms and their owners) and hard (laws) mechanisms.

    The key, in my opinion, is understanding how the demise of the American superpower could be in the interest of the outfit. Once you see that, everything else starts to make sense.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    No doubt, Godfrey Roberts offers no insights here, does not address some very good points brought up by commenters and only keeps pushing his book.

    The key, in my opinion, is understanding how the demise of the American superpower could be in the interest of the outfit.

    Absolutely, this is the key question. Why "they" are interested in reducing the power of the America the country which is the safest haven for the oligarchs of the world? Was another place designated to be the oligarchs haven? Is it possible that "they" made a mistake or got outplayed. But if it is not the case, then there is still a possibility that the motive is of "religious" nature, not from this world. Perhaps Messiah was already born and the world will be ruled from Jerusalem?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. Ron Unz says:

    Another thing. The reason why KMT came to be resented by Taiwanese is because Taiwan-Chinese came under rule of Mainland exile community who were the minority. And there was even a bloody crackdown on the native Taiwanese.

    Actually, from what I’ve read, this related directly to the success of the KMT on Taiwan compared to its failure on the mainland.

    Land reform was a critically necessary element in rural China, but since the KMT leadership was heavily based on the landlord class, they couldn’t implement it, leaving the door open to the CCP to gain popularity and also lay the basis for future economic advances.

    However, once the KMT was forced to flee to Taiwan, they realized their back was against the wall, and without land reform there, they’d probably lose that remaining scrap of territory. Also, they had no connection to the local Taiwanese landlords, so had less reluctance to apply the harsh measures they’d been unable to do earlier on the mainland. So they quickly succeeded economically on Taiwan after having failed for decades in China.

    Anyway, that’s the analysis I used to hear, which always sounded pretty plausible to me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Poupon Marx
    I believe Pol Pot got his model for "reform" and restructuring of the social and economic order from Mao. Like Mao, he "took out" the intellectual class, making them wear dunce caps and doing the work of the Untouchable Class of India.

    "All good", Mr. God Free, aka Glob Spree? Cockroaches and Communists are redundant and a tautology. A turd is not a bird.

    , @Anonymous
    Sun Yat-Sen, who is revered both by the CCP and the KMT as the father of modern China, was a Georgist. However, he died before Georgist policies could be implemented in China. When the CCP took over, they implemented the communist version of land reform, which was collectivization. The KMT in Taiwan ended up implementing Georgist inspired land reform policies which were very successful.

    https://www.cooperative-individualism.org/dodson-edward_taiwan-a-georgist-success-story-2006.htm
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. @Joe Wong
    You should be awarded with a brownie point in honesty, at least you have the courage to admit you are the dark side of humanity that need to be eradicated so that the humanity can improve themselves to be a better creature. It is petty that the elite of the USA and unrepentant war criminal Japanese do not have your courage, they are still lying, they lie abut the present, about the past, even about the future, they lie day and night, relentlessly to cover up their ugly past, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace; they are cowards and hypocrites.

    So please do not whine about other people stealing the American jobs, as you said it is only fair for other people to feel proud that they can vanquish and subjugate others including the American.

    You should be awarded with a brownie point in honesty, at least you have the courage to admit you are the dark side of humanity that need to be eradicated so that the humanity can improve themselves to be a better creature.

    Thorfinnsson has the “honesty” of a dog that struts “proudly” because his master is rich.

    You also fail to address the asymmetry of the equation here: The grand parents of Thorfinnsson were canon fodder and rope monkeys that operated the machines of the Corporation. Of course, clearly, being the dog of the master is better than being the prey, don’t you think? Something to be “proud” of, I suppose, if you are a dog-man.

    As for you and your rejoinder regarding “vanquishing” American workers, it is rather disappointing as your posts indicate finer, more human, sensibilities. Sweeheart, you and yours have not “vanquished” anyone. Your masters made a deal with dog-man’s masters. (Re. the above mentioned Asymmetry: It was not due to superior skills in any domain that the American workers are losing their jobs to you. It was just a waste seeing all those potential man-dogs go to waste running along per the latest guidance form God-man Mao, for example. A waste of potential productive slaves.)

    And behold what they did to their own loyal dogs.

    Read More
    • Agree: utu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Stephen R. Diamond
    Now we're supposed to shed crocodile tears for the Tsar!

    Who’s a crocodile?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. The engine of the economic and social progress was not Mao nor was it Mao’s program or socialism. Mao and China exist in a larger world in that time period. The innovations and liberal ideas of the West have spread to all corners of the world, and would have spread to China regardless of the “who”was happened to be in charge. The reason Mao and the communists are either fools or villains is because they had to fill their country with murder and starvation during the time when it occurred there. Not so much in Hong Kong, eh. If Mao was in charge, and there was no liberal West, China would currently look much as it ever did. This article appears to do nothing except give credit where none is due. The author needs to read “The Discovery of Freedom” if he wants to know why China makes jets.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  197. Beckow says:
    @iffen
    So there really was no solution available.

    They could have converted the slaves into indentured servants. Indentured them for 5, 10 years, freed the children at 16, 18, etc.

    “They could have converted the slaves into indentured servants…”

    Yes, they could. And you would still have a Brazil-like environment by 1900 in the South. That’s exactly what Brazil did in 1880′s…once the original greedy step was done there really was no solution.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    …once the original greedy step was done there really was no solution.

    Right, there were millions of people with generations of distance to any ancestor with a connection to Africa.

    I was really addressing the issue of "American soldiers killed by Lincoln."

    The War could have been avoided.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. @godfree Roberts
    Drop the ad hominem. Address Mao's achievements or go home.

    Have you ever heard the expression, “Been down so long, it looks like up?”. In other words, you silly simpleton, China could not sink any lower, and ANY authoritarian that produced some ORDER by ANY method, would have achieved success.

    What an “intellectual” like you cannot see is the question that screams to be asked: what OTHER form of government/authority could have produced as much prosperity, order, and reconstruction? There is a glaring example set: Singapore, from rags to riches; Japan, TOTALLY destroyed.

    If I had to drive horses across the plains, as a “muleskinner”, I could use the lash, punishment, violence, or intimidation. Or, what if more positive inducements, or at least balanced ones would yield the same results?

    You are the Orwellian paradigm: “Some things are so stupid and absurd, that only an intellectual could believe them”. Intelligence versus Stupidity, Vacuity, and Simple Logic and Reasoning.

    Game, set, and match. Exit Stage Left, Sir.

    Read More
    • Replies: @godfree Roberts
    Can you falsify any of the claims in my article directly? Is the evidence I offered in their support false or unreliable?

    Otherwise, spare me your ad hominems. They have no place in this forum.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. iffen says:
    @Beckow

    "They could have converted the slaves into indentured servants..."
     
    Yes, they could. And you would still have a Brazil-like environment by 1900 in the South. That's exactly what Brazil did in 1880's...once the original greedy step was done there really was no solution.

    …once the original greedy step was done there really was no solution.

    Right, there were millions of people with generations of distance to any ancestor with a connection to Africa.

    I was really addressing the issue of “American soldiers killed by Lincoln.”

    The War could have been avoided.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    "The War could have been avoided."
     
    Probably, most wars are avoidable. But the consequences for South would not be better - slavery would eventually be abolished, the demographic dilemma was permanent, and a more gradual-peaceful exit from slavery would result in a Brazil-like situation with permanent social stratification and poverty.

    There was no positive way forward in 1861 - often wars happen to cut through the unbearable accumulated political cra..p. People don't think stuff through and useless slaughter moves the paralysis forward. Personally, I would take a messy peace and saved soldiers' lives over the clarity achieved by the war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. @Priss Factor
    We don’t live in a world of ideal men and CKS effectively created a network of warlords; such a system could never have created an unified China.

    Deng and Zhou were not ideal men. They had big faults, but they sane compared to Mao. I'm saying China could have used a saner strong man. Mao was off the charts in cuckoo-ness. Being a megalomaniac by nature, he went crazy once he gained total power.

    Chiang Kai-Shek didn't create the warlord system. He inherited it, and he was trying to move in stages to bring the warlords to heel, and he was succeeding yr after yr.

    Warlord era began with the fall of Yuan Shikai, the man who would be new emperor. With the demise of central authority, China came under the rule of warlords. Not all warlords were bad. Some were idealistic and nationalist, and they pushed for reforms in their territory.

    Chiang could NOT unify China all at once. He moved in stages for gradual reunification, and time was on his side. As Nanking grew stronger and richer, the warlords could be brought to heel, and they were falling behind Chiang. It's like Japan kept its feudal lords after unification under Obunaga-Hideoyoshi-Tokugawa, but the feudal lords pledged loyalty to Edo.

    Chiang had to work with what he had at the time. But Mao worked the same way. He also forged alliances with warlords. He even proposed alliance with KMT against China. So, both sides were working practically with the hand they were dealt. But the ultimate vision for both was a re-centralized China.

    Also, Mao didn't achieve reunification due to some special talent. Rather, historical events just came to favor communists. War between Japan and KMT opened up a huge opportunity for the communists. Mao was like a vulture who swooped in for the kill after the other predators destroyed each other. Also, Mao has the US and USSR to thank. US defeated Japan in the Pacific, and Japan was finished. USSR defeated Japanese in North China and handed over the territory to the communists. And KMT was exhausted from war with Japan. So, Mao filled the vacuum.

    Also, warlord system might have been better in some way under Mao's China. Certain warlords may have resisted Mao's crazy ideas like Great Leap and Cultural Revolution. Unfortunately, every corner of China -- except non-Han parts -- had to take part in every detail of Mao's harebrained plans. There was no local autonomy to resist Mao.

    Now, look at the US. It too gradually came together as a nation. In the beginning, each of the state has more power over itself than the federal government. It was the Civil War that finally decided who should have more power: the national government or individual states. Even without communists, China would have come together as a united nation because warlords couldn't last for long. They were an accident of history. The fall of Yuan Shikai and foreign meddling just created an opening for warlords. But within just several yrs of Nanking Decade, Chiang had done much to bring them in.

    As for Taiwan, the problem is the lack of national sovereignty. Taiwan, like South Korea and Japan, is a cuck-nation of the US. So, if US goes homo, they follow. They are like dogs. If Chiang had prevailed in China, Chinese might not be so slavish to the Americans.

    Another thing. The reason why KMT came to be resented by Taiwanese is because Taiwan-Chinese came under rule of Mainland exile community who were the minority. And there was even a bloody crackdown on the native Taiwanese. So, there was an anti-KMT resistance movement in Taiwan. Also, Taiwan sends its people to study overseas, and because Asians are slavish and doggish, they just obey whatever happens to be the Official Knowledge. But Mainland Chinese are same way. The reason why they became such running dogs of Mao was due to the doggish nature. Asians always follow and obey. If you take patriotic Mainland Chinese and put them in EU or US, they will eventually come around to sucking up to PC.

    Also, there's no guarantee that communism will save a nation from US crap. Look at Vietnam. It won the war and united, but now it has homo parades.

    If you take patriotic Mainland Chinese and put them in EU or US, they will eventually come around to sucking up to PC.

    As represented by the fact that I am sucking up to PC. Or that all of the hai gui are returning to China to join NGOs to bring POZlandia values to China.

    Um, yeah. Not actually happening.

    What is probably fair is that there hasn’t been much of a successful alternate system of thought which at the end of the day has to coincide with decent living standards – Islam certainly doesn’t seem to be doing that. But Xi Jinping does seem to have an coherent idea and it seems hopeful.

    Communism in and of itself doesn’t necessarily provide protection from poz; only a coherent alternative viewpoint will be able to do so. I think that Confucianism can pose an obstacle but like other religions, can be pozzed as well with the right approach.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    What on earth is poz?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. @Ron Unz

    Another thing. The reason why KMT came to be resented by Taiwanese is because Taiwan-Chinese came under rule of Mainland exile community who were the minority. And there was even a bloody crackdown on the native Taiwanese.
     
    Actually, from what I've read, this related directly to the success of the KMT on Taiwan compared to its failure on the mainland.

    Land reform was a critically necessary element in rural China, but since the KMT leadership was heavily based on the landlord class, they couldn't implement it, leaving the door open to the CCP to gain popularity and also lay the basis for future economic advances.

    However, once the KMT was forced to flee to Taiwan, they realized their back was against the wall, and without land reform there, they'd probably lose that remaining scrap of territory. Also, they had no connection to the local Taiwanese landlords, so had less reluctance to apply the harsh measures they'd been unable to do earlier on the mainland. So they quickly succeeded economically on Taiwan after having failed for decades in China.

    Anyway, that's the analysis I used to hear, which always sounded pretty plausible to me.

    I believe Pol Pot got his model for “reform” and restructuring of the social and economic order from Mao. Like Mao, he “took out” the intellectual class, making them wear dunce caps and doing the work of the Untouchable Class of India.

    “All good”, Mr. God Free, aka Glob Spree? Cockroaches and Communists are redundant and a tautology. A turd is not a bird.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Cockroaches and Communists are redundant and a tautology.
     
    Especially when they have the backing of the big money crowd, no?

    Famous names, Vanderbilt, Lamont, Whitney, Morgan, mingled with those of communist leaders. The Russian Institute was so respectable that it was allowed to give in-service courses to New York City schoolteachers for credit.

    -Bella Dodd, School of Darkness, 1954,Chap 11
     

    Dodd was a lawyer active in the Communist Party of the USA and as a result of her experiences discovered that Orwell was correct in Animal Farm that there was little or no fundamental difference between capitalism and communism; they both, in fact, were only slightly different means to the same end, i.e., more for the ruling classes and less for the rest of us.

    “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”


    ― George Orwell, Animal Farm, Animal Farm, 1945, Last sentence of the book.
     

    Poupon Marx along with the whole sheeteload of the rest of the ruling class and their mouthpieces as well.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. @MarkinLA
    For example, during the first four or five decades of their drive to modern industrialization, the industrial share rose by only 11 percent in Britain (1801-41) and 22 percent in Japan”.

    Yes, lets compare Britain of 200 years ago where building newly invented steam engines and making industrial tools that have never been in existence before to a world where every advanced county already has the implements of modern industry and China simply has to copy what is already out there (even if they are rather crude compared to the rest of the world and cannot hold tight tolerances). Obviously, an engineer did not write this ridiculous article.

    Mark, yes, I am an engineer, and this assertion dealing in the concrete and empirical is balderdash, shallow, and perhaps deliberately deceptive. What are we to make and conclude? The author is trying to snocker us or is too thin and superficial to notice his deficiencies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. A wonderful example of Ron Unz’s intention to bring alternative views. Thanks Ron.

    Thanks too Godfree, for stepping up. In the way a lawyer does for his client.

    The statistics of national averages conceal a lot about economics. When you average Shanghai, capitalist, with five times as many people over a far larger region with much less economic liberty, the average conceals the whole point of special economic zones, i.e. capitalism.

    I’ll need to see some pictures of those nurses before I pass judgement on his women’s program.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Chinese nurses? Been there, wish I'd done that. The article is on the free-market Chinese health-care system. I approve.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. Beckow says:
    @iffen
    …once the original greedy step was done there really was no solution.

    Right, there were millions of people with generations of distance to any ancestor with a connection to Africa.

    I was really addressing the issue of "American soldiers killed by Lincoln."

    The War could have been avoided.

    “The War could have been avoided.”

    Probably, most wars are avoidable. But the consequences for South would not be better – slavery would eventually be abolished, the demographic dilemma was permanent, and a more gradual-peaceful exit from slavery would result in a Brazil-like situation with permanent social stratification and poverty.

    There was no positive way forward in 1861 – often wars happen to cut through the unbearable accumulated political cra..p. People don’t think stuff through and useless slaughter moves the paralysis forward. Personally, I would take a messy peace and saved soldiers’ lives over the clarity achieved by the war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Personally, I would take a messy peace and saved soldiers’ lives over the clarity achieved by the war.

    Yes, that is what I am trying to say as well.

    The "Brazilian demographics" are creeping along. We won't actually be Brazil because the socio-economic situation is different now, but I agree with you that we would have been a Brazilian banana republic in short order had the Secession succeeded, and would likely have held on to slavery longer than Brazil. If you just want to concentrate on and lament the racial mixing, you are correct.

    If we could have had some sort of buy-out of slavery the trajectory would have been fundamentally changed. We could have avoided the destruction of what little infrastructure that we had. We could have avoided Radical Reconstruction and Redemption. Freedmen would have been free to migrate in the 1860's rather than waiting until the early 20th century. It's possible that the transformation to an industrial economy from an agrarian one of subsistence farmers could have occurred sooner, possibly more or less on pace with the North.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. Mr. Roberts:

    Whatever you’re smoking, I want some–if you wrote this sincerely, that is.

    Did Mao *directly* kill anybody? Probably not. Neither did Stalin, very likely. (Hitler probably shot his niece.)

    *Ordering* those deaths makes them more guilty than whichever low-level cogs in the wheel implemented the deliberate mass starvations, pulled the trigger, released the Zyklon-B.

    Are you just trolling readers to get attention?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II

    I made assertions and produced evidence to support them.

    The usual practice is for others to question the assertions or the evidence, make counter-assertions and advance counter-evidence.
     
    keep this in mind for your future comments :)
    , @jacques sheete

    Are you just trolling readers to get attention?
     
    Who knows, but your mention of Zyklon-B suggests that you could be.

    Any credible sources to back up your suggestion?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. phil says:

    Regarding the quotation by John King Fairbank at the beginning of this post: we should now all be able to see how ridiculous Fairbank was as a scholar, a real embarrassment. Average living standards in China did not surpass those in North Korea (in terms of real purchasing power) until about 1990; see the Penn World Tables, PWT 6.2, for the most reliable estimates.

    After President Nixon visited China, many Americans were able to visit the country during the 1970s while Mao was still alive and in power. Among them was Pat Buchanan. Ask Pat about how the Chinese hosted them and showed them around vs. what the truth turned out to be.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  207. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Ron Unz

    Another thing. The reason why KMT came to be resented by Taiwanese is because Taiwan-Chinese came under rule of Mainland exile community who were the minority. And there was even a bloody crackdown on the native Taiwanese.
     
    Actually, from what I've read, this related directly to the success of the KMT on Taiwan compared to its failure on the mainland.

    Land reform was a critically necessary element in rural China, but since the KMT leadership was heavily based on the landlord class, they couldn't implement it, leaving the door open to the CCP to gain popularity and also lay the basis for future economic advances.

    However, once the KMT was forced to flee to Taiwan, they realized their back was against the wall, and without land reform there, they'd probably lose that remaining scrap of territory. Also, they had no connection to the local Taiwanese landlords, so had less reluctance to apply the harsh measures they'd been unable to do earlier on the mainland. So they quickly succeeded economically on Taiwan after having failed for decades in China.

    Anyway, that's the analysis I used to hear, which always sounded pretty plausible to me.

    Sun Yat-Sen, who is revered both by the CCP and the KMT as the father of modern China, was a Georgist. However, he died before Georgist policies could be implemented in China. When the CCP took over, they implemented the communist version of land reform, which was collectivization. The KMT in Taiwan ended up implementing Georgist inspired land reform policies which were very successful.

    https://www.cooperative-individualism.org/dodson-edward_taiwan-a-georgist-success-story-2006.htm

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. @Rosamond Vincy
    Mr. Roberts:

    Whatever you're smoking, I want some--if you wrote this sincerely, that is.

    Did Mao *directly* kill anybody? Probably not. Neither did Stalin, very likely. (Hitler probably shot his niece.)

    *Ordering* those deaths makes them more guilty than whichever low-level cogs in the wheel implemented the deliberate mass starvations, pulled the trigger, released the Zyklon-B.

    Are you just trolling readers to get attention?

    I made assertions and produced evidence to support them.

    The usual practice is for others to question the assertions or the evidence, make counter-assertions and advance counter-evidence.

    keep this in mind for your future comments :)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. Vinteuil says:

    The strong act as they will. The weak suffer what they must.

    That saying of Thucydides is the beginning & the end of all political wisdom.

    Do not be weak. Be strong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    Speaking of Thucydides, he also said,

    So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand.

    Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, Book I, 1.21-[3], 431 BC
    http://www.gutenberg.org/files/7142/7142-h/7142-h.htm

     

    He must have been anticipating the rise of the duped American masses. Judging by some of the comments here, he hit a bull's eye.

    Do not be weak. Be strong.
     
    And always keep in mind that situations can change in a flash, and if yer strong, it may pay to be just.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. Bronson says:
    @Priss Factor
    Lincoln killed more American soldiers and civilians than Hitler and Tojo ever did.

    Reasons matter. Lincoln wanted to restore the Union and keep American unified.

    Very bloody but justifiable. And it also ended slavery.

    Surely, it's different from Germans invading Russia to turn people into slaves or corpses.

    In the end, the South should have worked with Lincoln to free the slaves and send them back to Africa. Lincoln was opposed to slavery but was also a rational race-ist who understood the dangers posed by Negroes.

    I agree that it would have been better if Lincoln’s plan of re-repatriating the slaves had actually occured – however – you might want to do more research. The Emancipation Proclamation wasn’t signed until the third year of the War of Northern Aggression. Lincoln never had a problem with slavery – he was just hoping that freeing the slaves IN THE SOUTHERN STATES ONLY would cause them to rise up and kill their owner’s families while they were at the front fighting. Southern (freed) Slaves that ran into Union troops were put to work … as slaves … in Union Army camps. To get a better idea of what the world thought of his attempt to murder Southern families by proxy, it’s worth looking at French and British papers of the time – they thought he was monstrous for doing it (because they knew the intended outcome).

    Lincoln violated the intent of the Constitution with the War of Northern Aggression. The Southern States had every RIGHT to secede – and 60% of Northern newspapers at the time agreed … and Lincoln threw those reporters and editors in jail for expressing that truth.

    Very few Southerners had slaves, and there was a significant component of BLACK slave owners as well. Additionally, there were WHITE slaves.

    Read: Lincoln Unmasked and The Real Lincoln by Thomas Dilorenzo

    It’s also worth reading Sherman and Grant’s biographies – you’ll soon learn that Lincoln said things, and wrote down different things – because he knew that history would judge his writing, not his orders to his generals.

    As far as the Germans “invading” Russia, it was a counter-attack. If you are basing your opinions on “mainstream” History, I’d suggest looking for more primary source information. You might also get some perspective from “Hellstorm” by Thomas Goodrich.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    As far as the Germans “invading” Russia, it was a counter-attack. If you are basing your opinions on “mainstream” History, I’d suggest looking for more primary source information. You might also get some perspective from “Hellstorm” by Thomas Goodrich.

    There goes your credibility. Hitler was poor poor victim, right?
    Hellstorm is utter garbage. I saw about 15 min of it and got nothing but apologia for Nazi Germany.
    , @jacques sheete

    Lincoln violated the intent of the Constitution
     
    The intent of the constitution was to subvert state's rights. While it's good to read DiLorenzo regarding the war and Lincoln, may I suggest that reading the works of the antifederalists is good for understanding the constitution?

    Nock summarized it well.

    The Constitution looked fairly good on paper, but it was not a popular document; people were suspicious of it, and suspicious of the enabling legislation that was being erected upon it. There was some ground for this. The Constitution had been laid down under unacceptable auspices; its history had been that of a coup d'état.

    It had been drafted, in the first place, by men representing special economic interests. Four-fifths of them were public creditors, one-third were land speculators, and one-fifth represented interests in shipping, manufacturing, and merchandising. Most of them were lawyers. Not one of them represented the interest of production — Vilescit origine tali. (the dice were loaded from the start)

    Albert Jay Nock, Liberty vs. the Constitution: The Early Struggle
    [Excerpted from chapter 5 of Albert Jay Nock's Jefferson]
    https://mises.org/library/liberty-vs-constitution-early-struggle

    mises.org/daily/4254

     

    My apologies to those of those who've seen that for posting it yet again! It seems some have missed the message.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. iffen says:

    I can hardly wait for the next chapters.

    One thing is certain, Mao only has one direction to go.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  212. Vinteuil says:
    @Joe Wong
    “the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.”
    –Samuel P. Huntington

    Not addressing or not criticizing one's crimes is not redeeming one's sin, it is merely burying one's head in the hole; it is a sign of weakness, immaturaity, and flaws in character, culture and civilization. The unaddressed crimes will forever hang over the West's head like Sword of Damocles.

    Joe Wong, you’re every bit as clueless as the Israeli hasbara folks who show up around here from time to time.

    Believe me – you’re wasting your time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. utu says:
    @survey-of-disinfo
    I noted that in his reply Godfree Roberts failed to actually provide any insights beyond promoting his upcoming book.

    He also ignored my question regarding his neglecting this entirely salient matter: China would still be a basket case even with Deng if the West Inc. had not determined that integrating the Chinese elite into the global mafia is a win-win for the outfit.

    A very expensive book with no substantive reviews on the internet (at least per Google):
    https://www.amazon.com/Prospect-America-Rockefeller-Panel-Reports/dp/B000FMPMHY

    As Mr. Roberts has admitted, West Inc.'s information control strategy is a few generations ahead of the old fashioned censorship of the old world. Censorship through obscurity was a viable approach until the internet reduced the obscurity factor, but this is currently being addressed via soft ("fake news") firm (the tech platforms and their owners) and hard (laws) mechanisms.

    The key, in my opinion, is understanding how the demise of the American superpower could be in the interest of the outfit. Once you see that, everything else starts to make sense.

    No doubt, Godfrey Roberts offers no insights here, does not address some very good points brought up by commenters and only keeps pushing his book.

    The key, in my opinion, is understanding how the demise of the American superpower could be in the interest of the outfit.

    Absolutely, this is the key question. Why “they” are interested in reducing the power of the America the country which is the safest haven for the oligarchs of the world? Was another place designated to be the oligarchs haven? Is it possible that “they” made a mistake or got outplayed. But if it is not the case, then there is still a possibility that the motive is of “religious” nature, not from this world. Perhaps Messiah was already born and the world will be ruled from Jerusalem?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. @Poupon Marx
    Have you ever heard the expression, "Been down so long, it looks like up?". In other words, you silly simpleton, China could not sink any lower, and ANY authoritarian that produced some ORDER by ANY method, would have achieved success.

    What an "intellectual" like you cannot see is the question that screams to be asked: what OTHER form of government/authority could have produced as much prosperity, order, and reconstruction? There is a glaring example set: Singapore, from rags to riches; Japan, TOTALLY destroyed.

    If I had to drive horses across the plains, as a "muleskinner", I could use the lash, punishment, violence, or intimidation. Or, what if more positive inducements, or at least balanced ones would yield the same results?

    You are the Orwellian paradigm: "Some things are so stupid and absurd, that only an intellectual could believe them". Intelligence versus Stupidity, Vacuity, and Simple Logic and Reasoning.

    Game, set, and match. Exit Stage Left, Sir.

    Can you falsify any of the claims in my article directly? Is the evidence I offered in their support false or unreliable?

    Otherwise, spare me your ad hominems. They have no place in this forum.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peter Lund
    Instead of trying to make a saint out of a devil, you could perhaps tell us something useful about Zhōu Ēnlái and Dèng Xiǎopíng. And about land reforms, universities, craftmanship, and trade.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. kauchai says:
    @Chris Chuba
    Then one would have to completely dismiss the 'Great Leap Forward' and the 'Cultural Revolution' as pure Western Propaganda.

    The Great Leap Forward is blamed for causing mass starvation in China, somewhere between 18M to 50M deaths.

    The Cultural Revolution marked by political oppression, purges, humiliation, and executions.
    There is certainly enough eye witness accounts to verify that these events happened.

    18-50m deaths? Really?

    Who did the counting? Where did the statistics come from? What were those numbers based on? (Of wait a minute, I know, fake news was invented decades ago by the CIA controlled government and media)

    Want to know how this number was invented? In 1982-3 the chinese government (for reasons unknown) decided to release the population census data dated way back to 1950′s. The US Census Bureau immediately pounced on it and started massaging the spotty data to build a case against china. The project was headed by judith bannister who later published a book about it. In the book, bannister discussed the various statistical methodologies employed to produced a figure of 30 million casualty. To cut a long story short, bannister herself admitted that she did not have good data to work from as the data released by the chinese givernment was at best, “spotty”. Anyone who has dealt with numbers know that if you have bad data, you will churn out bad reports no matter how advanced and sophisticated the statistical models employed.

    Bannister’s project was a classic “GIGO” (garbage in garbage out) as those in the IT business call it. It was from here that the myth of “millions killed in Great Leap Forward” began to gather momentum. From here you have paid for authors like Jung Chang/John Halliday, Frank Dikotter, and Yang Jisheng who went to to perpetuate this myth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
    18-50m is not a number. It is a range. 30m is a number you just supplied. That's where that came from.

    I know about China. I referenced wikipedia and in the first three paragraphs it mentions 18-55m for the Great Leap Forward.

    I looked up Judith Bannister. Her book is not on Amazon, but it is available at my local library. I may check it out tomorrow.

    But what is your point? What exactly are you trying to say? That nobody died? That this is a non-event?

    That this is was a myth created by some vague CIA operation?

    I get it. You don't trust the official history or whatever. But you are not illuminating anything. You are further confusing the situation. Do you trust any sources?

    You've got some splaining to do. Until that happens, I'll just go with 18 million. How's that?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. Bronson says:

    I’m willing to admit that Mao might have improved the lives of many of the poor Chinese people – taking them from, say, 0 to 3 or 4 on a scale of 10 – that is totally possible from an objective standpoint (despite the tens of millions murdered). However, my main question is: “By attempting to turn Mao into some kind of really smart and sweet and genuine regular guy who was tragically misunderstood – a guy who cared about women and puppies and fairness …

    Are you trying to convince people that Communism is a good political system to live under? Are you one of the deeply misguided souls who thinks that Communism is GREAT … “it’s just “never been done RIGHT yet”? If that *is* the case, you might want to spend your time selling that to people with zero capacity to reason … like HuffPo readers ;)

    There are people who want to be “pets” for their entire lives – good little dogs who do what they’re told in exchange for some treats, a bed, free meds, a TV, and permission to hump anything they want. Then there are people who believe the world doesn’t OWE them anything, who believe in hard work, who really just want to be left alone to live and believe and worship how they see fit …. and who won’t live their lives on their knees (Just ask the Falun Gong how the Communist Utopia has worked out for them). If you are trying to sell Communism to the second group, you’re wasting your time.

    Communism has never been about “equality” – it’s a Jewish construct designed to concentrate wealth and power into a few hands – it’s an Oligarchy by another name – just a step away from Feudalism. While the “leaders” bleat and croak about “Equality!” and “Power to the people!” the leadership grows fat, wealthy, deeply corrupt – and untouchable – and the people are kept “equal” in their destitution and severely controlled lives. The Communist Revolution worked out great for Mao’s family – now in the top wealthiest Chinese families – and that’s saying a lot. So much for “equality” …

    Personally, I’m with Davy Crockett: “I will never come and go, fetch and carry, at the whistle of the Great Man in the White House – no matter who he is”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  217. kauchai says:
    @Escher

    In 1927, after escaping execution at the hands of Nationalist forces, he remained a tireless campaigner for women’s rights
     
    I'm sure he was reading feminist philosophy to the many young women he bedded after becoming head notorious bedding of young women.

    http://articles.latimes.com/1998/mar/08/opinion/op-26719

    Mao recruited young military women at dance parties arranged in close proximity to his bedroom. He drew to his custom-built, sloping, wooden bed a number of nurses on duty in the Forbidden City.
     

    And you get this from “informed” western authors or better yet “china experts”. LOL!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. While I can never believe that Mao was s good person, I do agree that he was the right person at the right time to lead China. China needed to stand on its own feet, completely free of Western influence, and Mao was much more effective in that regard than Chiang and the Nationalists could ever have hoped to have been.

    Read More
    • Replies: @phil
    To improve Chinese living standards, Deng Xiaoping deliberately INCREASED "Western" influence. Has been a good idea for Venezuela to "go its own way" and "insulate itself" from malignant Westernism?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. kauchai says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    This is an embarrassing piece, though perhaps a warranted one given how much Mao has been demonized.

    Every single former communist country is behind where it would otherwise be today if some kind of capitalist system was selected instead. This doesn't mean neoliberalism either-- South Korea for instance engaged in quite a bit of dirigisme and outright economic planning.

    In fairness to the socialists, it was difficult to know that at the time. Today however, it is not difficult to know.

    That would be bad enough, but the Leninist political system imposed considerable brutality everywhere it was tried. Yes, Westerners exaggerate the kill counts, but no one can dispute the harshness and wickedness of these regimes.

    Formerly primitive countries like Japan, South Korea, and the European periphery (up to and including right-wing dictatorships, nearly all of which were gentler than communist ones) all managed to modernize at considerably lower human cost.

    If one adjusts for human capital, then the achievements of countries such as Brazil, Mexico, and Indonesia should also be taken into consideration. Chinese people are of course much more intelligent than those people, so more is expected of them.

    We can credit Mao with winning a civil war, unifying China, expelling foreign powers from the country, and implementing modernization. No need to engage in hagiography.

    I understand that for the Chinese themselves a positive account of Mao serves a useful role, so I wouldn't expect them to condemn Mao. Godfree Roberts, however, would appear to be a white man.

    In 1965-66, Indonesia was engaged in an orgy of mass extra-judicial killings by Suharto supported by the US, UK and Australia. All in the name of an anti-communism order driven from washington DC. After the pogrom, suharto went on to become indonesia’s dictator until he was lynched out of office in 1998. An estimated 1-1.5 million were brutally killed in the most hideous manners possible (Ref: Archipelago of Fear – Andre Vltchek and The Art of Killing – Joshua Oppenheimer). Between 1966 – 1998, Indonesia’s economy hardly grew. Its natural resources like oil, coal, timber and other minerals were plundered by suharto and his cronies. It went on to become a net oil importer from an exporter in a matter of a few years. The event of 1965-66 had scarred the entire country to this day and no one is allowed to discuss it in the open. I think in terms human capital already paid for, the chinese had a better ROI.

    ( And I seriously doubt the numbers of casualty as reported by bought and paid for authors like Frank Dikotter, Jung Chang/Jon Halliday and Yang JiSheng. Those who did perished in the famine of the late 50′s in china did not die under such horrendous conditions)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. denk says:
    @Some Jap
    Yes yes, Japan's always the unqualified evil in any and all discourse.
    We have our own way of conveying how we were not guilty of most allegations, by acting virtuously as we can. It was not through countering the propaganda during the war with Nationalist China, nor later on, much to our detriment today. From the Germans throwing babies upon their spiked helmets to the alleged 'Jewish Holocaust,' from Qaddafi's troops fed viagra to go on rape rampages, to alleged gassing of al-Assad's own citizens, recent history is full of demonstrable lies or unsubstantiated allegations that have become political truths. In like manner, Japan too has crimes attributed to it. I won't defend what is provably obvious, but as evidence stands, the infamous war crimes alleged have mostly been unsubstantiated, while works of fiction, or a victor's tribunal, are accepted at face value.
    I have respect for Mao for making the most of the situation he was placed during the war, (most likely) causing the Marco Polo bridge incident to create the great spark to ignite the second sino-jap war, and capturing Chiang and forcing him to reluctantly commit to fight Japan. And, after the devastation wrought by Japan and the ravenous Nationalists, it always gives me a smile to hear that he thanked Japan for destroying his rival; he has the honor and integrity to acknowledge as much. While blemished by great failures that did lead to deaths and destruction, and the cult of personality that developed, he reunited China and lay the foundation for Deng and a resurgent Dynasty, as yet to be named besides the unfashionable CCP.

    I heard most Jp hate/fear China. [sic]
    Thats a bit rich innit ?
    It has been a one way aggression from Jp since the Ming dynasty, thru the ww2
    and right up to the asia pivot .

    OTOH, murkka provoked Jp into attacking Pearl harbor and dropped two
    A-bombs on Hiroshima, Nagasaki.
    BUt most Jp like murkka and support Tokyo’s role in the ‘Asia pivot’ to
    confront China .

    Whats the matter over there, something in the water ??

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. “It is doubtful that Mao killed anyone…”

    Tell that to the thousands of Catholic priests who were tortured and murdered.

    You can find some weird stuff of the internet now a days. This article takes the cake.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nsa
    Anyone who tortures and murders catholic priests can't be all bad............
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  222. denk says:
    @Hieronymus of Canada

    Chairman of the Board. Neither more nor less.
     
    When do Chairmen of the Board have massive personality cults?

    Dissent is punished much more leniently, imprisonment is rare by comparison, as is death at the hands of the government.
     
    How so? If you run afoul of the received knowledge in the US, you will ostracized, but not imprisoned, unlike what can happen in China. I don't like the former but the later is worse. I would agree on the second point, but the third point I am not sure. State executions are much higher in the PRC (extimated to be in the thousands) than the USA (20 in 2016), but that doesn't include shooting deaths by police officers (about a thousand in the US, unknown in China).

    Or WHY Mao won so easily despite massive US support for Chiang?
     
    Because Mao had massive support from the USSR?

    ‘How so? If you run afoul of the received knowledge in the US, you will ostracized, but not imprisoned, ‘

    Sure you can bleat and whine, but the moment you run afoul of the lucrative MIC gravy train…

    http://sainthoward.blogspot.com/2014/

    ‘unlike what can happen in China.’

    Is that what you read in Wapo, GUardian, GlobenMail ?
    Accodring to these paragon of ‘fair’ journalism [cough cough]
    The CCP willy nilly ‘persecutes dissidenters who speak out’ eh ?

    http://www.voltairenet.org/article167396.html

    ‘I don’t like the former but the later is worse. I would agree on the second point, but the third point I am not sure. State executions are much higher in the PRC (extimated to be in the thousands) than the USA (20 in 2016), but that doesn’t include shooting deaths by police officers (about a thousand in the US, unknown in China).’

    How could you not factor in the population ?
    USA beats the rest of world hands down in terms of executions, prisoners/per head !

    Dont get me started on the ‘extra judicial executions‘ and ‘collateral damages’ inflicted all over the world by the unitedsnake,

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. joe webb says:
    @denk
    John Pilger
    Murkkans are like mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed bushits all day '

    Ergo,
    Bushit in, bushit out. !

    ............................
    murkkans concocted propagandas hog the top hundred positions in the
    B.S. of the century chart.

    Sinking of the Maine,
    GUlf of Tonkin,
    Iraq WMD,
    Iraq baby incubators,
    Kosovo genocide,
    Libya,
    Syria,
    just to name a few,
    ...............
    tip of an iceberg.

    Some of its most egregrious lies all target China,
    1962 invasion of India,
    1998 TAM 'massacre of peaceful students protestors',
    2008 Tibet 'massacre of peaceful Tibetan protestors',
    2009 Xinjiang 'massacre of peaceful moslem protestors',
    Chinese state hackers have been stripping bare the secrets of Lockheed Martin,
    [sic]
    China is like Germany./Jp of the 1939 era, needs to be reined in by
    uncle scam the 'world cop' [sic]
    [All have been debunked]

    This 'Mao the mass murderer' meme was one of the cold war era product.

    Coming from the land of mass deception,
    The most charitable view is to take it with a huge pinch of salt,
    [1]

    As for me, it reeks like your typical adulterated murkkan bushit !

    It boggles the mind ,
    the way so many sheeples here lap it up with relish .

    I also notice that those who are so eager to pin the 'mass murderer' label on Mao,
    inspite of zero evidence, have never once criticised the true and unrefutable crimes committed by uncle scam, the undisputed 'mass murderer' of all time.
    Hypocrites !

    These are the 'look the other way' guys,
    'good murkkans' who enable uncle sham to get away with mass murder,
    all three hundred years of it !

    P.S.
    Kudos to Ron Unz and some of the more honest commentators !



    [1]
    https://monthlyreview.org/commentary/did-mao-really-kill-millions-in-the-great-leap-forward/

    monthly review and pinger are communist…been so for ages. Joe Webb

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  224. kauchai says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Did I lie? Were any of my statements incorrect? Or are you offended because you were unfamiliar with this information?

    In other words, what’s your problem?
     

    If you are going to refute the accepted narrative, you should follow your own advice and begin by telling us which of the statements comprising the accepted historical account are incorrect, and which of those statements offended you because you were unfamiliar with the "information".

    In other words, what's your problem with those who dismiss your account as ridiculous trash?

    Altogether, one of the silliest articles on a site devoted to a great many silly articles.

    what accepted “narratives”? Accepted by whom and when? Care to elaborate?

    what “familiar” information are you referring to?

    If someone came up with an alternative account of history, shouldn’t that be celebrated as an opportunity to debate instead of throwing invectives and inuendoes? The author through his numerous replies in this forum had encouraged commenters to publish proofs of their counter arguments. Sadly, none were forthcoming. The best was “accepted narratives”. I wonder what “accepted narratives” were based on?

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    I wonder what “accepted narratives” were based on?
     
    Here's one answer, and I think it's a good one, courtesy of a would-be Lincoln hagiographer and former super imperialist ( one really ought to read his pathetic "March of the Flag" http://archive.vod.umd.edu/internat/Beveridgeint.htm) turned realist, Albert J. Beveridge.:

    "Slush and rot."

    The more research that Beveridge did the more disgusted he became with the "slush and rot" that had been—and was being—written about Lincoln. [Beveridge to Ford, December 28, 1922] There were a few exceptions.

    He dismissed the rest as largely "rubbish." Lord Charnwood's [work]was "spotted with errors of fact so plain that they are glaring." Ida Tarbell's two-volume Life of Abraham Lincoln (1900) was a mid-Victorian attempt "to fumigate" Lincoln. Henry B. Rankin's [books] were "utterly untrustworthy" attempts to make Lincoln into "an impossible and unhuman angel who could not possibly make a mistake and who was without any human weakness whatever." He was so dubious about the soundness of the research ... by Disciples of Christ minister Louis A. Warren for his Lincoln's Parentage and Childhood (1926) that he rechecked the sources himself. He was extremely disappointed with Carl Sandburg's [tome] because of its thin documentation, high-blown flowery style, and "incredible mistakes of fact." Not only had the "last word" on Lincoln not been written, he complained, but "the first word has not been penned."[16]

    - JOHN BRAEMAN, Albert J. Beveridge and Demythologizing Lincoln, Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association, Volume 25, Issue 2, Summer 2004, pp. 1-24
    Permalink: http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.2629860.0025.203

     

    , @jacques sheete

    If someone came up with an alternative account of history, shouldn’t that be celebrated as an opportunity to debate instead of throwing invectives and inuendoes?
     
    Most definitely.
    , @MarkinLA
    The author through his numerous replies in this forum had encouraged commenters to publish proofs of their counter arguments.

    There are no such things as "proofs". There is no way to prove that Mao was the optimal solution to China's problems as the author seems to suggest. Other commenters have asserted that China would likely done as well with other leaders, without all the social upheaval. There is no was to prove or disprove either assertion since we don't have parallel universes where each scenario can play out. Other commenters have made assertions (with some "proof") that other Asian nations coming from the same level of backwardness as China did far better in the time Mao lived. While this is a useful metric it also does not prove that Mao was not the ideal solution for China.

    This is the ridiculousness of all social science and social commentary. The author ask us to "refute" his statistics as though a bunch of irrelevant white noise proves something. All it does is prove that China was better off after Mao than before his reign. However, you can say that about 95% of all the countries on the planet, that they made improvements in some economic or social categories in 40 years.

    That the author does not engage in a counter discussion with the people making the assertion that China would have been better or at least the same with somebody else is the actual discussion that should be taking place not whether China's GDP growth was 6% or not. Instead he wants us to refute his irrelevant statistics.

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    I've got personal knowledge from Chinese people who live in the mainland. Do you, Roberts, and a bunch of Commie newspapers know more about what happened in China than the families I know? I'll take their words for it (along with about 10 books on the cultural revolution and many others on Chinese history I've read).

    Wherever you live, Kauchai, you'd better hope Communism doesn't come to YOUR land. You won't have a chance to come back on here and relate your experiences. Yeah, it could be here in America, I don't doubt. People with your grasp on history and human nature are the ones that cause this history to repeat.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  225. denk says:
    @Yee
    One of the most important achievement of Great Leap Forward was countless of irrigation systems, big or small, all over China.

    Here is just one of them.
    https://pic2.zhimg.com/50/1c3a48a3b9d5b88a57b8ee02f9f98f99_hd.jpg

    The most important achievement of Cultural Revolution was breaking the awe and fear of the lower class for the elite. Peasants and laborers stopped feeling themselves lesser people.

    Chinese Netizens generally agree that, unless India has a Cultural Revolution to truly break up their societal structure, we don't have to worry about them catching up with us.

    After two centuries of colonisation under the Brits, the Indians have became the perenial house trained sepoys, they enjoy serving their white masters,
    whether its the Brits./murkkans./or Russians, against fellow Asians.

    India needs a lobotomy to set it free.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    Yes, the People of Dot seem to be serving globalism, but they are cynical operators. East Asian running dogs of globalism(like those in Taiwan) are so earnest in their servitude to the Jewish-Homo-run West. In contrast, the People of Dot play along but don't really believe in the shtick.
    And they are taking over huge areas of Anglo World: Not just UK but US, Canada, Australia, and former African colonies of the British Empire.

    In a way, the Jewish rule over the West makes it ideal for People of Dot and People of Dog(eating) to collaborate with globalism. World Empire used to be ruled by Anglos. And People of Dot and People of Dog have lots of historical resentment against the Brits -- some of it grievance, some of it envy.

    So, when Jews frame globalism as an alliance of Jews and People of Color against White Privilege and White Supremacism, many non-whites are keen to join the enterprise as revenge or historical redress.
    When Hindus and Chinese arrive in Canada, they find it convenient to side with Jews and white cucks against any vestige of Anglo Power or Greatness.
    , @jacques sheete

    India needs a lobotomy to set it free.
     
    So does America. It also needs a "soulotomy" as well. Even the anti-federalists understood the fact and wrote, accurately, of freedom in the past tense.

    Here's one.:


    But if the free men of this continent are weary of that power and freedom they have so dearly bought and so shortly enjoyed- …-I say, if the people are tired of these privileges, now is the time to part with them forever. Much more might be said to show the bitterness and mischief contained in this gilded pill [the proposed constitution], but being fond of brevity, I shall rely on the good sense of the public to keep themselves out of the trap, and sign myself in plain English.

    -A NEWPORT MAN, WHAT DOES HISTORY TEACH? (PART II), The Newport Mercury, March 17, 1788.

     

    There are many more examples of that sentiment and the idea has been proven as accurate as it was lamentable.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    The Brits will get their due.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  226. denk says:
    @Priss Factor
    We don’t live in a world of ideal men and CKS effectively created a network of warlords; such a system could never have created an unified China.

    Deng and Zhou were not ideal men. They had big faults, but they sane compared to Mao. I'm saying China could have used a saner strong man. Mao was off the charts in cuckoo-ness. Being a megalomaniac by nature, he went crazy once he gained total power.

    Chiang Kai-Shek didn't create the warlord system. He inherited it, and he was trying to move in stages to bring the warlords to heel, and he was succeeding yr after yr.

    Warlord era began with the fall of Yuan Shikai, the man who would be new emperor. With the demise of central authority, China came under the rule of warlords. Not all warlords were bad. Some were idealistic and nationalist, and they pushed for reforms in their territory.

    Chiang could NOT unify China all at once. He moved in stages for gradual reunification, and time was on his side. As Nanking grew stronger and richer, the warlords could be brought to heel, and they were falling behind Chiang. It's like Japan kept its feudal lords after unification under Obunaga-Hideoyoshi-Tokugawa, but the feudal lords pledged loyalty to Edo.

    Chiang had to work with what he had at the time. But Mao worked the same way. He also forged alliances with warlords. He even proposed alliance with KMT against China. So, both sides were working practically with the hand they were dealt. But the ultimate vision for both was a re-centralized China.

    Also, Mao didn't achieve reunification due to some special talent. Rather, historical events just came to favor communists. War between Japan and KMT opened up a huge opportunity for the communists. Mao was like a vulture who swooped in for the kill after the other predators destroyed each other. Also, Mao has the US and USSR to thank. US defeated Japan in the Pacific, and Japan was finished. USSR defeated Japanese in North China and handed over the territory to the communists. And KMT was exhausted from war with Japan. So, Mao filled the vacuum.

    Also, warlord system might have been better in some way under Mao's China. Certain warlords may have resisted Mao's crazy ideas like Great Leap and Cultural Revolution. Unfortunately, every corner of China -- except non-Han parts -- had to take part in every detail of Mao's harebrained plans. There was no local autonomy to resist Mao.

    Now, look at the US. It too gradually came together as a nation. In the beginning, each of the state has more power over itself than the federal government. It was the Civil War that finally decided who should have more power: the national government or individual states. Even without communists, China would have come together as a united nation because warlords couldn't last for long. They were an accident of history. The fall of Yuan Shikai and foreign meddling just created an opening for warlords. But within just several yrs of Nanking Decade, Chiang had done much to bring them in.

    As for Taiwan, the problem is the lack of national sovereignty. Taiwan, like South Korea and Japan, is a cuck-nation of the US. So, if US goes homo, they follow. They are like dogs. If Chiang had prevailed in China, Chinese might not be so slavish to the Americans.

    Another thing. The reason why KMT came to be resented by Taiwanese is because Taiwan-Chinese came under rule of Mainland exile community who were the minority. And there was even a bloody crackdown on the native Taiwanese. So, there was an anti-KMT resistance movement in Taiwan. Also, Taiwan sends its people to study overseas, and because Asians are slavish and doggish, they just obey whatever happens to be the Official Knowledge. But Mainland Chinese are same way. The reason why they became such running dogs of Mao was due to the doggish nature. Asians always follow and obey. If you take patriotic Mainland Chinese and put them in EU or US, they will eventually come around to sucking up to PC.

    Also, there's no guarantee that communism will save a nation from US crap. Look at Vietnam. It won the war and united, but now it has homo parades.

    ‘ If Chiang had prevailed in China, Chinese might not be so slavish to the Americans. ‘

    WTF !
    Had Chiang won,China would’ve become the 52 state of the unitedsnake,
    like Jp, SK, TW.

    ‘ Asians are slavish and doggish, they just obey whatever happens to be the Official Knowledge. But Mainland Chinese are same way. The reason why they became such running dogs of Mao was due to the doggish nature.’

    You’r full of shit. !

    The Chinese just brought down two tyrannts in a row, the Qing court and
    Washington’s poodle Chiang KS.

    When’ll there be a revolution in Washington DC , big man ?
    Or are you and your ilks running dogs of Trump ?

    P.S.
    about ‘doggish, slavish’ Asians,
    cue the Indians and the Jp,

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    The Chinese just brought down two tyrannts in a row, the Qing court and
    Washington’s poodle Chiang KS.


    Chinese sucked so bad at fighting that Manchus conquered them and forced them to wear pig-tails.

    Qing dynasty fell because of Western meddling. Middle Kingdom was changed due to Meddling Empire. If not for Western Imperialists, Qings would still be ruling China.

    Also, Japan weakened KMT and US destroyed Japan. That is why commies got a second chance.
    And Chinese were running dogs of Mao. When Mao said, 'kill sparrows', they killed sparrows. When Mao said smash art and culture, they smashed art and culture.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  227. @kauchai
    18-50m deaths? Really?

    Who did the counting? Where did the statistics come from? What were those numbers based on? (Of wait a minute, I know, fake news was invented decades ago by the CIA controlled government and media)

    Want to know how this number was invented? In 1982-3 the chinese government (for reasons unknown) decided to release the population census data dated way back to 1950's. The US Census Bureau immediately pounced on it and started massaging the spotty data to build a case against china. The project was headed by judith bannister who later published a book about it. In the book, bannister discussed the various statistical methodologies employed to produced a figure of 30 million casualty. To cut a long story short, bannister herself admitted that she did not have good data to work from as the data released by the chinese givernment was at best, "spotty". Anyone who has dealt with numbers know that if you have bad data, you will churn out bad reports no matter how advanced and sophisticated the statistical models employed.

    Bannister's project was a classic "GIGO" (garbage in garbage out) as those in the IT business call it. It was from here that the myth of "millions killed in Great Leap Forward" began to gather momentum. From here you have paid for authors like Jung Chang/John Halliday, Frank Dikotter, and Yang Jisheng who went to to perpetuate this myth.

    18-50m is not a number. It is a range. 30m is a number you just supplied. That’s where that came from.

    I know about China. I referenced wikipedia and in the first three paragraphs it mentions 18-55m for the Great Leap Forward.

    I looked up Judith Bannister. Her book is not on Amazon, but it is available at my local library. I may check it out tomorrow.

    But what is your point? What exactly are you trying to say? That nobody died? That this is a non-event?

    That this is was a myth created by some vague CIA operation?

    I get it. You don’t trust the official history or whatever. But you are not illuminating anything. You are further confusing the situation. Do you trust any sources?

    You’ve got some splaining to do. Until that happens, I’ll just go with 18 million. How’s that?

    Read More
    • Replies: @kauchai
    The 30 million was churned out by judith bannister and her gang in the US census bureau. I DID NOT invent this number. I quoted this number because it was used as a "gold standard" by later authors to further propagate and obfuscate this myth.

    I highly encourage you to read bannister's book. After that maybe you can further illuminate us on how the 30 million came about.

    I never trusted official history especially stuff that came from the western media and academia with regard to china. Oh, there was once i used to believe these stuff until the GWOT. Ever since, as i made further research and encounter more alternative media, i am sorry to say i have lost whatever sliver of trust in the publications from western governments and its media.

    Only the blind would claim that i have not illluminated anything because all these times they have been blinded by their own MSM and "exceptional" mindset. ( If you still don't get it, here goes - the bannister study was just another attempt to demonise china because the US and the western establishment has a regime change agenda on china since 1949. While you are at it, look up the various publications by the empire thinktanks on china. Brookings Institution (i stand corrected) have a paper on china encirclement since the vietnam war era. )

    Did i mention nobody died? Did i mention the GLF is a non-event? Let me put this to you in simple terms that i hope you can understand. Firstly, after the CPC came to power in 1949, economic growth in china resumed its progress. Growth was pretty "good" from 1950 to 58 given the fact that china was under the empire's economic embargo and Mao's fallout with Stalin didn't help either. Second, land reform had virtually eliminated the entire serf class and wiped out the blood sucking landlords and people were gradually weaned from poverty and starvation. Third, not satisfied at this rather "slow" rate of growth, Mao and his colleagues began to look around for better ways to enhance it. They came up with a plan for massive industrialisation, The idea was to leapfrog the advanced western economies like Britain and the empire. Unfortunately, the embargo placed a huge barrier to china in terms of sourcing for raw materials, technology and finance. Therefore, the plan had to survived on internal resources and its people. That was the impetus for the GLF.

    All was fine and well until the drought hit in the late 50's or thereabout. Local cadres who were desperate to report good harvest began to falsify their data. Added to the fact that each commune had to contribute a certain amount of harvest to the central granaries didn't help either. The central government thought all was peachy and rosy until news began to surface about people starving to deaths in the countryside. Upon learning and confirming this fact, central immediately went into damage control. Efforts were under way to import grains from abroad to fill the huge gap in local outputs. But alas, the empire itself as well as its lapdogs refused to sell even one grain to china. Canada was the exception. Mao himself absorbed all responsibility in this fiasco and even refused to participate in the coming elections for the politburo. Hence the elevation of Liu Shaoqi to the presidency and the harbinger of the yet to come cultural revolution.

    Please note that I did not say nobody died and neither did i deny this event. But I take special umbrage at attempts to paint a wrongful and deceitful picture of the event and purpose built demonization of a country that simply want to stand on its own feet and be free and independent of the western yolk of behind the scene control and plunder of so many so called "independent and sovereign" countries all around us today.

    Oh, coming back to the "figure" or "range" or whatever you want to call it. A truly independent and impartial scholar upon embarking on this study would have to admit the following:

    1) That he/she was not a witness to the event.
    2) He/she does not possess incontrovertible data and information that would enable him/her to reach a definitive conclusion of the event.
    3) Even more important, he/she does not possess any documentary proofs that this event was the evil design of one man to kill millions.
    4) He/she would not have predicated the study as a political cannon fodder targeted to bring chaos and forceful change of government

    Now, what else have i not illuminated?

    Its fine with me if you want to stick to your 18million. I have my own poison.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  228. phil says:
    @Hapalong Cassidy
    While I can never believe that Mao was s good person, I do agree that he was the right person at the right time to lead China. China needed to stand on its own feet, completely free of Western influence, and Mao was much more effective in that regard than Chiang and the Nationalists could ever have hoped to have been.

    To improve Chinese living standards, Deng Xiaoping deliberately INCREASED “Western” influence. Has been a good idea for Venezuela to “go its own way” and “insulate itself” from malignant Westernism?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    china had and has leverage to protect it self. countries like venezuela do not. look at it now and look at brazil as another example.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  229. kauchai says:
    @Priss Factor
    One more time: Did I lie?
    Were any of my statements incorrect?


    One can be totally honest in one's statement and still be wrong.

    I don't think Wally(a commenter) is being dishonest when he insists the holocaust didn't happen... just like you will certainly be sincere in your rejection of all those reports of mass deaths under Mao.

    Both you and Wally are being sincere. But sincerity is not the truth.

    I can sincerely believe that I saw a unicorn. It doesn't make it true.

    As for whether your assertions are correct, MANY China scholars would fervently disagree with you.
    Are they incorrect?

    “As for whether your assertions are correct, MANY China scholars would fervently disagree with you.”

    Are the “MANY china scholars” correct? Or are they given in to “group-think” and big fat paychecks?

    Shouldn’t this issue of GLF be examined and studied under the strictest of proofs rather than “manipulated” statistics or personal recollections or past perceptions? Don’t you think it is time we do so?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    Shouldn’t this issue of GLF be examined and studied under the strictest of proofs

    If so, how come the CCP won't allow an honest study of GLF, Cultural Revolution, and of course the Tiananmen Square clamdown?

    Allow freedom of scholarship in China, and we can have a truly objective assessment of what happened.
    But as long as it's a taboo subject, we will have to wait.

    You must be Hasbara for the Chinese Government. How much are they paying you?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments