The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 James Kirkpatrick Archive
One Billion Americans—or One Billion Consumers? Fundamental Questions for Matt Yglesias Before We Can Review His Book
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

See also: No, Peter Brimelow, I Am Not Reviewing Jonah [Expletive Deleted] Goldberg’s New Book

VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow wants me to review Matthew Yglesias’s One Billion Americans: The Case for Thinking Bigger But I have some fundamental questions before I do so. First, what does “American” even mean if we import more than 600 million migrants, utterly swamping the already floundering Historic American Nation? Second, how will this huge population help us “compete with China” when there have been numerous cases of migrants spying for China? Finally, why would any immigrant want to defend a country which systemically incentivizes non-assimilation? If we must have an empire to compete with China’s civilization-state, it would make more sense for the West to consolidate as a racial, cultural, and spiritual entity than to import millions of people who are more likely to destroy us than save us. Reviewers I respect give me no hope that Yglesias, a lunatic immigration enthusiast so rabid that he has blocked VDARE.com on Twitter, address these questions

Indeed, it’s not certain that America can maintain its identity even with the current demographic balance. Ygeslias’s premise is already moot because there’s now no consensus about what “America” even means. We are in the midst of a Cultural Revolution, with America’s history, heroes, and heritage under attack. Even after centuries in this country, many African-Americans simply do not identify with the United States, which is why they are now kneeling in protest for the Star-Spangled Banner, demanding we honor their own “National Anthem,” and burning the American flag.

Rather than standing against this behavior, President Trump just rewarded it with another payoff, a $500 billion “Platinum Plan” for black America, including their own pseudo-Independence Day, “Juneteenth” [President Trump Releases The Platinum Plan For Black Americans: Opportunity, Security, Prosperity, And Fairness, Donaldjtrump.com, September 25, 2020]. It won’t help him politically and once again, white workers get the bill.

Antifa rioters, many white/ Jewish, are also spearheading this movement, arguing that “America was never great” and leading attacks on police, conservatives, and any random white people who happen to be nearby. Antifa’s expressed, clear desire is to completely tear down American society using violence and intimidation. Despite tough talk, Attorney General William Barr is not cracking down on such groups. Instead, the wrath of the federal government is saved for people like Julian Assange [Here’s How Bill Barr Can Win the War Against Antifa and BLM Without Firing A Single Shot, Revolver, September 25, 2020]. How would importing more people who don’t identify with Heritage America somehow make us stronger in the midst of such chaos?

Furthermore, the rot in academia has spread to all American institutions. Andrew Sullivan said it best: “We all live on campus now.” [We All Live on Campus Now, New York, February 9, 2018].

In fairness, the Trump Administration has acted here. The president banned Critical Race Theory in executive branch agencies and government contractors. He’s talking about (but hasn’t yet imposed) patriotic education in schools (which historically was one of the main reasons public schools were created in the first place) [Trump Announces ‘Patriotic Education’ Commission, A Largely Political Move, by Alana Wise, NPR, September 17, 2020]. The Department of Justice is preventing Yale from discriminating against whites and Asians in admissions.

Unfortunately, far more must be done, including banning the root cause of this rot, Affirmative Action. Basic pillars of American identity and sovereignty – such as making English the official language, enforcing immigration laws, banning Birthright Citizenship, and imposing an immigration moratorium – must be imposed. Until then, it’s absurd to speak about America being a serious country, or a country at all. The cases of Ilhan Omar, Luis Gutierrez, and Jorge Ramos show us that crossing the border and holding an American passport does not make you a real American. It might just make you an invader.

This is an especially serious possibility when confronting China. There have been countless cases of Chinese acting as patriots for their real homeland:

  • Just a few days ago, naturalized U.S. citizen and NYPD officer Baimadajie Angwang was charged with spying on American supporters of Tibetan independence.
  • Chinese immigrant and former CIA officer Jerry Chun Shing Lee released names of covert CIA agents and intelligence sources to his real country.
  • Several professors and students have been charged with recruiting intelligence assets or stealing information from American universities
  • Senator Dianne Feinstein had a Chinese spy working on her staff for decades.
  • The Trump Administration expelled thousands of Chinese graduate students for their ties to Chinse military schools
  • Entire spy rings of Chinese-Americans that penetrated defense contractors and NASA have been exposed.

Consider the truly breathtaking statement from FBI Director Chris Wray that he considers the “whole of Chinese society” to be a security threat [The director of the FBI says the whole of Chinese society is a threat to the US–and that Americans must step up to defend themselves, by Michal Kranz, Business Insider, February 13, 2018]. He repeated the extent of the Chinese threat to American institutions in a speech just a few months ago [The Threat Posed by the Chinese Government and the Chinese Communist Party to the Economic and National Security of the United States, FBI, July 7, 2020].

Now, this is the same FBI Director whose agency was spying on President Trump and who warned not long ago that fighting “racist violence” is an equal priority to foreign terrorism. I don’t think he means Black Lives Matter [FBI Announces That Racist Violence Is Now Equal Priority To Foreign Terrorism, by Hannah Allam, NPR, February 10, 2020]. However, Yglesias clearly takes the Chinese threat seriously. Indeed, the whole premise of the book, stated in the very beginning, is that we need to have a larger population to defeat China, which will be our “shared national purpose.”

Yet the policy he advocates won’t make America stronger; it will just mean importing more hostile foreigners who are given rewards by our own government if they continue to think of themselves as hostile foreigners.

Does the Left celebrate patriotic non-whites who stand up for America like Michelle Malkin, Jesse Lee Peterson, or the late Herman Cain? Of course not – they despise them and freely use racial and sexual slurs against them. Look what’s happening to black police officers.

This immense social pressure ensures such brave people remain a handful. China, a serious nation, clearly knows diversity is a weakness. China’s military leaders worry that in a conflict with the U.S., we could arm minority populations within the Middle Kingdom to cause chaos.

ORDER IT NOW

The Chinese government fears separatism deeply – and, it should be noted, it already thinks Taiwan is part of its country [The Chinese Communist Party’s Biggest Fears Are Separatism And An Economic Crisis, by Joshua Ball, Global Security Review, April 10, 2020]. Seen from that perspective, the Chinese government’s campaigns to demographically dispossess Uighurs and Tibetans is an effective yet morally abhorrent policy. It is creating an assertive civilization state built upon deep cultural roots and an unchallengeable Han ethnic majority [The irresistible rise of the civilization-state, by Aris Roussinos, UnHerd, August 6, 2020]. Few would suggest China would somehow become stronger if the number of Uighurs and Tibetans magically tripled. Instead, Beijing would probably have powerful separatist movements to deal with.

Yet somehow, Yglesias wants us to believe that importing foreigners will somehow make America stronger or that the Chinese couldn’t exploit our own weaknesses. He wants us to believe this even though we can’t assimilate those we have to deal with now. He also wants us to believe this even though the Chinese and other groups are already subverting American institutions.

Indeed, the reason Washington DC is so obsessed with “Russian manipulation” is because Russia has essentially no influence. If you do name the lobbies which have influence in “our” government, such as those of Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, your political career will end very quickly.

The truth is that Yglesias is advocating Chinese-style demographic dispossession—and we’re the Tibetans. Diversity is already tearing our country apart. The U.S. was recently compared to the Holy Roman Empire because it has archaic institutions [America is the Holy Roman Empire of the 21st century, by Ryan Cooper, The Week, September 24, 2020] The metaphor is apt, but for different reasons than the author intended. “America” has become a vague legal concept rather than a nation-state or even an empire.

We are several nations lumped together. The central government treats the core European-Americans who built the country as almost an enemy. There is no “Platinum Plan” – or much of anything else – coming from this supposedly “white nationalist” administration. Those who ultimately sustain the state are those who receive the least benefits. As in the Holy Roman Empire’s successor state, the Austro-Hungarian empire, efforts to recognize “diversity” and provide concessions to different groups are simply accelerating the breakup of the country [Ethnic boxes: the unintended consequences of Hapsburg bureaucratic classification, by Rok Stergar and Tamara Scheer, Nationalities Papers, June 1, 2018].

If we truly must build an empire of our own to compete against China, it would make more sense to unify the West under a spiritual, cultural, and racial identity. That great dream of Western unity would be something to strive for. That would be a “shared national purpose” not just for Americans, but for all of us who hail from the great European fatherland.

And, though such a civilization-state would necessarily have a white supermajority, it wouldn’t need to revert to Chinese-style concentration camps or try to destroy ethnic minorities.

Of course, barring revolutionary change, we can’t build anything like that. Those who rule Europe imported race problems of their own and are being torn apart from within. Europeans will be minorities within their own countries if current trends continue. The institutions of culture have been utterly subverted and now are breaking down our civilizational achievements instead of forging new ones. We’ve been so thoroughly deconstructed that if post-Western “civilization state” confronted China, it would be a kind of super EU. It would be bound by a consumerist anti-culture featuring overweight bugmen watching superhero movies and hysterical women having emotional meltdowns over whatever journalists are calling racist today.

Still, I don’t even concede the point that we must have some gigantic population or civilization-uniting Imperium in order to check China. An America of 300 million with a white supermajority and a united culture could maintain its superpower status against China easily. We might need to form alliances with Pacific powers, especially India, Japan, and Russia. The latter has much to lose from Chinese migration into Siberia.

Unfortunately, a Russian-American alliance is impossible now, mostly due to the ethnic grievances of journalists, activists and politicians who are still mad at the Tsar. Thus, the neuroses of the American Ruling Class has reversed President Nixon’s diplomatic achievement and has forced Moscow and Beijing into an unnatural alliance.

And if a President Kamala Harris, er, Joe Biden gets America into a war against such adversaries, there are good reasons to believe the United States won’t win [Chilling World War III ‘wargames’ show US forces crushed by Russia and China, by James Rogers, Fox News, March 12, 2019].

Of course, this is just further proof that importing foreigners doesn’t automatically make your country stronger. It just turns what used to be your country into a prize to be captured by hostile out-groups. These groups then simply use “your” government to enact their own tribal obsessions.

I suspect Yglesias [Tweet him] knows this. James Burnham always stressed knowing the difference between the “formal meaning” of a book and the “real meaning,” the intended consequence in the real world. The real meaning of Yglesias’s book is not to create a strong America. It’s to displace the Historic American Nation altogether, replacing it with a continent-wide favela not worth fighting for, or even living in. This glorified shopping mall will be ruled by those who have no connection or loyalty to our country.

Yglesias might be content with such a dystopia. But we aren’t.

James Kirkpatrick [Email him |Tweet him @VDAREJamesK] is a Beltway veteran and a refugee from Conservatism Inc. His latest book is Conservatism Inc.: The Battle for the American Right. Read VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow‘s Preface here.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 209 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Anonymous[129] • Disclaimer says:

    Don’t you think that Matthew Yglesias’s head *strongly* resembles a hard boiled egg with childishly drawn crude representations of glasses, nose and beard daubed upon it with a magic marker?
    The only difference is that the contents of the egg shell – coagulated yolk and albumin – are far far more intelligent than Yglesias will *ever* hope to be, and as a bonus happen to constitute a nutritious snack.

  2. there have been numerous cases of migrants spying for China.

    The Chinese government fears separatism deeply – and, it should be noted, it already thinks Taiwan is part of its country

    the Chinese government’s campaigns to demographically dispossess Uighurs and Tibetans is an effective yet morally abhorrent policy.

    How can we formulate an effective foreign policy if people of Kirkpatrick’s stature believe nonsense like this?

    As far as I am are, there have been few, if any, cases of migrants spying for China–if we except the apparently spontaneous efforts by Chinese medical researchers in 2019 to warn their country of our Coronavirus outbreak. Perhaps someone can supply more convincing cases?

    The Chinese government fears separatism as much as the US Government. What annoys it are our efforts to foment it, as US Ambassador Chas. H. Freeman, Director for Chinese Affairs at the U.S. Department of State from 1979-1981:

    The CIA programs in Tibet, which were very effective in destabilizing it, did not succeed in Xinjiang. There were similar efforts made with the Uyghurs during the Cold War that never really got off the ground. In both cases you had religion waved as a banner in support of a desire for independence or autonomy which is, of course, is anathema to any state. I do believe that people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones applies here. I am part American Indian and those people are not here (in the US) in the numbers they once were because of severe genocidal policies on the part of the European majority. I don’t see any reason why Tibet being part of China should be any more controversial than Wales being part of the United Kingdom. The periods when they were put into that position were about the same. I recall, as probably most people don’t, that the the Central Intelligence Agency, with assistance from some of China’s neighbors, put $30 million into the destabilization of Tibet and basically financed and trained the participants in the Khampa rebellion and ultimately sought to remove the Dalai Lama from Tibet–which they did. They escorted him out of Tibet to Dharamsala. . .https://supchina.com/podcast/legendary-diplomat-chas-w-freeman-jr-on-u-s-china-strategy-and-history-part-3/

    Nor has anyone been dispossessed. There are twice as many Tibetans in Tibet and twice as many Uyghurs in Xinjiang today than in 1949 and, moreover, they are 10x more literate in their own languages (whose written forms appear on Chinese banknotes), healthier, long lived and more prosperous than ever in their histories.

    So what’s the beef?

  3. Um… Holding an American passport does not make you a real American, okay. Does being a Member of Congress make you a real American? If not, why not?

    • Replies: @Badger Down
  4. Anonymous[120] • Disclaimer says:

    Of course, the founding fathers established the fledging United States back in the 1770s-80s in a fit of enlightenment idealism about the ‘rights of man’, freedom, and a general revolt against the hereditary feudalism that characterised the United Kingdom. The idea was all about individual freedom, representative government, and a distinct absence of authoritarianism, tyranny etc.
    Even back in those times, China was generally viewed as particularly over populated, despotic, unenlightened nation under vicious central control.

    How odd it is that the supposed ‘cream’ of modern American thought holds that staying true to the ideal of United States is somehow for the US government to impose a pissing-up-the-wall contest with the same benighted Asiatic despotic regime, the rule of the contest being who can pack in as many warm bodies per square mile as possible is the winner!

    As if the tyranny – and its travails and impediments is a model to be emulated.
    The mind boggles.

  5. SMK says: • Website

    Does he believe the Jews, leftists and neocons, will be the majority or plurality of the ruling-elites in an America of one billion people, which will never be realized, or even a nonwhite-majority country of only 400-500 million, which is ineluctable. Does he believe Jews will have as much power and influence, vastly disproportionate, then they now enjoy?

    Does he focus on the issue of race in his book, and tell us where most of these 650-plus immigrants, legal and illegal, will come from? Assuming this will happen, the majority will come from sub-Saharan Africa and the US. will be a black-majority country -an apocalyptically nightmarish dystopian hell-hole for an increasingly dispossessed and persecuted white minority, including Jews, ironically, with the exception of the rich and affluent, disproportionately Jewish, with the means and ability to flee if their lives and wealth are endangered.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  6. Chris Moore says: • Website

    Of course, the founding fathers established the fledging United States back in the 1770s-80s in a fit of enlightenment idealism about the ‘rights of man’, freedom, and a general revolt against the hereditary feudalism that characterised the United Kingdom. The idea was all about individual freedom, representative government, and a distinct absence of authoritarianism, tyranny etc.

    Those are still worthy ideals. The problem is the Zionists — which includes a lot of snubbed English-heritage jackasses still butt-hurt by what the founders did — have flooded the country with foreign gangs of riff-raff to destroy those (classical) liberal ideals. They did it in part by starting wars the world over and bringing the victims of those wars flooding into America (think of the Bush/Cheney and ((neocon)) War on Terror, think of the Obama/Hillary Mideast regime change wars. And those are just in the 21st Century to date.

    The Jewish Zionists (like Yeglasias) did it and are doing it to make Israel the world lodestar and the “chosen” (himself included) the international priest class. English Zionists did it because they still believe the U.K. should be the world lodestar, and like the Jews, believe in entitled, royalist bloodlines.

    So we know Zionists of all stripes are the lethal enemy. We know their tactics, and we know their motives.

    The problem is there are not enough classical liberals with the courage to start a war with the Zionists, and shed their blood the way the founders were willing to. And there are not enough true Christians who recognize the idea of Zion as the root of world evil it has been for 2000 years, and had become by the time the Zionists crucified Jesus.

    • Replies: @obvious
  7. Anonymous[672] • Disclaimer says:
    @SMK

    They will come from the Indian subcontinent.
    Count on it.
    The Indian subcontinent is just a massive, ginormous termite nest just *itching* for the chance to give off, far and wide, to pastures new. Which, of course, in reality means any white country dumb and gullible enough to take them.

    In this respect, Canada is the proverbial canary in the coal mine.

    • Replies: @Dumbo
  8. SteveK9 says:

    Here is a classic essay, one of the best I have ever read.

    ‘The Diversity Myth’ by Bernard Schwarz, Atlantic Monthly, May 1995.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/politics/foreign/divers.htm

  9. @Godfree Roberts

    As far as I am are, there have been few, if any, cases of migrants spying for China–if we except the apparently spontaneous efforts by Chinese medical researchers in 2019 to warn their country of our Coronavirus outbreak. Perhaps someone can supply more convincing cases?

    Did you miss this part of the article?

    This is an especially serious possibility when confronting China. There have been countless cases of Chinese acting as patriots for their real homeland:

    Just a few days ago, naturalized U.S. citizen and NYPD officer Baimadajie Angwang was charged with spying on American supporters of Tibetan independence.

    Chinese immigrant and former CIA officer Jerry Chun Shing Lee released names of covert CIA agents and intelligence sources to his real country.

    Several professors and students have been charged with recruiting intelligence assets or stealing information from American universities

    Senator Dianne Feinstein had a Chinese spy working on her staff for decades.

    The Trump Administration expelled thousands of Chinese graduate students for their ties to Chinse military schools

    Entire spy rings of Chinese-Americans that penetrated defense contractors and NASA have been exposed.

    Moving on…

    Nor has anyone been dispossessed. There are twice as many Tibetans in Tibet and twice as many Uyghurs in Xinjiang today than in 1949 and, moreover, they are 10x more literate in their own languages (whose written forms appear on Chinese banknotes), healthier, long lived and more prosperous than ever in their histories.

    So what’s the beef?

    The same applies to Palestinians…

    How can we formulate an effective foreign policy if people of Kirkpatrick’s stature believe nonsense like this?

    This article was on domestic policy, although we can debate the accuracy of his claims in regards to China, the Xinjiang analogy was seems fairly accurate, the proportion of Han in that region has risen greatly since 1949. Very similar to how Whites have also grown in numbers (we have the greatest number of Whites on this planet in history) but are shrinking as a proportion in their own territory. Here is an example of China using Weapons of Mass Migration in Tibet.

    • Disagree: Badger Down
  10. Seen from that perspective, the Chinese government’s campaigns to demographically dispossess Uighurs and Tibetans is an effective yet morally abhorrent policy. It is creating an assertive civilization state built upon deep cultural roots and an unchallengeable Han ethnic majority [The irresistible rise of the civilization-state, by Aris Roussinos, UnHerd, August 6, 2020]. Few would suggest China would somehow become stronger if the number of Uighurs and Tibetans magically tripled. Instead, Beijing would probably have powerful separatist movements to deal with.

    If you have not watched it already, here is an excellent video by Ryan Faulk, aka The Alternative Hypothesis (AltHype) on the strategic implication of mass migration. Our treacherous leaders are imposing on our nation’s policies which in the past (and indeed the present when it comes to sane countries) could only come about as a result of conquest/military defeat from a hostile force.

    What is happening here is unprecedented and the shocking thing is that Europeans are tacitly consenting to it, there was no need for a “race war”, simply something as simple as putting a cross next to British National Party, Front National, National Democratic Party on the ballot paper.

    Another one worth watching is Jared Taylor’s Lefty Media Suddenly Against Immigration

  11. @The Spirit of Enoch Powell

    I have a suggestion for you and anyone who reads about Bad China, Land of Invisible Atrocities: if it involves the Chinese Government acting stupidly (and most such stories do) it’s bullshit.

    We are inured to governments lying, killing, and behaving stupidly and failing to plan ahead–it’s a 2500 year tradition initiated by Alcibiades and perfected by Julius Caesar. So we bitch and moan (another 2500 year tradition) but we find a way to survive it.

    That is neither the Chinese tradition nor their expectation. They hire only their most idealistic, best and brightest youngsters (minimum IQ 140) and send them into the wilderness where they spend 5-10 years doubling the cash income of marginal villages while begging, borrowing, or stealing funds to rehouse them in low-income housing like this:

    If they succeed, and many fail, they get to repeat the process at the county level and so on. Xi is well on his way to repeating it–in 2022 he will have doubled the cash income of every Chinese since he was elected in 2002. He’s been doing that all his life. So has his Prime Minister, who used to translate British common law commentaries into Chinese as a teen and has a PhD in economics. With few exceptions, that’s how you get onto the Steering Committee. Or anywhere, for that matter.

    So…when I hear that those guys have done something much stupider than you or I would do–and I have done some stupid things in my life–my curiosity is aroused. “Why?” I ask, “Would a group of geniuses who have enriched more people than anyone else in history and taken so little for themselves, do something so destructive, mean-spirited, or murderous?”

    Like, for example, why would Mao, the world’s leading expert on feeding people under duress–he fed multiple million-man armies on the mars and under fire–allow anyone to starve? Why not give everyone something to eat by sharing what little you have–as you or I would do?

    Of course, that is exactly what he did and there are a million tales from people who were on the receiving end of that logistics tale who can attest to its effectiveness and how it introduced them to exotic foods from faraway parts of China where they had excess, etc., etc. Nobody starved to death.

    But I digress.

    Your quote,

    “There have been countless cases of Chinese acting as patriots for their real homeland:…,”

    simply lists unsubstantiated allegations.

    The Xinjiang stories are also unsubstantiated allegations. Every Muslim nation on the planet–53 of them–have praised China’s treatment of its Uyghurs. The only countries alleging otherwise are those currently involved in (you guessed it) bombing Muslim countries.

    The NYT story on Tibet demographics:

    About 1.2 million rural Tibetans, nearly 40 percent of the region’s population, have been moved into new residences under a “comfortable housing” program. And officials promise to increase tourism fourfold by 2020, to 20 million visitors a year. But if the influx of money and people has brought new prosperity, it has also deepened the resentment among many Tibetans. Migrant Han entrepreneurs elbow out Tibetan rivals, then return home for the winter after reaping profits. Large Han-owned companies dominate the main industries, from mining to construction to tourism.

    is an extrapolation of an allegation and today, ten years after it was written, we know it’s just bullshit.

    Tibet’s population, barely one million in 1952, reached three million in 2020, ninety-five percent of whom are Tibetan and ethnic minorities. Extreme poverty has disappeared along with endemic smallpox, cholera, venereal diseases, typhoid, scarlet fevers and tetanus. Though critics once charged China with demographic aggression, the fear of ‘invasion’ by millions of ethnic Han has receded. Locals saw that most Han immigrants are poor and, being ineligible for state subsidies, could not compete with them and so left within a few years. A US Government[1] report concluded, “Family planning policies permitted Tibetans, like members of other minority groups, to have more children than Han Chinese. Urban Tibetans, including Communist Party members, were generally permitted to have two children. Rural Tibetans were encouraged, but not required, to limit births to three, but even these guidelines were not strictly enforced”. Life expectancy, at sixty-eight years and rising, bests neighboring India, Nepal and Sikkim.
    Tibetan educators focus on recruiting minority teachers and funding ethnic institutes. Children’s primary instruction is in Tibetan–which they see written on China’s banknotes–in schools administered by their own people. Because their language lacks a scientific vocabulary, secondary schools use Mandarin, but all schools are free, rural children receive full scholarships at boarding schools, attendance is ninety-eight percent and illiteracy in people under fifty has fallen from ninety percent to four percent, so that there are more Tibetans literate in their own language now than all Tibetans who have ever lived. Positive discrimination provides better opportunities for advanced education than Han students enjoy and, since its founding in 1985, Tibet University has produced ten-thousand graduates and today enrolls thirty-thousand on full scholarships. Two new universities are expanded opportunities dramatically.
    Tibetan incomes have risen five-hundred percent despite the fact that most live in rural areas and few speak Chinese. There is now a substantial urban middle class in government, tourism, commerce, construction, light manufacturing and transportation and, as thousands of Internet-savvy youngsters graduate, they fill existing niches and create new ones. Tibetan entrepreneurs, thanks to massive subsidies, are prospering. Their state budget is bigger than the Oregon’s and GDP, growing thirteen percent annually, reached $110 billion in 2019 while annual urban incomes rose from $200 to $4,500. Fourteen thousand miles of new highways, three new airports and the world’s highest railway connect Tibetans to each other and the outside world. Optical cables reach every county, everyone has a cell phone and a motor cycle (to which they are addicted) and, thanks to hydropower, geothermal, wind and solar energy, electricity production has risen seventeen percent annually and brought power to three quarters of the population.
    By 2020, fifteen hundred medical facilities, eight thousand hospital beds and ten thousand medical workers had lowered maternal mortality from five percent to 0.175 percent and infant mortality from forty-three percent to 0.66 percent. A thousand graduates of the College of Ethnic Tibetan medicine now staff fifty specialist hospitals and the first commercial Tibetan pharmaceutical manufacturer, founded in 1992, listed on the stock exchange in 2017.
    The government spent billions renovating the Drepung, Sera, and Gandan monasteries and restoring, reinforcing and re-gilding–with a tonne of gold from the National Treasury–the thousand-room Potala Palace, which welcomes four-million annual visitors. Below it, on the corner of Norbulingkha Road, stands the magnificent Tibet Museum whose 520,000 cultural, religious, and historic artifacts draw millions of visitors. By 2020, more than 120,000 titles of ethnic minorities’ ancient books had been collected and edited and five-thousand published. Zhonghua Dazang Jing, the one-hundred-fifty volume encyclopedia of Tibetan studies, was published in two languages and the great epic, Gesar, is now available in Tibetan, Mandarin and foreign languages. Tibetan mural art, thangka (scroll) painting and restoration are flourishing and traditional Tibetan opera is part of the August Shoton Festival.
    Each prefecture and city has newspapers in Tibetan and Mandarin, Tibetan People’s Radio broadcasts forty programs in Tibetan and Khampa dialect daily and Tibet TV has been broadcasting around the clock since 2007. Fourteen periodicals and ten newspapers publish in Tibetan script, the first ethnic-minority script in China with an international standard. Two publishing houses for books, two for audio-visual products, and thirty-five printing houses churn out twenty-three newspapers and thirty-four periodicals. There are two-hundred sixty public art and cultural centers, ten professional art performance troupes, eighteen folk art performance troupes and seven hundred amateur performance teams.
    Tibetans, one quarter of whom are women, make up half the local Party leadership and their authority covers economic development, culture, education, spoken and written languages, justice, protection of relics, animals, plants and natural resources. After they placed a third of the land into nature reserves and devoted one-eighth to forest wildlife, the Tibetan Antelopes are again a common sight and even shy Snow Leopards are recovering nicely.


    [1] 44. U.S. Department of State, “Human Rights Practices in Tibet-2003,” http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/1934.html.

    • Troll: an0n
  12. @The Spirit of Enoch Powell

    The Xinjiang narrative is bullshit. See my answer to your other comment.

  13. Anonymous[207] • Disclaimer says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    Ironic that use of the term ‘demographic aggression’, especially out of the mouths of western politicos.
    Surely, that term encapsulates *exactly* what the western political class has been inflicted on its *own* electorate these past 60 years.

  14. TKK says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    TAIPEI (Taiwan News) — Google has removed more than 2,500 channels from its YouTube video-sharing platform as they were suspected of spreading disinformation from China, reports said Wednesday (Aug. 5).

    The campaign from April to June targeted channels believed to have been involved in “coordinated influence operations” by the communist country, website C Net reported.

    The deleted channels mostly used the Chinese language, and one of the topics touched upon by the videos was the Black Lives Matter movement in the United States, according to C Net.

    (emphasis mine)
    https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3982817

    Now why would the CCP want to promote BLACK LIVES MATTER??? Can you guess?

    Name one country that HAS NOT been spied on by the CCP. From Cambodia to the African continent to Sri Lanka to South America proper, the CCP has been caught surveilling, hacking and stealing. They use mostly student, academia and researchers rather than cultivate decades long entanglements.
    In and out.

    The avalanche of the CCP’s industrial espionage cannot be denied by anyone that can read at a 3rd grade level.
    See http://www.F5.com

    Again, your grotesque lobbying for a country of over 1 billion makes you no different than a race pimp.If they pay you well enough- whatever get you through the night.

    • Disagree: Aking
    • Troll: Godfree Roberts
    • Replies: @Badger Down
    , @denk
    , @denk
  15. Biff says:

    Second, how will this huge population help us “compete with China” when there have been numerous cases of migrants spying for China?

    When the Chinese spy’s start doing controlled demolitions of buildings in lower Manhattan, I’ll begin to worry then. They will certainly have a leg up on the locals at that point.

  16. Aking says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    Thanks for setting the facts straight. But most Americans live in an alternate universe of evil China, thanks to the “free and fair” media. As CIA director William Casey once said, “we will know our disinformation campaign is complete when everything that the American believes is false”. Its complete alright, when it comes to China.

    • Agree: showmethereal
    • Replies: @Godfree Roberts
  17. Dumbo says:
    @Anonymous

    How many dot Indians are there in Canada? More than Chinese?

    I now there are many Sikh people in government and public service. And quite a few Sick people too…

  18. Dumbo says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    Whenever there’s an article or even a negative mention to Chine in any article, there comes God-free Roberts to its defence… And we’re supposed not to suspect that he’s on the CCP payroll or something.

  19. d dan says:

    Wow. Ron Unz should allow readers to put a “Troll” flag to this idiotic article.

    I get it, you [the author] hate non-white immigrants, potential immigrants, temporary workers, visitors and students because few of them want to kiss Whites’ arse like Malkin. If you would just stop there, I probably would even bother to comment. But you continue your rants with half truth, misinformation and outright falsehood. You ignore the fact that American Chinese has the highest rate of being charged for spying but lowest rate of conviction. You swallow up FBI Director Chris Wray’s venomous and self-fulfilling excretion about the “whole of Chinese society” to be a security threat. You regurgitate CIA and MSM lies about Chinese “concentration camp” in Xinjiang, and “dispossession” of Tibetans. You stir up fear against the Yellows while insult and distrust the loyalty of any non-Whites: Blacks, Browns, Jews and others.

    Sounds like you are doing good job making America weak.

  20. Tor597 says:

    I’m sure there are Chinese spying in America, just like there are Isreali, British, Russian, and French spies here too.

    But I don’t buy the American victimization angle which is all this article is.

    1) Let’s not pretend that Americans are not also spying on China and have not been doing so for decades. America has been caught many times spying on China and I am willing to bet that there are 10 times more Americans who are involved in spying on China than the reverse.

    If America spies on other countries so intensely, why can’t other countries do the same thing?

    2) If you don’t want the rest of the world coming to America, white people should leave the rest of the world alone.

    • Thanks: showmethereal
    • Troll: GeneralRipper
    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome
  21. an0n says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    moreover, they are 10x more literate in their own languages (whose written forms appear on Chinese banknotes), healthier, long lived and more prosperous than ever in their histories.

    This is simply not true. Do you have data on this? In fact, they are explicitly discouraged from using their native languages (unless you are talking about the rural communities and older generation living in Tibet proper, not greater Tibet). I have lived in China, and I happen to know a Tibetan of the younger generation personally. He can understand his elders when they talk in Tibetan and can barely read a text written in Tibetan. The vast majority of YOUNG Tibetans are illiterate in the Tibetan language and do not speak it regularly. This is especially the case for the Tibetan communities in Qingdao, Gansu, and other parts of Greater Tibet (which Westerners are not aware of, believing Tibet to be limited to its current borders qua the Chinese province of Tibet). In fact, this is the case with the majority of “fangyan” (i.e. Chinese dialects) across the country. It is only the Tibetan diaspora community in India and abroad that maintains the culture.

    Yes, the written forms of Tibetan appear on Chinese banknotes, but that is cold comfort and little consolation for people whose culture and way of life has essentially been wiped out. Again, you seem to focus exclusively on the Himalayan/plateau communities, neglecting to mention the other communities in Qingdao, Gansu, the Sichuan basin, and other parts of Western China. To be fair, though, Tibetan culture was going to disappear anyways, with or without any action on the part of the Chinese government. It has been the trend of modernity, secularism, and neo-liberal capitalism that has been responsible for many traditional cultures losing their relevance in people’s lives. China’s repression of organized Tibetan Buddhism has certainly not helped.

    I understand the pro-China sentiment emanating from your post (particularly in light of America’s tendency to propagandize in such bad faith). But I get the impression from you that your thinking on this issue is too black-and-white, rigidly confined to ethical binaries of “America bad, China good” and the like.

    We have more than enough eyewitness testimony from Tibetan diaspora (including that of India) to know that China’s treatment of the Tibetans has been far from ideal. When you argue disingenuously in the way you do, you actually hurt your case. Tibet is China’s major sin. The best way to deal with it is to own up to it.

    That being said, younger Tibetans are for the most part secular, pragmatic, and have a desire to assimilate to modern culture, which is a desire they share with Han compatriots. In fact, I’ve met some who have a liking for hip-hop and R&B culture in particular. It’s simply a due to the fact that modernity has displaced indigenous culture in general (traditional Han culture included).

    There is still discrimination (sometimes due to ignorance, other times malicious) against Tibetans (and the latter reaction may be a residual holdover from an older generation of Han Chinese, who even exhibit regional prejudice against other Han Chinese) – in fact, the Tibetan friend whom I mentioned gets identified as a foreigner when seen with me together (it’s sad to be considered a foreigner in China when you’ve been born there and grew up there your whole life).

    That being said, the vast majority of Han Chinese do indeed respect Tibetan culture and want to travel there. Once they are told someone is Tibetan, they become pretty respectful. China is a complex place, with different generations, regions, etc. Let’s not reduce China to simple formulas because you’re in a constant dialectic with Western think-thanks whose view of China may be overly exaggerated in the pejorative direction. Their desire is to improve and get better. That doesn’t mean people should cover up, white-wash, or forget the past.

    • Replies: @Godfree Roberts
    , @d dan
    , @Aking
  22. @Godfree Roberts

    As far as I am are, there have been few, if any, cases of migrants spying for China–if we except the apparently spontaneous efforts by Chinese medical researchers in 2019 to warn their country of our Coronavirus outbreak

    Quite a few grammatical errors here.

    “our” Coronavirus outbreak? Are you an American implying that Americans caused Coronavirus or a Chinese person talking about his country’s COVID-19 outbreak? The bad grammar seems to point to the latter

    • Replies: @Godfree Roberts
  23. @d dan

    When will glorious China take in Africans and Indians and Arabs into their Middle Kingdom? I have heard that racism is a European disease and the Chinese are very noble in this regard, let’s see how they cope with the diversity.

    • Replies: @God's Fool
    , @d dan
  24. nature says:

    The US just have to accept it’s the great Satan and should purge itself from his minions.

    One wonders, given the numbers, how Americans aren’t fighting over the honor to bring them down.
    Untill the dishonesty is given up you’ll suffer extinction by knock out game and funnier.

  25. @an0n

    Our own ambassador testified that we have been supporting terrorism in Tibet for 70 years–while our media have ignored it. Do you now expect our government or media to tell the truth?

    You don’t need testimony from disaffected expats. You can visit and see for yourself, as 25,000,000 people do every year.

    There is no “Tibet Problem” in China.

    There is no “Tibet Problem” in Chinese politics.

    There is a “Tibet Problem” in anti-Chinese political strategy.

    There is a “Tibet Problem” for Tibetan followers of the Dali Lama, exiled in India.

    A woman friend who just came back from a visit to Lhasa told me of visiting Tibetans’ homes (she walks into people’s homes wherever she goes and, somehow, they never seem to mind) and studying their household shrines, (she has an Indian guru and is interested in such things). Almost half the homes’ shrines were devoted to the current Dalai Lama, some to earlier Dalai Lamas, and the rest had shrines to Mao Tse Tung. When she asked about the Mao shrines, the old folk explained that he had liberated them or their parents from slavery and, by so doing, had done more for them than anyone else, ever.

    Since China reasserted its authority there, Tibet’s GDP has risen from 327 million yuan in 1965 to 92.08 billion yuan ($14.5 billion) in 2014, a 281-fold increase. See this report: Successful Practice of Regional Ethnic Autonomy. This year, 13 million tourists will spend $26 billion. Tibetans’ life expectancy has tripled, indigenous Tibetans’ population has doubled, their literacy has risen 6000%, maternal infant mortality has improved 400% and Tibetans can catch an affordable train–or fly–to anywhere in the world because their incomes have risen 700%.

    There have been many ‘human rights’ accusations in Western media and one of the most serious is that the Chinese Government practices coercive family planning by imposing strict birth limits and forcing women to undergo abortions and sterilization . But the expat Tibetan nobility, the former slave-owners, are making up stories the way former Cuban plantation-owners make up stories about their happy cane-cutters. Tibetans are the only minority in China permitted to have more than two children. This report, FERTILITY AND FAMILY PLANNING IN RURAL TIBET by Melvyn Goldstein, Cynthia Beall, Ben Jiao and Phuntsog Tsering, gives real population figures and explains what’s really going on.

    Next, read DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE IN RURAL TIBET, by the same authors: A multi-year study of the impact of China’s reform policies since the early 1980s on rural change in the Tibet Autonomous Region. The study included 780 households in 13 villages, using qualitative and quantitative methods. The illiteracy rate was 90% in 1951, when China signed the Seventeen Point Agreement and pledged to develop education there for the first time. Since then, 200 primary schools have been built and Tibetan children’s enrollment in public schools in Tibet reached 98.8% in 2010. Most classes are taught in the Tibetan language but mathematics, physics, and chemistry are taught in Chinese because there is no Tibetan vocabulary for those subjects. The government pays all tuition fees for ethnic Tibetans from primary school through college and provides full support for children who must attend boarding schools.

    The central government held the Second National Conference on Work in Tibet in 1984 and established Tibet University the same year and, by 2006, the country had six institutes of higher learning–up from none in 1951. When the National Higher Education Entrance Examination was established in 1980, ethnic Tibetans filled only 10% of the higher education quota despite making up 97% of the population so, in 1984, the Ministry of Education changed its policies and included affirmative action and Tibetan language accommodation. By 2008, the number of ethnic Tibetans sitting the National College Entrance Examination (NCEE, or gaokao) reached 14,248, with 10,211 accepted into university, making the enrollment proportion of ethnic Tibetans 60%. See this report for more: Education in Tibet.

    What are their opinions about the Chinese government?

    The answer is “mixed”. In 2000 professor Goldstein asked a sample of Tibetans from across the TAR “Do You Have a Better Life Now Than Your Parents Did?” One of the cohorts of that was aged 60-79, meaning they were born 1920-1940 and their parents lived almost entirely before Chinese policies kicked in. 90% of that cohort answered, “Yes”.

    What about independence? Goldstein didn’t question them on that thorny subject but, shortly after the 2008 riots, the Tibetan Government in Exile secretly conducted a survey and learned that only 29% (5,000 out of 17,000) of Tibetans living in Tibet want renzig, independence, while 47% (8,000) preferred to remain part of China with limited ‘true autonomy’. The remaining 4,000 either wanted the status quo or had no opinion. So the TGIE went with the Middle Way approach because, if only 29% wanted independence so soon after the after the ’08 riots, that figure was probably never going to rise, because Tibetans’ real incomes have risen 300% in the interim and, while some people (including Californians and Hawaiians) like the idea of independence, everybody likes a 300% wage rise.

    Sadly, the Chinese government had offered the Dalai Lama the Middle Way approach in the 1980s but, because he demanded that parts of Gansu, Sichuan, and other multi-ethnic provinces in China be included in his ‘Tibet’, the deal fell through.

    What would you find if you polled Native Hawaiians, Lakota Indians or Australian Aborigines on whether they want their territories to be independent states? Of course, our ‘democratic’ media are not interested in the opinions of Native Hawaiians, Lakota Indians or Australian Aborigines who are actually part of the issue. Only rich white people’s opinions matter.

    • Agree: Aking
    • Replies: @an0n
    , @an0n
    , @Pop Warner
  26. GMC says:

    Anyone that wants to see what Open Unlimited immigration does, best study how the N Y Jews lobbied and got our old white European society immigration laws – thrown out and theirs – put in place – in order to F. us.

    • Replies: @George F. Held
  27. As a Russian who reads unz.com, I agree with much in this article, but this part struck me as plain DUMB:

    We might need to form alliances with Pacific powers, especially India, Japan, and Russia. The latter has much to lose from Chinese migration into Siberia.

    Chinese migration into Siberia is not a thing. Russia is under no threat of Chinese demographic takeover. In fact northern Chinese provinces, adjacent to Russia, are depopulating.

    It seems even the brightest Americans like James Kirkpatrick learn about outside world from mainstream media, their perception is hopelessly skewed as a result.

    • Agree: Godfree Roberts
    • Thanks: GMC, Supply and Demand
    • Replies: @Aking
    , @Supply and Demand
  28. @Godfree Roberts

    “There are twice as many Tibetans in Tibet and twice as many Uyghurs in Xinjiang today than in 1949…”

    How many more Chinese since 1949 and why are they not confined to the Hanistan?

    The key problem with this article is that it doesn’t deal with the big elephant in the room: the Jewish question!

    Of all the people in these great United States, the Jew is the only obstacle to America retaining its White Christian super majority status, because, he the Ashkenazi Jew, in spite of proclaiming himself white, does NOT see himself as a derivative of the great European race but a seed of the Middle East, and as such, coupled with his historic enmity to the Christian religion, he is unsatisfied with the status quo and therefore, aggressively determined to the undermining of America in its current form.

    And he thinks, foolishly, notwithstanding his claim to the innate Einstein like “genius”, that if and when China should become the only superpower, he the scion of Abraham would be the honored guest of the epicanthically challenged atheistic chinaman and continue to rule over the masses of not only the Middle Kingston (sic) but the world… we are talking about a truly delusional creature!

    Now the real question is Godfree Roberts, are you one of those direct descendants of Israel, who is always advocating on China’s behalf thus not to be trusted at all by us, the real Americans, when it boils down to our survival and well-being?

    My take is that you should be trusted as far as we can throw you…

  29. Why bother reading this gibberish? Yglesias does not even know what an American is. If I read one more screed like this – transforming human beings and my fellow citizens into “consumers” – I will puke.

  30. @Aking

    Yep. I’ve been trying to raise the alarm about the (real) China for 15 years and have been censored, ridiculed, and ignored.

    Now it’s too late. We’re far behind them and decelerating while they’re ahead and accelerating.

    We’ll be irrelevant in 2025 but won’t face the fact until 2030.

    • Replies: @Biff
    , @Aking
  31. @Dumbo

    May I recommend Carl Sagan’s Boloney detector? dyingwords.net/carl-sagans-bullshit-detection-kit/

  32. Wonder how many wind turbines and solar panels it will take to give an environmental friendly – first world life style to a billion people? Will the composting toilets be up for the task? And with all the acreage going towards green energy, do you dump the pooh in the rivers like India? Guess that will make the hoards of Indian migrants feel at home. Boy there is a lot of problems going to be made just to displace the founding stock.

  33. an0n says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    I won’t attempt to address every point you made, but I’ll try to respond to the gist of it. I appreciate the civil tone, so I’ll do my best to keep it that way. I want to reply to you based on my anecdotal evidence (i.e. based on my acquaintance with a native Tibetan over the course of 10 years). I don’t want the discussion to devolve into my anecdotal evidence vs. yours, since such evidence is rather arbitrary and subjective, as each side can bring up some personal experience that serves the purposes of their argument. Just the same, I’ll just speak from the heart, and let Unz readers make what they will.

    You don’t need testimony from disaffected expats.

    My friend is NOT some “disaffected Tibetan expat.” He was born in Tibet and has family in rural Tibet. Until recently, up until 2017 or thereabouts, he was NOT allowed to leave China and travel (contrary to what you said). In fact, the general policy has been that Tibetans cannot be issued visas and are not allowed to leave China. The policy has changed only recently, it seems, based on what my friend has told me (I would have to look into this more to confirm). However, this is because the Chinese government has basically won this fight and can afford to relax its grip a little.

    That said, he’s told me that the Chinese citizens living outside of Tibet (in other provinces) are generally hospitable because they are generally ill-informed about the politics of Tibet and are also mainly business-oriented and pragmatic. Tibet itself is under close supervision and heavily militarized. There are PLA troops present all over the place to make sure that political dissent is stifled.

    You can visit and see for yourself, as 25,000,000 people do every year.

    It’s not that simple. I know, because I’ve looked it into this while living in China. You have to apply several months in advance for a special permit, and you can only do it through an approved Chinese tourist agency. Foreigners are not permitted to accompany Chinese, and Chinese are not permitted to join a foreign group. No mixed groups allowed. Obviously, the Chinese government wants to be able to control the messaging about Tibet for their own people. For a period of time, Japanese were not allowed to go at all (but this policy may have changed, I would have to check). And when you go there, you are only allowed to visit designated sites under the supervision of the Chinese tour guide. You are not allowed to just wander off and see the sights, so to speak. The whole process is carefully regulated and supervised. Chinese tourists have a lot more freedom in terms of where they can go, but foreigners definitely cannot just walk into the homes of local people unsupervised, and they certainly can’t go into more remote rural parts of Tibet. It’s mainly Lhasa, and even then just tourist sites. It’s not so simple as just “visit and see for yourself.” It is, in fact, highly militarized, with PLA police stationed throughout the area. This is what my Tibetan friend says, and even Chinese tour guides themselves have said as such. In fact, the Chinese tour guides will straight up admit that Tibet can be characterized by 政治敏感 – the last characters, “politically sensitive” are oft-repeated in China and are euphemistic ways of referring to the situation there, like 民族冲突 (i.e. ethnic conflict).

    There is no “Tibet Problem” in China.

    There is no “Tibet Problem” in Chinese politics.

    There is a “Tibet Problem” in anti-Chinese political strategy.

    There is a “Tibet Problem” for Tibetan followers of the Dali Lama, exiled in India.

    Obviously, the old saying “one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist” applies here. Of course, the official line from the Chinese government is that “there is no ‘Tibet problem.’” For the most part, the Chinese government has basically won (that is, the Chinese government has mostly accomplished its goal in Tibet of successfully neutralizing any resistance from the people) and preventing organized Tibetan Buddhism from growing among the youth.

    Yes, the Tibetan followers of the Dali Lama are Tibetans. You are not the arbiter of who represents the Tibetans. Neither is the Chinese government. They are the arbiters of their culture and religion. The Dali Lama is the central figure of their organized religion. Whether you believe in it or not, he plays a central role in Tibetan culture (as previous Dali Lamas have for centuries). The fact that the issue is used in “anti-Chinese political strategy” has nothing to do with the validity of the people’s cause. If the Chinese government doesn’t like the fact that it’s used in “anti-Chinese political strategy,” then they should have been nicer to the Tibetans and respected their culture and religion more.

    A woman friend who just came back from a visit to Lhasa told me of visiting Tibetans’ homes (she walks into people’s homes wherever she goes and, somehow, they never seem to mind) and studying their household shrines, (she has an Indian guru and is interested in such things).

    Your so-called “woman friend” is not just a “woman” – she would have to be a “Chinese woman,” to be more specific, and a Chinese citizen at that. It’s not just anyone who is allowed to “walk into people’s homes wherever [they] go…” Obviously, the opinion of a Chinese citizen has a certain validity and deserves to be heard, but it is more likely to be aligned with that of the government. Yes, the people “never seem to mind” because they are hospitable people in general, and they live in a militarized region of China where they don’t want trouble.

    Almost half the homes’ shrines were devoted to the current Dalai Lama, some to earlier Dalai Lamas, and the rest had shrines to Mao Tse Tung. When she asked about the Mao shrines, the old folk explained that he had liberated them or their parents from slavery and, by so doing, had done more for them than anyone else, ever.

    I wouldn’t know about the Mao shrines. I can’t verify this, but I will ask my friend about it. Of course they have shrines to the Dalai Lama. You’re friend admits as much, and yet you suggest that the “Tibet problem” is limited to only “followers of the Dali Lama” when that is most likely a majority of the people there, especially among the older generation. You contradicted yourself when you tried to imply earlier that the Dali Lama was some kind of fringe figure who is not relevant to the people’s political and cultural attitudes. As for the Mao shrines, who knows? Maybe the Chinese government mandated it, maybe it’s a punishment, maybe some genuinely like Mao (not realizing that he basically devastated their culture).

    As far as your arguments about economic development go – that is true to an extent – naturally, as China’s economy has grown, so would that of Tibet. But what you don’t seem to tell people is the high numbers of Han Chinese who have moved into Lhasa and Tibet. So, yes, it’s growing economically, but that’s also due to the fact that Chinese citizens are making it nicer for themselves. Has the economic condition of rural Tibetans improved vs those of city-dwellers? That’s another question.

    More importantly, what doth it profit a man to gain the world yet forfeit his soul? Does economic development matter if you’ve lost your culture and country? Would you tell Chinese in the 1930s that 东北 under Japanese occupation had the highest GDP of all provinces in China? By your logic, why not let Imperial Japan control China and run the economy if that’s all that matters to you.

    What would you find if you polled Native Hawaiians, Lakota Indians or Australian Aborigines on whether they want their territories to be independent states?

    Well, you are free to go and “poll” them as much as you want. You are not free to go and “poll” Tibetans.

    Only rich white people’s opinions matter.

    Does that apply to you also? Do “rich white people” actually control the media in the US? I won’t get into that. You’re pretty arbitrary and subjective on this. You seem to think that only the opinion of the Chinese government matters and that of the followers of the Dali Lama don’t matter. What about the opinions of Taiwanese? Chinese dissidents? Tibetan diaspora? Do their opinions matter to you?

    • Replies: @Godfree Roberts
  34. Rich says:

    With present immigration trends, the US will be a majority Hispanic country within 20 years in my estimation. If Trump is reelected and is successful in limiting illegal immigration, we might get 40 years. There is no more “America” as the founders and their descendants envisioned it, but with proper law enforcement, an end to all affirmative action programs and a return to meritocracy, we can still have a decent place here. Hispanics aren’t American blacks, they have lower criminal tendencies and appear to get up every day and go to work. The problem is one of strong police policies that prevent violent crime from growing. Many Whites don’t like seeing heavy handed police tactics, but we’re going to have to accept them, or end up in a dystopian Brazil where violence is constant. We’ve passed the Republic stage, now we need a Caesar.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Sya Beerens
  35. an0n says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    I want to add one last thing to what I said in my previous reply, just as a qualifier.

    The vast majority of Han Chinese respect Tibetan people and culture, just as Tibetan people respect their Han Chinese compatriots. That has been my impression having lived in China. Most Han Chinese are pretty ignorant about the politically sensitive aspects of the Tibetan situation, but they definitely respect Tibet and its religion. It’s closely connected with their history, and in that sense the Chinese are right to regard Tibet as China’s “internal affairs.” In fact, there was a point in time when Tibetans conquered China, so their history is very complicated, and I disapprove of the US government politicizing the conflict for its own geopolitical goals.

    That being said, China has sinned as far as Tibet goes. Chinese citizens have admitted as much to me and understand on some level that they mistreated the people there. So, there is remorse on the part of Han Chinese who are “in the know,” and there is forgiveness on the part of Tibetans as well. I also take issue with you accusing Tibetans of engaging in “terrorism” – obviously a very loaded term, but all the more disingenuous given the peaceful nature of their religion. It has echoes of 政治分子, which many Chinese government hardliners will use to delegitimize dissidents.

    What makes me upset, Godfree, is how you approach this issue from a somewhat dogmatic position. Chinese citizens (in China at least) are not dogmatic about this. If they are confronted with an adversarial foreigner who is arguing in bad faith, then they might be defensive. But if foreigners know the facts about Tibet, then Chinese generally admit where they’ve gone wrong and are candid enough to just admit that they are not perfect. It’s only if you make very lurid and grossly exaggerated claims and are obviously just interested in demonizing China that Chinese will get upset with you.

    I’ll admit, I’m kind of afraid bring this up here with you, but I think Tibetans have a cause that deserves to be heard and respected.

    • Replies: @Lin
    , @Godfree Roberts
  36. an0n says:
    @God's Fool

    The “Godfree Roberts” profile strikes me as very suspicious. He did refer to “rich white people,” and he’s so flagrantly pro-China that it’s probably offensive to many Chinese. There are some shenanigans going on with the “Godfree Roberts” account, for sure, and I think you may be on to something.

    He could be Jewish (a la Nathan Rich, pro-China YouTuber who pretends to have a background in IT and pretends to be tech executive who has settled in China), but it’s hard to know what his end-game is and motives are. That’s the realm of speculation. I would encourage people not to react to his posts. They are probably calculated to provoke certain reactions and achieve some degree of political manipulation.

    When one reads Godfree’s posts, the knee-jerk reaction is to get upset and angry – “How could this guy be so flagrantly disingenous?” but that could be a trollish aspect of the account, perhaps designed to force you into an “anti-China” mode.

    In fact, when one reads Godfree’s posts, even though they are ostensibly “pro-China,” they are pro-China in a suspiciously overzealous way that ironically provokes an “anti-China” response. The reference to “rich white people” is very telling. It’s hard to know what his game is.

    If you have not lived in China for a long time or are not conversant with China issues, exercise caution in reading the Godfree Roberts posts. There is some hanky-panky going on that deserves to be investigated.

    If you wanna know the truth about China, just talk to Chinese people or go live in China. You don’t need to get your opinions mediated through the “Godfree Roberts” account. If he’s really American, then he’s just another 老外 pontificating about China. For Chinese people, his opinion is just as worthless as that of the China critic.

  37. Anonymous[150] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Yglesias is probably more like a Jewish Ignatius J. Reilly–a fat, disgusting oaf slobbering hot dogs on his keyboard and yet taken seriously for the anonymity the Internet provides. But, why would anyone of James Kirkpatrick’s stature even reply to such a slug now that the latter’s sort have declared war on us?

    Lenin had it right in his reply to Kautski that went (mutatis mutandis), Why should we reply to Yglesias? He’d reply to us, we’d have to reply to him again, and there’d be no end to it. It will be enough that we declare Yglesias a homicidal enemy of Christian America, as his ancestors had been in Russia a century ago, and everyone will at once understand everything.

  38. Biff says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    The will to believe is a powerful force. Check her out – cute but astonishingly biased – which makes her ugly in a way.

    • Replies: @God's Fool
  39. @an0n

    I haven’t visited China nor do I speak mandarin so I do take any excessively pro China point of view of anyone (second hand, tha is) with a handful of salt.

    I do not have a problem with anyone expressing their views, however biased, but I will call them out for what it is.

    Thanks for your response!

  40. Anonymous[721] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rich

    We could also just break the country up instead of following the suggestions of one of the more odious capitalist shills and jew apologists on this corner of the internet.

    • Replies: @Rich
  41. Richard B says:
    @Anonymous

    Don’t you think that Matthew Yglesias’s head *strongly* resembles a hard boiled egg with childishly drawn crude representations of glasses, nose and beard daubed upon it with a magic marker?

    Forget Matthew Hard-boiled Egghead, what I want to know is why Kirkpatrick capitalizes “Jewish” and “Asian”, but not White. In any event, moving right along.

    This is an especially serious possibility when confronting China. There have been countless cases of Chinese acting as patriots for their real homeland:

    This is an especially serious possibility when confronting Israel. There have been countless cases of Jews acting as patriots for their real homeland.

    There. Fixed it for you.

    Consider the truly breathtaking statement from FBI Director Chris Wray that he considers the “whole of Chinese society” to be a security threat

    Since the world today is so obviously being divided by its two most powerful groups, The CCP and JSI (Jewish Supremacy Inc.) the above quote can only mean that there has been a falling out among partners. The consequences for this are guaranteed to be immense.

    I’ve been commenting on this here and elsewhere for a year now. Not because I’m some Wile E. Coyote Super Genius. But because it’s just so obvious and predictable. Neither group has a history of, or interest in, power-sharing. Power-Sharing’s a White thing. It’s how they lost it.

    I’ve also been commenting a lot on what I refer to as The Pyrrhic Victory of JSI. For a number of reasons. One of them being that JSI is simply too Proxy-Dependent. Once they hitched their wagon to China their goose was cooked.

    This would explain their even more than usual hysteria of late (c. Andrew Joyce’s recent article) and corresponding need to pump up the volume by projecting on Whites, again. It would also explain their need to dispatch their goy to, I mean go to, useful idiot in The FBI, Chris Wray, to issue a “China Bad” statement. Dangerous. Very. For them.

    Does anyone really want to defend JSI against The CCP? Since there’s one born every minute, who knows? Maybe. But one thing’s for sure, JSI better hope The CCP doesn’t steal their Proxies from them, or buy them off, or whatever. Because that is definitely in the realm of possibility. After all, stranger things have happened in history.

    • Replies: @Poco
  42. Rich says:
    @Anonymous

    When Southerners tried to secede with a decent military force and excellent commanding officers, they were crushed. The federal government is now super powerful with the arms to suppress any military revolution and the tech to survail any would-be revolutionaries. There is absolutely no chance of breaking up the country. Forget that pipe dream. I’m not sure what that has to do with “odious capitalist shills and jew apologists” so I’ll eagerly await reading your manifesto when it finally comes out in some “corner of the internet” explaining everything.

  43. @Biff

    Truth is always ugly to the uninitiated and besides to some she may not be attractive but her words do resonate on the other hand…

  44. @The Spirit of Enoch Powell

    I doubt the cow worshipping Indians would want to go to the godless China and given time they’ll be going to war with each other, especially, the water sources of the Subcontinent are dependent on the now occupied Tibet. Let’s stay tuned!

    • Replies: @Lin
    , @Badger Down
  45. @Godfree Roberts

    Very convincing rejoinder, Godfree Roberts. Could even one of the Western legion of China bashers cite an advanced degree awarded to a Amerindian for a dissertation written in any native American language? It was big news in Canada a few years ago when some Micmac/Etchemin scholar finally was allowed to write his thesis in his own ancestral language and then was grudging awarded his degree. But there is still this gagle of indoctrinated Canadians and U.S. Americans who leap at any chance to condemn China for its spectacularly humane and successful ethnic policies.

    • Agree: Godfree Roberts
  46. @Godfree Roberts

    Our own ambassador

    There you go again, LARPing as an American during your shill fits after someone dares suggest that China isn’t a saintly, pure, and benevolent nation. Do you deny all of the Chinese spies because you’re jealous they’re doing more for the Middle Kingdom than some blogger on a dissident site?

    • Replies: @an0n
  47. d dan says:
    @The Spirit of Enoch Powell

    “When will glorious China take in Africans and Indians and Arabs into their Middle Kingdom? I have heard that racism is a European disease and the Chinese are very noble in this regard, let’s see how they cope with the diversity.”

    Strawman argument.

    Firstly, China has enough population – haven’t you heard that they have the “one child” policy until sometime ago? Secondly, China did not and does not need slaves to plant cotton or food for them – they will do it themselves when needed – sounds like “all men are created equal”, as exclaimed by a hypocritical, ok, “very noble” person somewhere? Finally, they do take in Africans, Indians, Arabs, on meritocratic basis, rather than on political correctness – why do you think they can do that?

    • Agree: Aking
    • Replies: @an0n
  48. One Russian guy was interested in aviation and first worked in the Russian branch of Boeing. But the work there was primitive and he moved to the American Department. But there were specifics. Here at the meeting, there is a discussion of narrow issues, but then the discussion of important and General issues begins, an announcement is made – we ask the Russians and Chinese to leave the room.

  49. Agent76 says:

    Oct 2, 2020 China’s Reaction to Trump Vs Biden 2020 Presidential Debate

    China reacts to the Biden vs Trump 2020 Presidential Debate. US elections are always a chance for the Chinese Communist Party to criticize democracy.

    Jul 22, 2020 China helps world ditch US financial hegemony

    Red Lines host Anya Parampil speaks with Beijing-based journalist Ian Goodrum about a draft military and trade agreement that China and Iran are reportedly negotiating. They also discuss the latest China news, including the US decision to end Hong Kong’s special trading status.

  50. Abolish dual citizenship.

    • Agree: Katrinka
  51. Lin says:
    @God's Fool

    the water sources of the Subcontinent are dependent on the now occupied Tibet

    That’s a distortion. The Tibet upstreams only contribute about 5-10% of the downstreams runoff.
    The rest come from the downstream precipitation in the sub-continent. That’s why the monsoon season is so important to south asians
    Most parts of Tibet lack water, hence explains the historical low population there.
    Religion has a lot more than being ‘god fearing’ or ‘godless’

    • Agree: d dan
    • Thanks: Godfree Roberts
  52. Lin says:
    @an0n

    China has sinned as far as Tibet goes. Chinese citizens have admitted as much to me and understand on some level that they mistreated the people there

    Sin? If getting rid of the serfdom and theocracy is SIN, absolutely fine and overwhelmingly fine with the majority of Chinese; just like getting rid of polygamy(an integral part of old Chinese culture)is absolutely fine with the majority of Chinese.
    Fact is the Tibetan exiles are mostly upper castes and monks who lost their privilege after the CCP took over. Tibet is the most heavily financial subsidized region in china. The ex-serfs and their children might not be too educated but they’re certainly not dumb

    • Agree: d dan
    • Troll: an0n
    • Replies: @an0n
  53. @Godfree Roberts

    Read your comment with interest. This confused me:

    “Tibetans, one quarter of whom are women, make up half the local Party leadership”

    Does this imply Tibetan men are 75% of the population or should it be:

    Tibetans, make up half the local Party leadership, of whom, one quarter of the Leadership are women? Or similar?
    Party:
    ——-
    Tibetan Men: 25%
    Tibetan women: 25%
    Other 50%

    • Replies: @Aking
    , @Godfree Roberts
  54. @Anonymous

    Sick society. unz.com, Kirkpatrick, the publisher, and last in line Yglesias. Silence and annotating your list of dregs come judgement day, is the right approach for the reader.

  55. I was actually planning to buy and read the Yglesias book. But I changed my mind after thinking of the sheer ridiculousness of his proposition. Mainly, how expensive do you think it will be to go on Holiday to Hawaii or Cancun or how crowded Yellowstone will be if we had a population of 1 billion. Just consideration of this one quality of life issues tells me Yglesias is not playing with a full deck.

  56. d dan says:
    @an0n

    “In fact, they are explicitly discouraged from using their native languages (unless you are talking about the rural communities and older generation living in Tibet proper, not greater Tibet).”

    It is not true they are discouraging the use of their language anywhere. See the following videos taken by a Canadian.

    1. Visiting a Tibetan Middle School: note how some of the students were using Tibetan language to explain the science projects, learning Tibetan calligraphy. Notice the signs are in dual language everywhere.

    2. Visiting Tibetan Herdsmen in rural area:

    3. Into Tibet – A Search for Local Barley Spirits (note how many folks still speak their language)

    4. Interview with a Living Buddha (活佛) Spiritual Leader at Tashi Lhunpo Monastery. Understanding how Tibetan practice their religion.

    5. Traditional Tibetan Hospital Visit – Shigatse:

    and many others.

    “neglecting to mention the other communities in Qingdao, Gansu, the Sichuan basin, and other parts of Western China. “

    It is hard to have classes if the number of Tibetan students is small. Like what you say, this is likely the trend of modernization rather than due to EXPLICIT policy choice.

    “Tibet is China’s major sin. The best way to deal with it is to own up to it.”

    Could you be specific about what is China’s major sin? Please be specific about the ACTIONS that China did.

    In the other comment, you mention this again. Please tell us more how Chinese “mistreated” them:

    “That being said, China has sinned as far as Tibet goes. Chinese citizens have admitted as much to me and understand on some level that they mistreated the people there. So, there is remorse on the part of Han Chinese who are “in the know,” “

    • Thanks: showmethereal
    • Replies: @Supply and Demand
    , @an0n
    , @an0n
  57. @an0n

    My own impression of Roberts comes close (Godfree). The deepest (shalow indeed) layer is probably agenda driven with an effect to the contrary. Then maybe unz.com is not big enough to make this worthwhile.

    • Troll: Godfree Roberts
  58. anon[108] • Disclaimer says:

    The Yglesias book is plain stupidity and doesn’t need to be further discussed. No American of their right mind would want to live the life of an average Chinese or Indian. Every Chinese and Indian dreams of emigrating to the US, not the other way around.

    But this article is too focused on China, it’s as if I’m reading an article by Pompeo the Zionist stooge. Why must America always need an enemy? Can’t we just focus on doing our own thing and righting our own ship without it being because of some external enemy, real or imagined? Kirkpatrick sounds like a paranoid belligerent Jew, always gotta be hating on somebody.

    It’s time to heed George Washington’s advice, that America must seek good relations with all countries and not have any special relationship with any country, be it special amity or enmity, because both the excessive love and the excessive hate will end up enslaving us.

  59. Poco says:
    @Richard B

    They will attempt to use the Indians as their new proxies having gutted Western Nations. India is already a caste society. They’ll try to purchase or infiltrate the top caste.

  60. Aking says:
    @an0n

    Total nonsense. A video is worth more than 100 pages..

  61. Aking says:
    @Bill Jones

    Polyandry used to be widespread in Tibet before Chinese liberation (Please check for it yourself). That practice led to widespread female baby killing within Tibetan community before 1949. Of couse, such inconvenient truths were never reported in the West. Its Much more convenient to report on Chinese female baby killing under the one child policy.

    • Thanks: Bill Jones
  62. Aking says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    We will just have to wait, hopefully not too many years, to see the result of hundreds Of millions of people Slowly finding that the reality/ perception they have for China is A complete fabrication…

    • Agree: Godfree Roberts
  63. @God's Fool

    Tibet’s population, barely one million in 1952, reached three million in 2020, ninety-five percent of whom are Tibetan and ethnic minorities. Extreme poverty has disappeared along with endemic smallpox, cholera, venereal diseases, typhoid, scarlet fevers and tetanus. Though critics once charged China with demographic aggression, the fear of ‘invasion’ by millions of ethnic Han has receded. Locals saw that most Han immigrants are poor and, being ineligible for state subsidies, could not compete with them and so left within a few years. A US Government[1] report concluded, “Family planning policies permitted Tibetans, like members of other minority groups, to have more children than Han Chinese. Urban Tibetans, including Communist Party members, were generally permitted to have two children. Rural Tibetans were encouraged, but not required, to limit births to three, but even these guidelines were not strictly enforced”. Life expectancy, at sixty-eight years and rising, bests neighboring India, Nepal and Sikkim.


    [1] 44. U.S. Department of State, “Human Rights Practices in Tibet-2003,” http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/1934.html.

  64. @an0n

    Like many countries’ problems, Tibet’s problems are the result of American efforts to destabilize it.

    The Dalai Lama has been on the CIA payroll, at $220,000 pa for sixty-five years and US Ambassador Chas. H Freeman testified to our work with him and other expats: “The CIA programs in Tibet, which were very effective in destabilizing it, did not succeed in Xinjiang. There were similar efforts made with the Uyghurs during the Cold War that never really got off the ground. In both cases you had religion waved as a banner in support of a desire for independence or autonomy which is, of course, is anathema to any state. I do believe that people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones applies here. I am part American Indian and those people are not here (in the US) in the numbers they once were because of severe genocidal policies on the part of the European majority”.

    “I don’t see any reason why Tibet being part of China should be any more controversial than Wales being part of the United Kingdom. The periods when they were put into that position were about the same. I recall, as probably most people don’t, that the the Central Intelligence Agency, with assistance from some of China’s neighbors, put $30 million into the destabilization of Tibet and basically financed and trained the participants in the Khampa rebellion and ultimately sought to remove the Dalai Lama from Tibet–which they did. They escorted him out of Tibet to Dharamsala. ..

    8/31/18
    https://supchina.com/podcast/legendary-diplomat-chas-w-freeman-jr-on-u-s-china-strategy-and-history-part-3/

    • Replies: @an0n
    , @an0n
  65. @an0n

    Have the Chinese bombed Tibet? Placed food embargoes on them to starve them into submission? Publicly vilified them? Assassinated the leaders of their resistance?

    The Chinese Government is the first to admit its mistakes–it does so frequently and publicly–but if they have erred in Tibet, they have done so in attempting to improve the lot of average Tibetans.

    There have been many ‘human rights’ accusations in Western media and one of the most serious is that the Chinese Government practices coercive family planning by imposing strict birth limits and forcing women to undergo abortions and sterilization . But the expat Tibetan nobility, the former slave-owners, are making up stories the way former Cuban plantation-owners make up stories about their happy cane-cutters. Tibetans are the only minority in China permitted to have more than two children. This report, FERTILITY AND FAMILY PLANNING IN RURAL TIBET by Melvyn Goldstein, Cynthia Beall, Ben Jiao and Phuntsog Tsering, gives real population figures and explains what’s really going on.

    Next, read DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE IN RURAL TIBET, by the same authors: A multi-year study of the impact of China’s reform policies since the early 1980s on rural change in the Tibet Autonomous Region. The study included 780 households in 13 villages, using qualitative and quantitative methods. The illiteracy rate was 90% in 1951, when China signed the Seventeen Point Agreement and pledged to develop education there for the first time. Since then, 200 primary schools have been built and Tibetan children’s enrollment in public schools in Tibet reached 98.8% in 2010. Most classes are taught in the Tibetan language but mathematics, physics, and chemistry are taught in Chinese because there is no Tibetan vocabulary for those subjects. The government pays all tuition fees for ethnic Tibetans from primary school through college and provides full support for children who must attend boarding schools.

    The central government held the Second National Conference on Work in Tibet in 1984 and established Tibet University the same year and, by 2006, the country had six institutes of higher learning–up from none in 1951. When the National Higher Education Entrance Examination was established in 1980, ethnic Tibetans filled only 10% of the higher education quota despite making up 97% of the population so, in 1984, the Ministry of Education changed its policies and included affirmative action and Tibetan language accommodation. By 2008, the number of ethnic Tibetans sitting the National College Entrance Examination (NCEE, or gaokao) reached 14,248, with 10,211 accepted into university, making the enrollment proportion of ethnic Tibetans 60%. See this report for more: Education in Tibet.

    What are their opinions about the Chinese government?

    The answer is “mixed”. In 2000 professor Goldstein asked a sample of Tibetans from across the TAR “Do You Have a Better Life Now Than Your Parents Did?” One of the cohorts of that was aged 60-79, meaning they were born 1920-1940 and their parents lived almost entirely before Chinese policies kicked in. 90% of that cohort answered, “Yes”.

    What about independence? Goldstein didn’t question them on that thorny subject but, shortly after the 2008 riots, the Tibetan Government in Exile secretly conducted a survey and learned that only 29% (5,000 out of 17,000) of Tibetans living in Tibet want renzig, independence, while 47% (8,000) preferred to remain part of China with limited ‘true autonomy’. The remaining 4,000 either wanted the status quo or had no opinion. So the TGIE went with the Middle Way approach because, if only 29% wanted independence so soon after the after the ’08 riots, that figure was probably never going to rise, because Tibetans’ real incomes have risen 300% in the interim and, while some people (including Californians and Hawaiians) like the idea of independence, everybody likes a 300% wage rise.

    Sadly, the Chinese government had offered the Dalai Lama the Middle Way approach in the 1980s but, because he demanded that parts of Gansu, Sichuan, and other multi-ethnic provinces in China be included in his ‘Tibet’, the deal fell through.

    What would you find if you polled Native Hawaiians, Lakota Indians or Australian Aborigines on whether they want their territories to be independent states? Of course, our ‘democratic’ media are not interested in the opinions of Native Hawaiians, Lakota Indians or Australian Aborigines who are actually part of the issue. Only rich white people’s opinions matter.

    • Replies: @an0n
    , @an0n
  66. TKK says:

    President Trump and the first lady have paid the price for his gamble to play down the COVID-19. The news shows the severity of the US’ pandemic situation. It will impose a negative impact on the image of Trump and the US, and may also negatively affect his reelection.

    — Hu Xijin 胡锡进 (@HuXijin_GT) October 2, 2020

    To gloat over our President contracting a virus that spawned and multiplied in China due to their revolting dietary practices, or war mongering research,

    Then downplayed by the CCP-

    reaches such levels of deranged hubris and murderous glee that in normal times- would be grounds for a declaration of war.

    • Replies: @Biff
    , @Ron Unz
    , @Anon
    , @denk
  67. Aking says:
    @Felix Keverich

    Another popular evil Chinese myth busted….but millions more to go!

  68. @Dumbo

    As someone who is actually on the CCP payroll (as a public uni professor) I can say that Roberts is certainly doing a poor impression of a wumao. I have actual agitprop agents in my classes, and I can guarantee you they don’t get paid to do outreach on sites like this. They go where the youth are: TikTok, WhatsApp, and MMOGs.

    China has zero interest in converting boomers, wingnats, and pajeets.

  69. @Felix Keverich

    My wife’s family originally hails from Qiqihar, they were Bannermen Khalkas in the old days — de-nomadicized after the WW2, de-ruralized and brought into the Party apparatus under Deng. All along that Inner Mongolia/Manchuria line, you see a lot of former 1950s-constructed farming villages in the restful slumber before death — only populated by the elderly whose children have left for the coastal cities. I suspect that when/if their kids have the means to support them, they will follow them too.

  70. @d dan

    The Han he mentions live-rent free in his imagination, nowhere else. I know many Han, and I can say very few feel the Christian guilt that an0n is projecting onto them. One of the more pleasant aspects of my life here is that by good luck (I certainly have it) I avoided marrying into the ethnic majority and somehow managed to nab one of the 10 million Manchu. Their tungustic sensibilities are much less remote.

    • Replies: @an0n
  71. @Rich

    “Present immigration trends”?

    Western politics revolves 100% around hypothetical immigrants and immigration

    There’s no politics without “Present immigration trends”

    Hate sells

  72. When it comes to foreign policy, particular US relations with China, the Conservatives, as demonstrated by the author, are either as complicit or as naive as the Liberals. Nothing separates them not even the stupidity of the long history of their belligerence. For over two centuries the US along with UK, Japan, France Russia and others of the west subjugated China and neighbours to their political, economic, religious, military and diplomatic imperialism. And now the west asserts, albeit with utter falsity, the very same that it committed against China. I find it extraordinary that China, given the 2 to 3 centuries of humiliation that it has been subject to at the hands of the west, still hopes for peaceful relations despite the persistent barbarian obnoxiousness of the west consummated in the feeble mindedness of the author.

  73. Biff says:
    @TKK

    Their schadenfreude doesn’t nearly reach the levels of the BLM/Antifa liberal left.

  74. JRB says:

    Things are changing rapidly. In the last few years growth of world population has dramatically declined. Even in Africa we see the first signs that population growth is declining rapidly (see Nairobi, Kenia). If the current situation doesn’t change much, world population will reach a peak of 10-11 billion people around 2090. In the beginning of the 22th century there will be a shortage of people in most of the world. Cities will compete for people. So if the situation doesn’t change much, the discussion if USA need to grow to 1 billion people is largely academic. It will not happen.

    That said with current technology we can already feed around 30 billion people on the planet. In the coming decades it will also become possible to produce artificially enhanced humans without using mothers. If this techniques will be used to a wide extent the number of highly capable people will of course relatively rise.

    There is also a minority view among the elites, that in order to save the planet we need to reduce the population by 90% in the coming decades. If this ideology will taken over USA (not impossible) it’s not unreasonable to expect that world population will sharply decline and that end of century we will only have 800 million people left in the world.

    Conclusion: It’s uncertain what will happen in the future, but it’s highly unlikely that the population of the USA will be 1 billion people in 2120. It’s much more likely that a large part of the American Mid-West will be settled by Amish farmer communities with little else left.

  75. Ron Unz says:
    @TKK

    To gloat over our President contracting a virus that spawned and multiplied in China due to their revolting dietary practices, or war mongering research,

    Then downplayed by the CCP-

    reaches such levels of deranged hubris and murderous glee that in normal times- would be grounds for a declaration of war.

    Well, you seem like a rather ignorant person, who gets all his knowledge of the world from FoxNews and other TV shows…

    Considering that you’ve apparently left many hundreds of comments on my website, I’m surprised you haven’t bothered reading my numerous articles and columns over the last few months in which I explain the strong, perhaps even overwhelming evidence that the Covid-19 outbreak was an American biowarfare attack against China (and Iran).

    Here’s my most recent column that included a brief outline of the most plausible scenario:

    https://www.unz.com/announcement/31000-words-missing-from-the-atlantic-and-the-new-york-times-sunday-magazine/

    And here’s my long April article which laid out the original case:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-our-coronavirus-catastrophe-as-biowarfare-blowback/

  76. @an0n

    “An ad hominem is more than just an insult. It’s an insult used as if it were an argument or evidence in support of a conclusion. Verbally attacking people proves nothing about the truth or falsity of their claims. This can take the form of saying “Claim X is false because the person making it is an idiot.” But it can also take the form of “Claim X is false because the person making it is a propagandist,” or “Claim X is false because the person making it is a conspiracy theorist.”

    Why not refute my claims with contrary evidence? Generally, people use ad hominem attacks like yours for one of four reasons:
    1. You believe that an argument is a simple competition in which winning or dominating is the goal.
    2. You believe that the absolutely correct position is already known to you but do not wish to reveal it.
    3. You believe that argument is entirely about social positioning: that the only meaningful outcome concerns which person looks best in the eyes of third parties.
    4. You mistakenly assess your cognitive ability as greater than it is and, by inference, greater than the person you are attacking (the Dunning–Kruger effect).

    Which fits you best?

    • Replies: @an0n
    , @an0n
  77. @Bill Jones

    Thanks for picking that up. Tibetans make up half the Party leadership and that proportion rises every year. A quarter of Tibet’s Party leaders are women.

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
  78. denk says:
    @The Spirit of Enoch Powell

    PCR

    Those who still believe in the official story coming outta cesspool are either insane or morons

    YOu dont sound insane or stupid, there’s a third possibility, your are white trash supremacists.

    YOur ilks would normally sniff at
    MSM presstitudes B.S., yet
    when it comes to official story on China, you have no qualm swallowing it hook line and sinker.
    See, YOu wanna believe anything bad about China.
    Thats the sign of a WTS.

    Rurik once chided me that those who oppose immigrants are white nationalists, not WTS.

    Agreed
    For example, CommenterMike leave no doubt on his disdain towards immigrants WMM, but that doesnt turn him into a sinophobe, he has been very rational in discussions on fukus, sino relation.

    In stark contrast,
    I’ve lost count of so-called ‘WN’ who outed themselves as closet WTS, when they show their color in various China threads, parroting every anti Chinese
    agitprop coming their way.

  79. Mark Hunter says: • Website

    … if [a] post-Western “civilization state” confronted China … It would be bound by a consumerist anti-culture featuring overweight bugmen watching superhero movies and …

    bugmen : Nietzschean word to describe the opposite of the ubermenschen. Men who have no spiritual passion or greater vision or drive outside of hedonistic pleasures and consumerism.

    From the online Urban Dictionary.

  80. an0n says:
    @Supply and Demand

    I know many Han, and I can say very few feel the Christian guilt that an0n is projecting onto them.

    It is not I who am projecting “Christian guilt” onto Han, it is you who are projecting the Western stereotype of the Chinese as some kind of cold, selfish, heartless group of people who are incapable of altruism.

    Why don’t you look up this phrase: 我心里觉得很愧疚 (hopefully it will apply to you).

    The Chinese language is millions of times more complicated and richer than you seem to think and is more than capable of expressing the idea of guilt, contrary to your seemingly simplistic stereotype of “guilt” being a Christian or Western thing. Let me guess: you also think China is a face-saving culture but not Westerners? You probably also think Chinese are collective, and Westerners individualist. What other cliched stereotypes about Chinese people do you care to share with us?

    Here is another one for you, which you should read after reading this post:
    我承认我错了

    • Replies: @Supply and Demand
  81. an0n says:
    @d dan

    It is not true they are discouraging the use of their language anywhere. See the following videos taken by a Canadian.

    Yes, per my post, I never said the the language is being repressed in “Tibet proper,” which is where your examples are coming from. I happen to know a Tibetan lady engaged in language revival programs too. However, my friend told me that Tibetan was not provided as a language option for smartphones in China, but then Steven Jobs had it included in spite of that as a little gift. You should look into that. A lot has changed in China, including Tibet, over the past 70 years. China has been
    nicer towards Tibet in recent times, but that’s not representative of the entire history over the past 70 years. Part of the reason China is acting nicer towards Tibet is all of the scrutiny from Western media and pressure form human rights groups over the past several decades. So, the activism hasn’t been for nothing. In any case, I’m just gonna end it here, because this is still a pretty sensitive issue. Honestly, generally speaking,for most foreigners, Tibet is not any of foreigners’ business – it’s China issue.

    • Replies: @d dan
  82. an0n says:
    @d dan

    By the way, there is a bug in Unz’s backend programming. I’m using the “an0n” handle, which means my comment history has inadvertently included a comment by another poster going by the same handle:

    February 1, 2020 at 3:19 am GMT • 300 Words

    That article is about Charles Lieber working for the Chinese. I had nothing to do with that post. I am not in favor of that kind of China bashing or in suggesting that China created COVID-19 as a bioweapon or something. Ron Unz should fix that bug, but I guess it’s part and parcel of being “an0n”

  83. @God's Fool

    …Israel, who is always advocating on China’s behalf thus not to be trusted at all by us, the real Americans, when it boils down to our survival and well-being?

    You are not “the real Americans”! Ever heard of the “Indians”?

    • Replies: @Hiya Doody
  84. an0n says:
    @Pop Warner

    Only rich white people’s opinions matter.

    Godfree Roberts likes to talk about “rich white people.” I’m wondering why he won’t elaborate on what he means by “rich white people”. Is he a (((fellow white person))) , trying to get Chinese and Westerners to fight it out while drawing attention away from his tribesman?

    Was (((David Sassoon))), the opium trader, a “rich white person”? Since Godfree cares so much about the Chinese, would he care to elaborate on the ethnic affiliation and tribal loyalties of Mr. Sassoon and the other (((opium traders))) in the Far East?

    https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/1864-tycoon-david-sassoon-dies-1.5196948

    But accofding to Haaretz, Mr. Sassoon was a great humanitarian remembered for his “philanthropy.”

    So, you see Godfree, these so-called (((Westerners))) are really just great humanitarians trying to help China with their “philanthropy,” right?

  85. an0n says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    Only rich white people’s opinions matter.

    Are you one of these “rich white people”? You are right, I take back everything I said about the Chinese government. They haven’t really mistreated anyone. I’m getting them mixed up with another group of people that has mistreated the Chinese people, like (((David Sassoon))), the founder of the opium trade in China:

    https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/1864-tycoon-david-sassoon-dies-1.5196948
    http://islam-radio.net/islam/english/jewishp/china/jews-hongkong-sassoon.htm

    Is this who you meant by the (((rich white people)))? Is this who you mean when you say (((America))) has destabilized many countries (mostly in the Middle East on behalf of (((another country)))).Please clarify.

  86. @Ann Nonny Mouse

    That’s easy. The Prime Directive, the Whole Point of being a Member of Congress is to pledge allegiance to “israel”, and Real Americans don’t. You might think a few of those Members would pledge allegiance to a real country, a better country than the illegitimate entity slouching toward Bethlehem. But No! Nobody wants to help China, Cuba, Chad, or Canada. It’s “israel” or you’re out.

  87. an0n says:
    @God's Fool

    Now the real question is Godfree Roberts, are you one of those direct descendants of Israel, who is always advocating on China’s behalf thus not to be trusted at all by us, the real Americans, when it boils down to our survival and well-being?

    You are another troll on this website.

    There is nothing wrong with “advocating on China’s behalf” and Israel is not the one “advocating” on China’s behalf. Nor does China need Israel to “advocate” on its behalf. You are now trying to equate anti-Israel with anti-China, and pro-China with pro-Israel. Did Jews “advocate on China’s behalf” when they sold opium to the Chinese? Did Bolshevik Jews advocate on China’s behalf when Bolshevik Soviet agents tried to infiltrate Sun Yat-sen’s party and subvert it so that China couldn’t develop in a nationalistic direction? Did Jews advocate on China’s behalf when they funded the Communist Party in order to destroy Chinese culture and destroy traditionalist and ethnonationalist Japan, which the Jewish Comintern declared a Fascist state in 1935? Now, it’s under Jewish hegemony that America is starting to have another Cold War with China.

    China today is a free and independent sovereign nation. Their overall policy is one of ethno-nationalism and racial solidarity, not old-school Maoist style Communism, which was promoted in China by Bolshevik Jews.

    It’s obvious the game you are playing here.

    Honestly, this whole website has too many trolls. Too many people playing little games like you. The anon functionality is great, but it obviously has its drawbacks.

  88. an0n says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    Nope, I already addressed your arguments. I actually agree with much of what you said about the Chinese government improving the lot of Tibetans. Where there was disagreement, I made it clear.

    The post that you are accusing of being an “ad hominem” was not directed towards you and had nothing to do with my exchange with you. My exchange with you was a separate thread. The fact that you are intervening in a conversation where you are being discussed in the third-person is very telling because it shows that you are troubled by the questions being raised about your motives.

    It is perfectly legitimate to question your motives, your background, and your background affiliation. In fact, you used an ad hominem in your post when you encouraged people not to trust “disaffected expats,” referring to the Tibetan diaspora. In fact, you use the “ad hominem” quite frequently.

    An “ad hominem” is in fact a VALID form of argument when someone’s background and motives are relevant to the overall discussion, which is why Nietzsche used it all the time in attacking Wagner, Socrates, Kant, etc. If a scientist is being paid by a tobacco company to tell me that smoking doesn’t cause cancer, it is perfectly acceptable for me to draw attention to the fact that they are getting funded by the tobacco company.

    In this situation, I, along with another commenter on this site, started raising questions about your motives, totally independent of any discussion we had with you. You responded because:
    (1) You are scared and worried that we are hitting close to home
    (2) You are scared and ill-at-ease because we are hitting close to home.

    So which one is it? I leave you with a false choice a la Godfree Roberts. By the way, how come there is literally no information about you on your website? No profile picture, no information whatsoever. There is no information about your background here on Unz either. What are you afraid of? Why the lack of transparency? Other authors on this website are well-known, but for some reason, you are not, which means you are hiding something.

    • Troll: Godfree Roberts
  89. an0n says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    Speaking of “ad hominem” attacks, does this sound familiar Godfree:

    BTW, Jung Chang comes from the higher levels of China’s failed social stratum: she is the grand-daughter of a warlord. Like most members of fallen elites anywhere in the world, she has an extremely bitter view of those who replaced her kind. Entirely blind to the fact that they failed when they had a chance to remould China.

    What’s odd is that the West takes characters like Jung Chang so seriously. The establishment seem to think that people with a legacy of decades of failure and weakness will now deliver them a repentant China ready to be remoulded to Western values. This is about as likely as an egg being laid in Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake.

    Chang naturally assumes that students of peasant background are ‘semi-literate’ and had ‘little aptitude’, while she was clever and deserved the best, including a generous Chinese government scholarship to study in Britain. Chang claims that she was the victim of a brutal regime but, In fact, as well as being a Red Guard, Jung Chang was the privileged daughter of China’s Communist elite. It is a peculiarity of the reception of Wild Swans that it was told and read as a story of great personal suffering, when its author grew up with a wet-nurse, nanny, maid, gardener and chauffeur provided by the party, protected in a walled compound, educated in a special school for officials’ children.

    As a Grade 10 official, her father was among the 20,000 most senior people in a country of 1.25 billion, and it was in this period that children of ‘high officials’ became almost a class of their own. Still, the enthusiastic Western audience of Wild Swans found something to identify in Jung Chang’s perennial fear of being reduced to the level of the rest of the population, shuddering with her at the prospect that ‘Mao intended me to live the rest of my life as a peasant’ (Heartfield 2005). It was during the supposedly most difficult times of her family that Chang managed to leave the countryside a few weeks after she was sent down, become a barefoot doctor, an electrician and then a university student, and finally receive a generous scholarship to study in the UK, the kind of career moves that were dreams for millions of young Chinese, all accomplished during the Cultural Revolution years before her father was officially rehabilitated.

    Do you know this is called? An “ad hominem” attack, much like how you referred to the Tibetan diaspora as “disaffected expats” whose opinion was not worth listening to.

    In any case, I’m glad you felt it necessary to respond to me when I wasn’t even directing a reply towards you. If you want to get into issues of formal logic, what would you call this? How about the “intruding upon a conversation” fallacy? or “interrupting another conversation despite not having been invited” fallacy?

    As far as your list of options go, I’m going to go with option (5), which is that I suspect you are not arguing in good faith because you have an ulterior agenda, possibly because you are Jewish, and wish to foment unnecessary strife.

    I checked your website. Again, no profile pic, no information about you whatsoever.

    So, to use your own words, what’s the beef?

  90. @TKK

    Shocking, isn’t it, when China and even Taiwan carry news stories from the USA about “Black Lives Matter”.
    Now why would JAPAN want to “promote” BLACK LIVES MATTER??? Can you guess?

    https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/06/12/world/black-lives-matter-protests-next/

  91. @Godfree Roberts

    My underlying thought- better expressed and corrected by Aking

    Polyandry used to be widespread in Tibet before Chinese liberation (Please check for it yourself). That practice led to widespread female baby killing within Tibetan community before 1949. Of couse, such inconvenient truths were never reported in the West. Its Much more convenient to report on Chinese female baby killing under the one child policy.

    was that this was a reflection of one-child policy sex preference. 75/25 seemed a bit extreme, even to my jaundiced (no reference to The Yellow Peril intended) eye.

  92. @God's Fool

    The Indus near Kargil is one scary river. Smooth, like green glass, silent and faster than any waterfall.

  93. denk says:
    @TKK

    Now why would the CCP want to promote BLACK LIVES MATTER??? Can you guess?

    Wow, the chicoms dare to comment on our INTERNAL AFFAIR, what cheek !

    https://www.unz.com/freed/china-and-the-washington-oscars/?showcomments#comment-4195960

  94. an0n says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    Like many countries’ problems, Tibet’s problems are the result of American efforts to destabilize it.

    No, it’s more complicated than that. The problems with Tibet began with Mao in the 1950s. Tibet actually was getting along fine with China for most of its history before that.

    You are conflating the Maoist period with the Reform and Opening Up Period,as you are wont to do. The CIA was not trying to “destabilize Tibet” (a quote you are obviously trying to exploit for your own purposes) – they were trying to destabilize the rule of the CCP during that time, just as the Americans were trying to combat Communism pretty much everywhere else in the world – Latin America, Africa, etc. We know that the US CIA did some terrible things in the name of fighting Communism (the war in Vietnam, bombing of Cambodia, overthrow of Salvador Allende, etc,etc, being a case in point). This is not some shocking discovery. This is pretty well-known.

    But Godfree is trying to act like CIA activities aimed at subverting Communist China (and the Soviet Union by extension, prior to the Sino-Soviet split) in the 50s and 60s somehow has continued into the present day and that Tibetan grievances are manufactured ex nihilo by CIA eggheads (as opposed to simply being a pre-existing cause that the CIA was simply supporting). Opposing Communism has not always been necessarily wrong. By the logic of Godfree Roberts, the Bolsheviks must have been really great because they helped overthrow the feudal Czarist state in much the same way as Mao wanted to overthrow the feudal Tibetan government. Opposing Communism is not wrong per se, and it doesn’t equate to opposing China, especially at that time.

    Godfree Roberts is fixated on the words “destabilize Tibet” from Freeman, when Freeman actually means to say, in context, destabilize the CCP. There’s more than enough material written about this, but Godfree Roberts is cherry-picking quotes to make his argument.

    Yes, the CIA supported the Dali Lama and Tibet in the 1950s and 1960s. The US has declassified that information because the Soviet Union gone and relations with China have improved. The fact that the information was declassified actually is counter to your point, which seems to be that the same things are still going on.

    Some info about Tibet for Unz readers:

    Tibet’s government was unique. Tenzin Gyatso, the Fourteenth Dalai
    Lama, was both the head of state and the highest religious authority. As monarch and spiritual leader, he was guardian of an ancient civilization, making him unique among world leaders. This system of government was established in 1642 by Ngawang Lozang Gyatso, the Fifth Dalai Lama. It had endured more than 300 years when China invaded in 1950.

    From 1642 onward, Tibet governed herself. It had its own army, language, currency, and postage stamps. Tibet issued passports to its citizens,although this was rare because few Tibetans traveled abroad. The country’s history, ethnicity, culture, and political structure were distinct from
    China’s and the rest of its neighbors. In fact, there was no other civilization like it, with its thousands of Buddhist monasteries that functioned as centers of finance, education, social welfare, and spiritual study, anywhere else in the world.

    Other nations also saw Tibet as independent. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when the mandate of the British Empire stretched across India to the borders of Afghanistan, British officials sought to align Tibet with their imperial interests. In 1904, British and
    Sepoy troops (Indians trained to serve in the colonial army) invaded Tibet under the command of Colonel Francis Younghusband. After concluding a treaty establishing bilateral relations and commercial trade between Tibet and the British Empire, Younghusband and his army withdrew.

    The treaty Tibet signed with the British Empire had two important implications. First, and foremost, it confirmed Tibet’s independence from any other nation. Had the British believed that Tibet was, in fact, governed by the Manchu sovereigns (the foreign conquerors who also ruled China), it would have been a simple matter for British diplomats to negotiate directly with Beijing. The second consequence was that by signing a treaty with the British, the Tibetan government had allied itself with foreign imperialists.

    Tibet’s territory extended over two-and-a-half-million square kilometers and was divided into three provinces. Amdo was in the northeast and closest to China. Kham province lay south of Amdo and was home to the Khampas, nomadic herders renowned for their horsemanship and physical prowess. In the western province of U-Tsang, the capital city of Lhasa 6 freeing tibet was located. Ringed with mountain ranges like the Himalayas, Karakorum, and Kunlun, its central feature is the Tibetan Plateau, situated at 14,000 feet. Tibet and China coexisted in a fragile symbiosis. The main route into
    China ran through the province of Kham. And it was common for Tibetans and Chinese merchants to import and export their goods. Tibet’s chief import from China was tea, but silk, horses, cotton, and
    goods like matches and buttons were imported as well. The Tibetans either paid in gold or bartered wool, deer horns, medicinal herbs, furs, and sheepskins.

    At various times throughout history, both China and Tibet were under the dominion of foreign rulers. From 1644 until 1911, China was ruled by the Manchu Qing emperors. During the eighteenth century,
    when the Manchu Empire was still vibrant, its reign briefly extended to Tibet. By the middle of the nineteenth century, Manchu influence waned and, in 1911, there were coordinated uprisings in Hankow and Wuchang in China. When the Manchu sent General Yuan Shih-Kai to quash the Chinese revolt he, instead, switched sides and joined the rebels. A new provisional government was established in Nanking in December 1911 and, by February 1912, the Manchu renounced all right to govern China and recognized the Republic as the lawful successor regime.

    It was Mao Zedong, a Marxist revolutionary, who would eventually claim Tibet as a part of China.

    — Freeing Tibet, by Roberts and Roberts

    I thought I it would be appropriate to quote Roberts to refute Roberts.

    What I don’t get, though, is why Godfree is quoting Freeman, when Freeman in the very same quote appeals to his own Native American heritage to express sympathy with the Tibetans, whom he obviously regards as being subjected to “genocidal policies” if we are to understand correctly his analogy with the native American experience:

    “In both cases you had religion waved as a banner in support of a desire for independence or autonomy which is, of course, is anathema to any state. I do believe that people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones applies here. I am part American Indian and those people are not here (in the US) in the numbers they once were because of severe genocidal policies on the part of the European majority”.

    By quoting Freeman, Godfree is actually doing more harm to his case than good.

    That said, China has broken from its Maoist past. I don’t understand why Godfree Roberts is so adamant in defending the Maoist period of Chinese history when most Chinese people themselves have moved beyond it. Chinese are racially-conscious, ethnonationalists – they are not die-hard Communists who want to spread world revolution and institute the dictatorship of the proletariat. By defending the early phase of Chinese Communism, Godfree Roberts helps to fuel the anti-China narratives that insist on viewing China as a “Communist” state. China is not Communist state in this sense.

    The Chinese people just want to be independent, sovereign, and free from US influence. They don’t care about leading the proletarian revolution across the world.

  95. Anon[544] • Disclaimer says:
    @TKK

    Hu is a newspaper editor. He can have a personal opinion, no? He later deleted the tweet. The tweet is pretty mild in comparison to the Washington Post’s tweet.

    FWIW, the Chinese official statement

    Though China’s government is largely closed for the holiday, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a short statement noting “relevant reports” and wishing “Mr. and Mrs. Trump a speedy recovery.”

    Early Friday morning, after news broke that President Donald Trump tested positive for the coronavirus, the Washington Post deleted a tweet inviting readers to “imagine what it will be like never to think about Trump again.”

  96. an0n says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    It’s funny how you regard support for the Dali Lama and the Khampa rebels as tantamount to “destabilizing Tibet,” but the Maoist invasion and overthrow of the feudal order is not a “destabilization” but a liberation. It shows where your politics are, I guess. Ironically, Godfree Roberts doesn’t mention that the Dali Lama opposed much of the violence that the CIA wanted to use. This issue is so complicated, though, that this discussion can go on forever and forever.

    Here is more with regard to the CIA funding issue:

    The year 1998 was also when the CIA declassified new information relating to its Tibetan operations. The fact that the United States had given $1.7 million a year to the Tibetan government-in-exile and resistance before Kissinger cut the funding was disclosed for the first time. Adam Yauch and Erin Potts’ concert series raised $2.5 million –Roberts and Roberts

    Kissinger cut off the funding. It’s because the US and China established a working relationship again that the information about the US funding could be declassified. This is another fact ignored by Godfree.

    One of the first songs I learned in Chinese was by 韩红, who is a well-known Tibetan singer in China. Americans might be surprised to learn just how much Tibetans actively partake in Chinese culture and are respected by the Chinese people. I would say that the heyday of much of the conflict between China and Tibet is long past, and Tibetans have mostly embraced their identity as Chinese citizens. It’s not like they are in constant strife and tension as Falun Gong and “China Uncensored” would want you to believe.

  97. @an0n

    I think none of your particular projections apply to me in regard to my appreciation of the Chinese people. I live, work, and speak the language at an intermediate level (HSK8), and as I’ve mentioned before, married the daughter of one of the nomenklatura in the 中央巡视工作领导小组. My university post puts me in touch with a remarkable ethnic mix in Dalian, though.

    In my experience with the Han, they are guilty when caught, and happy to make out like bandits when not. The Cantonese in particular have no scruples about this, while the folks from Shandong and Dongbei tend to be more honest. I don’t think the Han are collectivist at all, either — but to an American who lives a totally atomized existence, they would appear to be.

    Finally, I think you would agree that Han philosophy, society, and culture does not stigmatize success in the way that Christianity does.The Han man is not told to be guilty for their career, the Han woman is not told to feel guilty for marrying well. Every SelF-serving action a Westerner, especially a Catholic and less so a Protestant, is in defiance of our Perfect God who walked among us and gave us explicit instructions to abhor such things. Whites in particular also carry the scorpion Jew on our back and have the negro nipping at our heel. When our civilization collapses, I hope the Chinese take note. My students seem to, at least!

    • Agree: Godfree Roberts
    • Replies: @an0n
  98. an0n says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    Assassinated the leaders of their resistance?

    This is definitely a resounding YES.

  99. obvious says:
    @Chris Moore

    You really like getting everything backwards don’t you? Classical liberals ARE Zionists, just like the American founding nation of Puritans, Quakers and other Commonwealth Republicans.

    Another Irish Canaanite tries to claim the Hebrew birthright, as usual.

  100. obvious says:

    All of this is so utterly STUPID and WRONG. There IS NO HISTORIC AMERICAN NATION, and if there was it is all Blue State Democrats at this point. When did this “history” start? 200 years ago??

    Lower moron obsolete blue collar workers with immensely fat unmarried daughters and their ragingly naggish wives are not a “historic nation”. REAL Americans do not have a “European Fatherland”, which is a very strange sounding phrase to describe a maritime Atlantic people.

    The only “real” American nations are Yankees and Rebels, with some credit to people in the West. It’s not that many people and never was, nor did it “build” anything like “this country”. Most of the work was done by slaves and serfs in the South, and imported white immigrants in the urban cities.

    All of this stentorian vocabulary grab bag is geriatric dribble from stammering foolish lips. More nonsense from the Baby Boomers…. notice that nobody seemed to notice an Historic Nation at any time during the actual history.

  101. an0n says:
    @Supply and Demand

    HSK8? That’s the scoring system for the old test. When did you take it, like 20 years ago? (I passed TOCFL Band C and HSK6 – TOCFL, the one in Taiwan, is a better indicator of Chinese ability if you ask me) You must have been in China a LONG LONG time. No worries! It sounds like you are happy, so good for you. I understand the temptation to live among Chinese people – they are definitely a charming, friendly, hospitable people. If you stay there too long, though, you will lose your ambition. Be careful.

    Whites in particular also carry the scorpion Jew on our back and have the negro nipping at our heel.

    I’m not totally on board with this. I know what you mean. However, at the end of the day, I still believe in Christ. All individuals are in need of redemption. Talking politics is quite wordly, though, and definitely leads people away from God. Going on Unz is actually not good for the soul – it’s quite divisive really.

  102. denk says:
    @TKK

    Name one country that HAS NOT been spied on by the CCP. From Cambodia to the African continent to Sri Lanka to South America proper, the CCP has been caught surveilling, hacking and stealing

    Idiot
    Is that what your beloved google spew out when you type in ‘China’ ?

    This is what your beloved google filter out ,

    Name one country that HAS NOT been messed up by the CIA.
    From Cambodia to the African continent to Sri Lanka to South America proper, the gringos haVE been caught snooping, hacking , terrorising , assassinating and regime changing,.

    Fixed

    PS
    Google is doing it for your benefit.
    fOR People who’r raised on a diet of B.S., the truth wouldnt set you free, its bombshell shock wave might turns out fatal .

  103. an0n says:
    @God's Fool

    As far as Tibet goes, who do you want to believe…

    (a) this handsome, dashing, SS officer who believes in preserving faith, family, tradition, and ethnic tradition and in fighting for traditional Asian/Confucian values and traditional Asian religion….

    or…

    (b) this Communist Bolshevik Jew (first from the left in the picture below) who believes in destroying everything related to faith, family, tradition, and culture (including Han Chinese and Confucian culture)

    As far as Tibet goes, take your pick. The choice is that simple. The Aryan guy is pretty cool if you ask me. The Israel Epstein guy … not so much. He literally has the word “Israel” in his name. How much more do you need to know?

  104. an0n says:
    @Lin

    Fact is the Tibetan exiles are mostly upper castes and monks who lost their privilege after the CCP took over.

    They are the ones who condemn the use of violence.

    The ex-serfs and their children might not be too educated but they’re certainly not dumb

    Yes, they are not “dumb” enough to believe the “getting rid of serfdom and democracy” argument. And they are the ones who have resorted to violence, not the upper caste and monks.

    BTW, these are Buddhists we are talking about. When you say “theocracy,” you give the impression that this is Saudi Arabia or Wahhabism or something. No, they are Tibetan Buddhists who believe in non-violence, renouncing your wealth, giving alms to the poor,etc. You should go to Southeast Asia and see how monks walk around the streets begging for food. Granted that’s Theravada Buddhism, but oh my, what an oppressive religion!!

    In the age of “Crazy Rich Asians” (to borrow Kevin Kwan’s term) like Jack Ma, Ding Lei, and Zhong Shanshan, are you still going to seriously bring up classical Marxist arguments? I mean… even if you wanted to end the “theocracy and serfdom,” there’s a right way and a wrong way to do it. There’s the Sun Yatsen way and the Leninist/Maoist way. Does it make sense that an “upper caste” of Buddhists that renounces violence should be displaced by a Communist whose famous quote is that “power comes from the barrel of a gun”?

    • Replies: @d dan
  105. d dan says:
    @an0n

    “Yes, per my post, I never said the the language is being repressed in “Tibet proper,” which is where your examples are coming from. “

    I know what you said, but I was objecting to your use of the word “discourage” learning Tibetan. It does not make sense for the Chinese government to encourage (or at least allow) learning of the language within Tibet (where there is bigger concentration and number, and hence greater possibility of causing troubles), but “discourage” them outside. My conjecture partly agrees with yours that the lesser uses is due to modernization and need to integration with Han, but also economic scale (e.g. hard to have a Tibetan class if there are only 5 students in the school). It is *NOT* due to any active nor intentional policy to suppress the language.

    “Tibetan was not provided as a language option for smartphones in China, but then Steven Jobs had it included in spite of that as a little gift. “

    I am not aware of this – thanks. But given the many incidents of high tech infiltrations by and mistrust with American companies (e.g. Facebook, Google, etc), you can’t blame China for being cautious. The story might be more complicated.

    “Part of the reason China is acting nicer towards Tibet is all of the scrutiny from Western media and pressure form human rights groups over the past several decades. So, the activism hasn’t been for nothing.”

    Actually I believe the reverse. Outside influences and pressures typically make China tighten up the control. It is precisely because Chinese government is confident that they are beating back outside forces to causes troubles, especially the separatist and anti-CCP forces, that allow them to relax the control.

    I suggest you change your handle (which is easy) to something more distinct and less confusing.

    • Replies: @an0n
  106. an0n says:
    @d dan

    Another issue regarding the language is that the Tibetan language most likely is closely intertwined with Tibetan Buddhism and sacred religious texts (and many of the most qualified teachers and scholars – the upper caste monks, as others have noted – are in exile). I doubt the Chinese government is going to allow for those texts to be recited, memorized, and studied, which is what also makes me skeptical that the Chinese government would be interested in revitalizing the language. If they were going to revitalize it, it would have to be under close supervision by Party cadres and subject to CCP approval. I’m not an expert on this, so I will have to look into it. I have my doubts that the Tibetan language could be revitalized or promoted in any meaningful way without just letting people just practice the religion in total freedom. A meaningful study would compare Tibetan language revitalization in the diaspora communities in India with those under CCP authority in the PRC. I am not an expert on this and haven’t asked about it, but I’m guessing the diaspora communities in India speak the language better than those in the PRC.

    • Disagree: d dan
  107. d dan says:
    @an0n

    “They are the ones who condemn the use of violence.”

    You don’t know how violent and cruel those upper castes and monks were before 1950?

    “No, they are Tibetan Buddhists who believe in non-violence, renouncing your wealth, giving alms to the poor,etc. “

    I suggest you read more about their behaviors prior to the 1950s before falling into their nice words today. There are museums and preservations in Tibet today of their luxurious mansions (right, “renouncing your wealth” – give me a break), torture chambers and classical text of how they treated the lower castes, etc. Foreign visitors (from British, Soviet/Russia, Belgium, Germany, etc) during those period (i.e. before 1950s) had corroborated with what Chinese government describes about them. This is historical truth, not propaganda by the communists. A lot of their advocacy of non-violence, helping of the poor, etc were results of losing power and pressure and reforms initiated by the Chinese government.

    “Does it make sense that an “upper caste” of Buddhists that renounces violence should be displaced by a Communist whose famous quote is that “power comes from the barrel of a gun”?”

    You are putting the cart before the horse.

    • Replies: @an0n
    , @an0n
  108. an0n says:
    @d dan

    I can tell from your writing style and syntax that you are probably Chinese. That’s okay. I respect your point of view, and I’ll take your suggestions to heart. “Godfree Roberts,” however, is another matter. I cannot give credence to what he writes or take him seriously.

  109. @an0n

    You’ll find my bio repeatedly in comments here on Unz.com, though I’ve never seen another author asked to provide one. I wonder why.

    I’ve noted your assertions about Tibet and will, in the near future, do them the justice they deserve by publishing a brief, thoroughly footnoted history of Tibet in these pages.

    • Replies: @an0n
    , @an0n
  110. an0n says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    Okay, I look forward to reading it. In any case, just to supplement the Freeman quote you gave, it might be better to quote Eisenhower’s top secret document NSC 5412/2, which states the following:

    Create and exploit troublesome problems for International Communism . . . complicate control within the USSR, Communist China, and their satellites . . . discredit the prestige and ideology
    of International Communism . . . and to the extent practicable in areas dominated or threatened by International Communism, develop underground resistance and facilitate covert and guerilla operations and ensure availability of those forces in the event of war, including wherever practicable provision of a base upon which the military may expand those forces in time of war..

    The CCP is being lumped in with “International Communism,” and the CIA Tibet operations are part and parcel of the larger endeavor to fight against international Communism. That’s why I take issue with the Freeman quote and the fixation on the words “destabilize Tibet,” when the larger goal was subverting global Communism.

    Also, you might want to read about Dorjee Yudon, the wife of Gyari Nima, who led a Khampa uprising (not funded by the CIA or the Americans) that forced the PLA into the Fortress of the Female Dragon. From the invasion by PLA forces at Chamdo up until Dorjee’s resistance, which itself was motivated by the PLA slaughter of the family of another tribal Khampa leader’s family, the PLA and Tibetans were on good terms.

    From Roberts and Roberts:

    Before Dorjee’s revolt, the PLA and the Tibetans had gotten along fairly well. There had been no major conflicts since the 1950 invasion. The initial fighting had stopped short of the capital city of Lhasa, and the Tibetans had been largely left to govern themselves. Most Tibetans were mystified by Mao’s decision to invade. His excuse was to rid the country of foreign imperialists, but there were no imperialists in Tibet. There were less than a dozen outsiders in the whole land, including Austrian Warriors of the Fortress of Faith 5 mountaineer Heinrich Harrer and two British citizens, Robert Ford and
    Reginald Fox, employees of the Tibetan government who ran radio communications. To the Tibetans, the Chinese were the foreigners.

    They later go on to clarify that it was most likely for resources:

    Consolidating control over the territories on China’s fringes was the
    first step in the next Long March. To build the modern revolutionary
    power Mao envisioned, China needed resources. The Tibetan Plateau,
    larger than a quarter of China’s land mass and rich in minerals, was necessary to his success. Broadcasts on Radio Beijing announced that “the
    People’s Liberation Army must liberate all Chinese territories, including
    Tibet, Xinjiang, Hainan, and Taiwan.”
    In Tibet, the broadcasts were heard with alarm. The Tibetan Foreign
    Office promptly sent a blunt response to Chairman Mao. The Foreign
    Office communiqué stated: “Tibet had from the earliest times up to now
    been an independent country whose political administration has never
    been taken over by any foreign country and Tibet also defended her own
    territories from foreign invasion.”
    The message, devoid of diplomatic finesse, was an act of bravado.
    Tibet’s army numbered a mere 8,500 troops. It had outmoded artillery,
    lacked modern rifles and machine guns, and had no radio communications to link its soldiers. There were no mechanized infantry, no armored
    units, and no air force. Mobile units consisted of cavalry and swordsmen.
    The Tibetans were no match for the battle-hardened veterans of the PLA,
    and Mao knew it. The United States and other governments denounced
    Mao’s invasion of Tibet, but no one took immediate action against the
    PLA.

    In any case, I look forward to future articles you publish on the subject.

  111. @an0n

    It’s funny how you regard support for the Dali Lama and the Khampa rebels as tantamount to “destabilizing Tibet,” but the Maoist invasion and overthrow of the feudal order is not a “destabilization” but a liberation. It shows where your politics are, I guess.

    I kind of agree with you actually. I always wonder WHY “Maoist invasion and overthrow of the feudal order” in Tibet is looked upon by the white West as an invasion/annexation, while the occupation of North America, Australia, etc were “nations building” by the whites!!!

    After all, China could claim Tibet and Xinjiang by the “Principle of Reciprocity”, whereas the whites simply land-grabbed North America, Australia, etc by the continents out of greed for the lands:

    Post 305, https://www.unz.com/pescobar/india-implodes-its-own-new-silk-road/

    • Replies: @an0n
    , @an0n
  112. an0n says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    Just one other thing – I appreciate that you are a pro-China activist and working to counter-balance American propaganda aimed at undermining the image of China. However, at a time when discontent in America is at an all-time high, when the American people’s alienation from the American government and the world’s contempt for American foreign policy is at an all time, do you think it’s really wise to focus on Tibet? Be honest with yourself – do you think China’s record is all that great here (even taking into account CIA ops)? Tibetan Buddhism has a lot of soft power in the world – people all over the world have a lot of sympathy for them. For the most part, China has won this battle politically, but it’s a sore point for a lot of religious people.

    There are so many other angles of attack that can be pursued in undermining American foreign policy goals against China or in reinforcing China’s position. Do you think it’s the best course of action to dredge up all the baggage associated with Tibet? Do you think it’s honestly helping the cause of the Chinese? You might be principled on this issue (which I respect), but there are people out there on the other side of the Tibet issue who are equally principled, much more knowledgeable than me, and would be much more passionate in going head-to-head with you. People set themselves on fire over this issue – that’s the extent to which it arouses passions.

    That’s just some advice from an “activist” or tactical point of view – make of it what you will. But if you are intent on pursuing it, by all means, go for it.

    • Replies: @Godfree Roberts
  113. @Hippopotamusdrome

    Forgot the caption: “Remember when overpopulation was an issue all the people who matter were concerned about? Pepperidge Farm remembers”

  114. @Tor597

    If America spies on other countries so intensely, why can’t other countries do the same thing?

    If other countries can root out and execute American spies so intensely, why can’t we do the same thing?

    Dozens of US spies killed after Iran and China uncovered CIA messaging service using Google

    Killing C.I.A. Informants, China Crippled U.S. Spying Operations

    China ‘dismantled entire CIA operation’; killed, jailed ‘score of CIA spies’

  115. an0n says:
    @d dan

    It’s true that monks and children of nobility were involved in the Khampa resistance movement and revolts. The Dalai Lama explicitly rejected it, while his brother worked behind his back as a liaison between the CIA and the Khampas. In this sense, Godfree is correct in attributing a degree of blame to the CIA:

    Even though Holober gave his support, a new requirement was
    imposed by the 5412 Special Group before launching a full-scale covert war. President Eisenhower’s men wanted an explicit request from the Dalai Lama for military assistance. The CIA relayed this news to its teams inside Tibet. Tom and Lou received the messages from headquarters on two different occasions, but no official request came. The Dalai Lama would not budge from his policy of nonviolent opposition to the Chinese. The 5412 Special Group was faced with a choice. The Group’s members could withhold aid until the Dalai Lama changed his policy, but that meant foregoing the opportunity to carry out President Eisenhower’s explicit directive to harass the Chinese. Or they could go forward with an expanded covert program without any official request from Tenzin Gyatso….

    ….FitzGerald’s views were persuasive. Despite the lack of an official request from the Tibetan government, the 5412 Special Group decided it was time to send the resistance fighters the weapons they had been told would come. — Freeing Tibet, Roberts and Roberts

    I think you are correct in that the prospect of CIA involvement makes the Chinese government more inclined to take defensive draconian measures which they otherwise might not have done. Zhou Enlai, during his meeting with Nehru, is reported to have said that Chairman Mao didn’t plan on implementing socialist reforms for 50 years or so and wanted to be permissive towards the Tibetan religion and culture. It may very well be that clandestine CIA operations are what triggered the decision by Mao to invade in the late 1950s. The Tibetan feudal system was far from ideal, as has been admitted by Tibetan leaders themselves. Still, people have a right to enact their own reforms by their own free will (without intervention from a foreign power) and according to their own timing based on their own system of government. Also, the Dalai has been consistent in opposing violence. Khampas were also known to be pretty hot-tempered and impulsive, ready to fight – having religion doesn’t guarantee that people follow it but it can be a restraining influence.

    Foreign visitors (from British, Soviet/Russia, Belgium, Germany, etc) during those period (i.e. before 1950s) had corroborated with what Chinese government describes about them

    Do you have any quotes or examples of this?

    • Replies: @d dan
  116. an0n says:
    @Deep Thought

    After all, China could claim Tibet and Xinjiang by the “Principle of Reciprocity”, whereas the whites simply land-grabbed North America, Australia, etc by the continents out of greed for the lands

    The British actually invaded Tibet but did not overthrow its system of government. In fact, the British signed a treaty with Tibet (without the mediation of the Manchu Emepror), acknowledging Tibet as a sovereign country, unlike Chairman Mao.

    As far as Tibet and China go, neither the imperial government under the Manchus nor the Nationalist government under Chiang Kai-Shek had any desire to interfere in the autonomy of Tibet. It was NEVER Chinese tradition to mess with Tibetan religion and government. It was always Chinese tradition to respect the autonomy, religion, and culture of Tibet. Even the PLA for the most part didn’t want to overthrow the government of Tibet after Chamdo in 1949 – they didn’t want to bomb the Litang monastery or massacre Khampa families.

    What Mao did was unique and unparalleled by the standards of CHINESE history, so you don’t need to try looking for double standards and false equivalences with Western counterparts. You seem to forget that Bolshevism and Communism have nothing to do with Confucianism, Chinese tradition, or Chinese history. Why don’t use actual Chinese history as your standard of comparison and frame of reference instead of turning this into a sidelong against the West?

    For that matter, how come Israel is not your standard of comparison? Israel has invaded and displaced the Palestinians. Why don’t you point THAT out as an example of (((Western))) hypocrisy, or are you afraid to offend certain (((whites))))? And if you are so much against foreign hypocrisy and foreign influence in China, how come you don’t complain about the Jewish/Bolshevik Soviet handlers (like Alfred Joffe and Michael Borodin) of people like Zhou Enlai, Peng Dehuai, and Mao. Somehow, the phony Chinese nationalists on Unz always find a way to make exceptions for Jews and Zionists in their harangues/tirades against the (((West))).

    I am actually being quite charitable towards Maoists by referring to what they did as the “overthrow of the feudal order.” I am using the party line because I want to be conciliatory here.

    If you really love China, then you would want China to be free from Jewish/Zionist influence just as much as you’d want it to be free from the influence of “white” people.

    • Replies: @Deep Thought
  117. @an0n

    I grew up with Australian Aboriginals, I’ve worked for the US BIA, and I’ve known a Tulku and many Tibetan monks in the Bay Area and Colorado.

    Based on years of research, using Western sources who were on a first-name basis with the Dalai Lama, I would say that China’s treatment of Tibetans is vastly better than America’s treatment of Native Americans or Australia’s treatment of its Aboriginals.

    It’s not even close.

    • Replies: @an0n
    , @an0n
  118. an0n says:
    @Deep Thought

    I’m starting to realize just how much the phony Chinese nationalists on Unz (e.g. most likely Deep Thought, d dan, Godfree Roberts, etc.) are just another breed of ZioSchills covering up the Zionist role in the formation of the CCP and the spread of Communism in China.

    I thought that they were genuinely motivated by pro-China sentiments, but I’m starting to see that they are really just diverting people’s attention away from Zionist/Jewish influence in China, which is why they continue to defend Mao and the early phase of Chinese communism (even though the current government of China and the Chinese people as a whole have largely moved past this).

    Unz readers should understand that contemporary Chinese society does not venerate Mao, the early phase (pre-1978) CCP (that is, prior to Reform and Opening Up) as much as d dan, Godfree Roberts, Deep Thought, would like you to believe. They try to monopolize Chinese nationalism and act as crusaders against American propaganda, which would be fine if they weren’t diverting attention away from the issue of Jews and Zionism and making the issue about Westerners/whites etc.

    For all their talk about “whites” and the “West,” they give you total radio silence when confronted with issues about the Jewish role in the formation of the CCP. Here is a telling passage from Mao the Untold Story:

    Not only did Sun have big ambitions and few scruples, he had a sizable party with thousands of members, and a territorial base with a major seaport at Canton. So in early January 1923, the Soviet Politburo decided: “Give full backing to the Nationalists,” with “money [from] the reserve funds of the Comintern.” The decision was signed by the up-and-coming Stalin, who had begun to take a close interest in China. Sun had thus become, as Joffe told Lenin, “our man” (italics in original). His price was 2 million Mexican dollars maximum,” roughly 2 million gold rubles. “Isn’t all this worth 2 million rubles?” Joffe asked.

    Moscow knew that Sun had his own agenda, and was trying to use Russia, just as Russia was trying to use him. It wanted its local client, the CCP, to be right there on the spot to ensure that Sun toed Moscow’s line and served Moscow’s interest. So it ordered the Chinese Communists to join the Nationalist Party. In a secret session, Stalin spelled out: “we cannot give directives out of here, Moscow, openly. We dot his through the Communist Party of China and other comrades in camera, confidentially…”

    Moscow wanted to use the CCP as a Trojan horse to manipulate the much bigger Nationalist party; but all CCP leaders, starting from Professor Chen, opposed joining Sun’s party, on the grounds that it rejected communism …

    Maring, the Comintern envoy, faced a revolt. This is almost certainly why Mao was brought to Party HQ. The pragmatic Mao embraced Moscow’s strategy. He promptly joined the nationalist party….[Mao’s] enthusiasm for the Moscow line shot Mao into the core of the Party, under Maring. There he exreted himself as never before, now that he could see hope in what he was doing. Moscow’s chief bagman in China, Vilde, who doubled as the Soviet vice-consul in Shanghai, singled out Mao and one other person in a report to Moscow “as most definitely good cadres.”

    Jung Chang doesn’t point out the Jewish identity of most of these Comintern/Soviet agents in China. For example, Markovich Borodin, chief Comintern agent in China, is actually Mikhail Gruzenberg, a Russian Bolshevik Jew like Joffe. Unz readers are more than capable of looking this up on their own though. At least the nationalist under Chiang Kai-Shek tried to expel the Jewish Bolsheviks from their party in 1927, but their efforts were in vain.

    The phony Chinese nationalists on Unz will go on and on about “whites” and “Westerners” “land grabbing,” but will not tell you about the Zionist land-grabbing in China and Outer Mongolia (which I don’t think they hardly mention at all). Why the total radio silence about the Bolshevik/Jewish/Zionist/Russian role in the development of the CCP, guys?

    I was starting to respect you guys, but now I think the game is up. What’s the beef?

    • Troll: Godfree Roberts
  119. an0n says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    Based on years of research, using Western sources who were on a first-name basis with the Dalai Lama, I would say that China’s treatment of Tibetans is vastly better than America’s treatment of Native Americans or Australia’s treatment of its Aboriginals.

    Just come out and reveal yourself already. You’re pretty well-read and have command of a great deal of scholarly literature about China. But the fact that you don’t come out and just make your case transparently raises a lot of suspicions. Until you do so, there’s a cloud of suspicion hanging over you.

    As for the US, I agree. The US treatment of native Americans was horrible. I am not here to defend the US government. That being said, Tibetans in the US and India are better off than Tibetans in the China, so that should be the basis of comparison. In fact, the Manchu Emperors were quite kind and respectful towards Tibetan autonomy while the American settlers were taking over the American continent.

    You are better off going on the YouTube channel of “China Uncensored” and debating people there. That is Falun Gong funded and gets millions of views per video. You have bigger fish to fry, not a random Unz commenter like myself. In fact, if you revealed yourself, you would be much more effective in helping tp disseminate pro-China views.

    Chris Chapel of China Uncensored is probably not nearly as well-versed as you are, as far as China literature goes, but I’m guessing he influences millions of more people than you. He acts dorky, snarky, and wry, making people laugh on behalf of Falun Gong, while you pore over thousands of esoteric articles to no avail.

  120. @an0n

    Why don’t use actual Chinese history as your standard of comparison and frame of reference instead of turning this into a sidelong against the West?

    Whether you choose to consider the following as “Chinese history” is up to you but the following was taken from an anti-China website:

    [MORE]

    http://www.asianartmall.com/tibethistory.htm

    “However, to go back in time, Tibet had created a huge empire in Central Asia. About 500 years prior to Buddha Sakyamuni coming to the world, which was around 1063 BC, a figure called Lord Shenrab Miwo had reformed the primitive ways of the Shen race. In fact, Miwo was the individual responsible for founding the Tibetan Bon religion. From 629 to 49 BC, King Songsten Gampo was on the throne. At this time, Tibet developed into a powerful military presence and Gampo strongly promoted Buddhism. Then from 755 to 97, King Trisong Detsen took over reign, a time when the Tibetan Empire was at its best. The arms invaded several other Central Asian countries in addition to China. Then in 763, the Chinese capital at Ch’ang-an, which is today known as Xian, was seized by the Tibetans. The Emperor fled, allowing the Tibetans to appoint a new Emperor. “

    .
    So, when did the Natives of America and the Aboriginals of Australia invade Europe (or seize London), that might gave the whites justification to their subsequent occupation of Australia. If not, when are you people going to quit America and Australia, and return the lands you have stolen to the peoples who truly own it?

    Why don’t you point THAT out as an example of (((Western))) hypocrisy, or are you afraid to offend certain (((whites))))? And if you are so much against foreign hypocrisy and foreign influence in China, how come you don’t complain about the Jewish/Bolshevik Soviet handlers (like Alfred Joffe and Michael Borodin) of people like Zhou Enlai, Peng Dehuai, and Mao.

    I am no expert in the history of the CCP but I do know that it was Mao– with the support of Zhou Enlai, Zhu De, and probably Peng Dehuai,– who successfully purged the Comintern/Soviet influence from the CCP during the Long March!!! So, to suggest that these Chinese leaders were “handled” by “Jewish/Bolshevik Soviet handlers” is simply bullshit.

    If you really love China, then you would want China to be free from Jewish/Zionist influence just as much as you’d want it to be free from the influence of “white” people.

    I can see that Jews/Zionists do have a lot of influence in some quarters in the Western societies, but NO Jewish lobby would work in Beijing!!! You people are simply being paranoid with the Jews. They DON’T wield God-like powers in Asian societies– especially not in China.

    • Agree: Godfree Roberts
    • Replies: @an0n
  121. an0n says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    I’m just wondering why you won’t tackle the Jewish/Zionist role in the fomration of the CCP and in spreading of Communism in China? You have to know about these issues. Are you afraid of being called anti-Semitic or a Neo-Nazis or a white nationalist? Or do you genuinely think the Jewish role in Communism is just a Nazi meme or an anti-Semitic trope that obfuscates deeper issues? I’ll respect your point of view either way, but don’t be afraid to talk about it. Ron Unz is a stand-up guy – he’s got your back and will protect your free speech rights. He seems to have a high level of tolerance for opinions that would be regarded as extreme, right-wing, anti-Semitic, etc.

  122. denk says:
    @TKK

    grounds for a declaration of war

    [mofoking SIC]

    YOu wanna start ww3 cuz Some journo comment on the great white fraud‘s covid hoax.,?

    How exceptional, how arrogant, how raving mad !

    such levels of deranged hubris and murderous glee

    Try this for size,,,
    pelosi the bitch on HK riots

    What a beautiful sight to behold

    BY you own standard, China OUGHt to nuke you right then.
    NOt to mention the dozens of undeclared wars you waged against the Chinese since 1949 ???

    Did your beloved google filter out this bit of inconvenient fact too ?

    Tibet 1959
    Indo/sino war 1962
    TAM’ 1989
    SARS 2003
    Tibet 2008
    Xinjiang 2009
    Bird flu 2013
    HK 2014
    Mh370 2014
    Bird flu, swine flu 2019
    SARS2 2020
    Xinjiang 2020
    ———-
    Tip of an iceberg

  123. an0n says:

    So, when did the Natives of America and the Aboriginals of Australia invade Europe (or seize London), that might gave the whites justification to their subsequent occupation of Australia.

    I mentioned this already in another post. I talked about how Tibet conquered China, I just didn’t mention Songsten Gampo by name. I also said that Tibet and China have a very intertwined history and that the issue of Tibet should, for this reason, be regarded as China’s internal affairs.

    I am no expert in the history of the CCP but I do know that it was Mao– with the support of Zhou Enlai, Zhu De, and probably Peng Dehuai,– who successfully purged the Comintern/Soviet influence from the CCP during the Long March!!! So, to suggest that these Chinese leaders were “handled” by “Jewish/Bolshevik Soviet handlers” is simply bullshit.

    They did NOT “purge” the Comintern/Soviet influence during the Long March. In fact, Soviet troops invaded China at the end of WW2 and helped the Communists take over China. Eventually, though, Mao did separate from the Soviet Union and go his own way (that’s to be expected, given the clash of egos going on as well as the intolerance of Chinese people for foreign rule, whether from Moscow or America).

    I can see that Jews/Zionists do have a lot of influence in some quarters in the Western societies, but NO Jewish lobby would work in Beijing!!! You people are simply being paranoid with the Jews. They DON’T wield God-like powers in Asian societies– especially not in China.

    No, there is no Jewish lobby in Beijing today. But I was talking about the period form 1921-1949. There was very, very powerful Jewish/Bolshevik lobby in China during that time. In fact, it’s part of the reason that Japan felt the need to invade northeast China.

    “you people”? “paranoid”? It’s not about “paranoia.” If an observant religious Jew like David Sassoon monopolized the opium trade in China and was responsible for drugging the Chinese population, why should non-Jewish whites be blamed for that? If non-Jewish whites committed wrongdoing, they should be blamed accordingly. But they should not be blamed for the actions of Jews (and I’m not saying all Jews should be blamed for those things either). If Bolshevism in Russia (and then later China) was promoted mainly by a certain faction of Jews, why should non-Jewish Russian Slavs (like Aleksandaer Solzhenitzyn) or non-Jewish foreigners be blamed, especially considering that it was Russian churches that were mostly destroyed and many Christian people who were mostly persecuted? If the head of the NKVD and the Cheka are Jews, then why should non-Jewish Russians take the blame? If a certain faction of Jews like Alexander Borodin, the Comintern agent in China, helped build up the CCP in China, which led to millions of deaths under Mao, then the blame should be assigned accordingly. To the extent that non-Jews were involved, they should be exocoriated as well. But the issue is that of truth and honesty. That’s all I’m asking for.

  124. an0n says:
    @Deep Thought

    It was the Nationalists under Chiang Kai-Shek who purged the Soviet/Bolshevik agents from their party in 1927. The Soviets helped Mao throughout the Long March. Xinjiang and Outer Mongolia were basically totally under Soviet influence at the time, which is why Xinjiang became a base of operations for Mao during the Long March. That is where Edgar Snow went to inteview Mao. The Japanese tried to purge the Soviet/Bolshevik influence in China in the 1930s, but we all know how that ended up. America, unfortunately, was bombing Japan, while supplying the Soviet Union with tanks,planes, arms, and weapon.
    Japan is the nation that helped get rid of the all the Western imperialists (British, French, American) as well as the Soviet/Bolshevik communists – they tried to reinstate the Emperor of China to restore traditional Chinese culture, and Chiang Kai-Shek allowed the Japanese to be in northeast China (both Chiang Kai-Shek and Sun Yat-sen had studied in Japan and understand the goals and aims of the Japanese). You’ve got get your history right.

    • Replies: @Deep Thought
  125. I mentioned this already in another post. I talked about how Tibet conquered China, I just didn’t mention Songsten Gampo by name. I also said that Tibet and China have a very intertwined history and that the issue of Tibet should, for this reason, be regarded as China’s internal affairs.

    Direct me to that “another post” of yours. Tibet did invade Han China– like Japan later did. I am not aware of Tibet actually having conquered Han China like the Mongols and Manchus did.

    [MORE]

    They did NOT “purge” the Comintern/Soviet influence during the Long March. In fact, Soviet troops invaded China at the end of WW2 and helped the Communists take over China. Eventually, though, Mao did separate from the Soviet Union and go his own way (that’s to be expected, given the clash of egos going on as well as the intolerance of Chinese people for foreign rule, whether from Moscow or America).

    If I remember correctly, Mao got rid of Comintern/Soviet influence during the 遵义會議. Otherwise, the Long March would have stopped dead by Chiang KS– The Chinese Red Army under the command of “Li De” was consistently losing to CKS’s armies and facing the prospect of annihilation. And that was BEFORE Soviet invasion of Manchuria near the end of WWII. So, Stalin must have done some wonderful time-travelling in order to have affected the outcome of an event that happened before his actions.

    Since there was “the clash of egos going on as well as the intolerance of Chinese people for foreign rule, whether from Moscow or America” the CCP members must have been “their own men”, who made their own decisions– by definition. The most you can say is that each side used the other.

    Whether “there was very, very powerful Jewish/Bolshevik lobby in China in 1921-1949 is irrelevant. Like the Americans, the Soviets were merely doing their part of “catching fish in muddy water” when China was too weak to exclude such players from Chinese territories, and THAT China was under CKS– something you apparently refuse to even notice. That situation was corrected after Mao took over.

    David Sassoon monopolized the opium trade in China and was responsible for drugging the Chinese population, why should non-Jewish whites be blamed for that? If non-Jewish whites committed wrongdoing, they should be blamed accordingly.

    I have read that , at least, one American merchant traded opium to China although I don’t if he was also a Jew or not. In any case, it was the Brits who enabled them by defeating the Chinese, who had put Lin in charge of opium eradication (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lin_Zexu), in the opium wars!!!

    I am NOT blaming ALL Jews or ALL whites or… but the most rabid anti-China/Chinese crowd have been mainly white Westerners.

    It was the Nationalists under Chiang Kai-Shek who purged the Soviet/Bolshevik agents from their party in 1927. The Soviets helped Mao throughout the Long March. Xinjiang and Outer Mongolia were basically totally under Soviet influence at the time, which is why Xinjiang became a base of operations for Mao during the Long March.

    CKS purged and murdered anyone– including KMT members– who did not sucked up to him. Ever heard the phrase “It is better to wrongly kill one hundred than letting loose one opponent”?

    Japan is the nation that helped get rid of the all the Western imperialists (British, French, American) as well as the Soviet/Bolshevik communists – they tried to reinstate the Emperor of China to restore traditional Chinese culture, and Chiang Kai-Shek allowed the Japanese to be in northeast China (both Chiang Kai-Shek and Sun Yat-sen had studied in Japan and understand the goals and aims of the Japanese). You’ve got get your history right.

    Like Nazi Germany, Japan was a country in search of its own “Lebensraum”, which the whites had successfully done in North America. Japan had a huge program of shipping ethic Japanese to occupy Manchuria and to displace the people already there– That was WHY there were so many civilian Japanese had to run for their lives from the Russians at the end of WWII– Even dumping their own children in order to save their own necks!!! Google for “Japanese orphans in China”. That they “get rid of the all the Western imperialists (British, French, American) as well as the Soviet/Bolshevik communists” was because these foreign muddlers were in their way when the Japs tried to grab China for their own evil ends. “They tried to reinstate the Last Emperor of China” in Manchuria as a puppet in order to facilitate their program of making Manchuria, and then China proper, into their own Lebensraum.

    The US of A was the biggest enabler of Japan in its aggression against a China in decline since before WWI by supplying Japan with the strategic materials it needed.

    “Chiang Kai-Shek allowed the Japanese to be in northeast China” proved that he was a traitor to China and the Chinese– something many Chinese knew and know, and that was also why he lost support from the Chinese people and “lost China” as a result– despite massive help given by the US of A. Ever heard of Zhang Xueliang and the Xian incident (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhang_Xueliang)?

    “Sun Yat-sen had studied in Japan” BEFORE the Japanese invasion of China “and understand the goals and aims of the Japanese”, which then was the transformation of Japan into an industrial power– something he wanted to do in China. Give me evidence that Sun actually WANTED the Japanese to invade China, committed unspeakable atrocities against the Chinese people and to caused up to 30 million dead!!!

    You have got a very twisted view of history. Are you a Japanese?

    • Replies: @an0n
  126. d dan says:
    @an0n

    Foreign visitors (from British, Soviet/Russia, Belgium, Germany, etc) during those period (i.e. before 1950s) had corroborated with what Chinese government describes about them

    Do you have any quotes or examples of this?

    So you really don’t know anything about Tibet before 1950, and you post comments about Tibet and China with about 30 comments?

    The following are some of the quotes/examples you request:

    “A British woman who visited Gyantse in 1922 witnessed a public flogging and reported that the victim was then forced to spend the night exposed and tied down on the top of a mountain pass where he froze to death overnight. A British resident of two decades reported seeing countless eye gougings and mutilations while another resident in the late 1940s report that “all over Tibet I have seen men who had been deprived of an arm or a leg for theft”
    – from the book “The Making of Modern Tibet” by A. Tom Grunfeld

    “… at present, the people are medieval, not only in their system of government and their religion, their inquisition, their witchcraft, their incarnations, their ordeals by fire and boiling oil, but in every aspect of their daily life…. The country is governed on the feudal system. The monks are the overlords, the peasantry their serfs.”
    – from the book “The Unveiling of Lhasa” by Edmund Candler

    “The Life and Times of the Great Thirteenth that the theocratic position of the Dalai Lama enabled him to administer rewards and punishments as he wished, because he held absolute power over both this life and the next of the serfs, and coerced them with such power.”
    – from the book “Portrait of A Dalai Lama” by Charles Bell

    If you read French, there is also the book “Le vieux Tibet face à la Chine nouvelle” by Alexandra David-Néel. Or maybe the book “Lhasa the Holy City” by F Spencer Chapman.

    Look, I am losing patience with your rants and switching of topics. The author [James Kirkpatrick] starts these lies about Tibet, and you jump in with the China “sinned …”, Chinese “mistreat them …”, Chinese “discourage” them to learn their language, blah, blah. It turns out that you know almost nothing about Tibet prior to 1950s. At one point, you say you respect my view, and then you switch to accusing me and other commenters of bad faith for not joining you to renounce Jews, etc. There were so many foreigners who attacked and did bad things to China in the past (British, French, Japanese, Russian, American, Jews, …), we wouldn’t have time to defend the current attacks (yes, you, as well as Kirkpatrick, are attacking China when you utter those words “sinned”, “mistreat”, “discourage’,…) if we have to keep renouncing everyone of every wrongs on every threads.

    • Replies: @an0n
  127. @an0n

    Xinjiang and Outer Mongolia were basically totally under Soviet influence at the time, which is why Xinjiang became a base of operations for Mao during the Long March. That is where Edgar Snow went to inteview Mao.

    Edgar Snow interviewed Mao in Bao’an:

    Snow was taken through the military quarantine lines to the Communist headquarters at Bao’an, where he spent four months (until October 1936) interviewing Mao and other Communist leaders

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

    And Bao’an was a sub-district of Zhidan county, which was a “prefecture-level city of Yan’an,” which was “in the northwest of Shaanxi Province.”

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

    Therefore, Edgar Snow did NOT interview Mao in Xinjiang!!!

    • Replies: @an0n
  128. an0n says:
    @Deep Thought

    So you asked me to direct you to that “other post” (as if I were making it up), well here you go:

    That has been my impression having lived in China. Most Han Chinese are pretty ignorant about the politically sensitive aspects of the Tibetan situation, but they definitely respect Tibet and its religion. It’s closely connected with their history, and in that sense the Chinese are right to regard Tibet as China’s “internal affairs.” In fact, there was a point in time when Tibetans conquered China, so their history is very complicated, and I disapprove of the US government politicizing the conflict for its own geopolitical goals.

    So, yes, I basically made your point for you with regard to this aspect of Sino-Tibetan relations.
    I just didn’t mention Songsten Gampo specifically.

    And Bao’an was a sub-district of Zhidan county, which was a “prefecture-level city of Yan’an,” which was “in the northwest of Shaanxi Province.”

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

    Therefore, Edgar Snow did NOT interview Mao in Xinjiang!!!

    Yes, I made a mistake about where the interview was held. But it’s really a moot point. My main point was about the Soviet influence in China at that time, which you were trying to minimize. Xinjiang was under Soviet control for much of that period. It’s been a long time since I read Red Star Over China, but here is what Edgar Snow wrote in Chapter 2:

    With Lochuan roughly the southern, and the Great Wall the northern, extremities of Red control in Shensi, both the eastern and western Red frontiers were formed by the Yellow river. Coming down from the fringes of Tibet, the wide muddy stream flows northwards through Gansu and Ningixa, and above the Great Wall into the province of Suiyuan- Inner Mongolia. It was within this great bend of China’s most treacherous river that the Soviets operated – in northern Shensi, northern Kansu, and southeastern Ningxia

    Then you say the following:

    Whether “there was very, very powerful Jewish/Bolshevik lobby in China in 1921-1949 is irrelevant.

    It’s very relevant. And I’m glad that you are being upfront in telling everyone how you want to minimize and downplay this aspect of Chinese history so that you can focus on “white Westerners.” I never said other Westerners didn’t violate the sovereignty of China. My only concern has been that “white Westerners” are distinguished from certain factions of Jews. The distinction may not matter to you or to Chinese people, but it matters to me and to many Unz readers.

    From the “Sino-Japanese Conflict: A Short Survey” (October 26, 1937) in Section 7 “Communism in China”:

    [MORE]

    Who governs China today? This may seem a strange question to ask, but, none the less, it is an important one, since the answer to it will explain, as nothing else will, the genesis and true meaning of the present conflict. The answer that most people would make to the question is that General Chiang Kai-shek governs China, for to all appearances he reigns supreme at Nanking. But, as is so often the case, appearances are deceptive.

    As a matter of fact, it is not he, but the extremest elements of the Kuomintang Party allied to the Communists that actually hold the reins of power both at Nanking and all over the country.
    To give a brief historical summary, it was some twenty-five years ago that Sun Yat-sen administered the final push to the tottering structure of the Chinese Empire. Thus the National Party entered into power, but it experienced grave difficulties in coping with powerful warlords. In its emergency, the Kremlin came to its assistance. This was in 1927.

    Evidently Russia saw here a supreme opportunity of bolshevizing China, or, at the least, of
    throwing out of gear the international machinery working there;
    for Sun Yat-sen’s three principles included the demand for the abolition of unequal treaties and foreign rights alleged to have been acquired by force.

    With the aid of Russian men and money the National Party was able to overcome its opponents, but when Chiang Kai-shek felt that he and his party were well entrenched in power he broke away from his Communist associates, including Borodin and Galen (Bluecher), who had been serving him as supreme political and military adviser respectively. Thus, for the time being the bond between Nanking and Moscow was severed.

    It was very soon destined to be renewed, however. The Seventh World Congress of the Comintern held at Moscow in 1935 decided upon a reorganization of its methods. Propaganda in favor of direct revolution was abandoned and in its place the more indirect method of rallying the radicals and socialists in various countries into a People’s Front, which would seize control of their respective governments and thus eventually consummate the revolution. Moreover, Poland and Japan were singled out as the two countries against which special efforts should be made. The Chinese Communists carried out thoroughly the instructions received, and began to win the people of China to their side by means of the slogan, “Fight Japan!” As is evident from his long campaign against Chinese Red Armies, Chiang Kai-shek was at one time intent upon suppression of Communism in China—a force which used to be antagonistic to his supremacy. But after he was taken prisoner by the communist elements during the Sian incident last year, he accepted to co-operate with them. The evidence of this understanding is seen daily. The pact suddenly signed with Soviet Russia on August 21st is but one example.

    Since the mainspring of this combination is complete anti-Japanism, it is not difficult to realize how it is that the little incident at Lukouchiao has been so quickly magnified into the conflict of the present scale.

    Borodin and Galen are Bolshevik Jews by the way. But I guess for you, that’s one of those “irrelevant” details, right?

    As far as 遵义会议 goes, they didn’t “purge” Soviet influence then – the Soviet policy changed, and CKS was forced to work with the Communists so that they could form a united anti-Japan front reflecting the policy change in Moscow at the time. This is from the “Bolshevization of China” by Hikomatsu Kamikawa (published in December 1937 in Contemporary Japan):

    At the Seventh Comintern Congress, the policy toward China was completely changed from that of overthrowing the Chiang Kai-shek régime and establishing a communist régime in its place to that of aiding the régime of Chiang Kai-shek, temporarily abandoning the policy of bolshevizing China. At the same time the Congress selected Germany, Italy and Japan as leading Fascist countries and, with a view to making China one of the links in the chain of the anti-Japanese front, set up for the purpose of overthrowing Japan, adopted the following resolution with regards to the policy to be pursued toward China.

    The expansion of the sovietization campaign as well as the strengthening of the fighting power of Communist armies must be linked together with the development of the anti-imperialist people’s front. The anti-imperialist people’s front movement must be carried on under the slogan of a revolutionary fight of an armed people against Japanese imperialism and the Chinese who are serving as its tools. The Soviet must be the central force in the unification of all the Chinese people in the campaign for the liberation of the Chinese race.

    In order to carry out the instruction indicated in this resolution, the Chinese Communist Party, a branch of the Comintern, issued in December of the same year a proclamation regarding the establishment of the “united anti-Japanese people’s front” and also made public the following resolution.

    The people of China must oppose Japanese imperialism and its tools by all means regardless of what they are, whether they are armed forces or whether they belong to any party, faction or class. In order to expel Japanese imperialism from China, overthrow the rule of its agents over China, acquire complete freedom for the Chinese people, and thereby secure the independence and territorial integrity of China, the people must rise in unison and develop the anti-Japanese people’s front. Our duty is to get not only all possible basic forces of anti-Japanism but all possible anti-Japanese allies united, and to urge the entire Chinese people that influence be exerted by those who have influence, money given by those who have money, guns by those who have guns, knowledge by those who have knowledge, thus enabling all patriotic Chinese to participate in the anti-Japanese front.

    In accordance with this proclamation, the Chinese Communist Party subsequently decided to discard its previous policy, and to conclude as promptly as possible a truce between the Communist army and the Kuomintang army. The party further planned to expand the movement for the salvation of the people, and asserted that the purpose of the anti-Japanese campaign should be achieved through the general mobilization and arming of all the people. All political prisoners should be freed and a federation of anti-Japanese national salvation associations organized with the establishment of national salvation associations in industrial, commercial, military, political and educational circles, and also by organizing the people of each circle for participation in war and arming and training them. Furthermore, advocating joint action of all anti-Japanese and national salvation organizations, the Chinese Communist Party issued a statement that the Chinese Communist Party would co-operate with all other parties and organizations in the task of opposing Japan and saving the country, declaring that the party hoped to work conjointly with the Kuomintang and anti-Japanese and national salvationist elements in the Blue Shirts Society.

    In spite of the fact that the Chinese Communist Party and its army effected a turn in their policy in accordance with the complete reversal of that of the Comintern, decided on collaboration with the Nanking régime and the Kuomintang army and proposed the formation of a united anti-Japanese people’s front, the Nanking Government did not readily make a favourable response. The Chiang Kai- shek régime, even after concluding the Tanku Armistice Agreement in 1933, continued its policy of resistance on the one hand and negotiation on the other, thus leaving room for negotiations with Japan, and devoted all its energies to the firm establishment of its dictatorial power. Since the Nanking Government is essentially a régime of the nationalistic bourgeoisie representing the rising capitalism and bourgeois class, it is needless to say that the government can never tolerate the Moscow Government and the Comintern, which are international powers founded on Communism and the proletariat, nor yet the Chinese Communist Party and its army. However cleverly the Comintern and the Government at Moscow change their colours for their own protection, however the Chinese Communist Party and its army repaint their signs and propose the formation of a united front of anti- Japanese national salvation, the Nanking Government cannot see eye to eye with them. It has been the traditional policy of the Soviet Union and the Comintern from the days of Lenin to take advantage of the anti-imperialist movement and the struggle for national liberation in China as a transitory method of giving substance to the principles of world revolution. The Chinese Kuomintang once fell victim to their machinations and had to drink a bitter cup, and therefore, though the Moscow Government and Comintern together with the Chinese Communist Party are trying once more to mislead the Nanking Government by the same wily methods, Chiang Kai-shek can hardly be won over to their side.

    Of course a faction in the Nanking Government known for its pro-Soviet inclinations and comprising such men as Feng Yuh-siang, Sun Fo, Sun Ching-ling, Yu Yu-jen, Tsai Yuan-pei, Yen Hui- ching and others, had long been advocating co-operation with the Soviet Union and demanding the conclusion of a Sino-Soviet non-aggression pact. But the distrust and fear of the Soviet Union and the Comintern with their policy of sovietizing China made the Nanking Government reluctant to take any steps to that end. Moreover, there existed an even greater obstacle.

    The Soviet Union had long had Outer Mongolia under its influence; and in 1934 it entered into an alliance with Outer Mongolia in order to counter the advance of Japan following the Manchurian incident, and later, in March 1936, it concluded the treaty of mutual aid with Outer Mongolia pledging itself to extend military assistance in case the latter is attacked by a third country. Thus Outer Mongolia became essentially a part of the Soviet Union while remaining nominally a part of the Chinese Republic. The Soviet Union extended in the meantime its Turksib Railway to the border of Hsinkiang and steadily increased its economic and political influence over that outlying province of China. In view of these increasing inroads of Soviet influence into her territory, China must [sic], if she desired to co-operate with the Soviet Union, formally recognize these faits accomplis, which it was quite natural for the Nanking Government, standing as it had been for the unification and the maintenance of territorial integrity [sic] of China, to find impossible to do. No less would it be a matter of course that once China approached the Soviet Union, the influence of that country and the Comintern would infiltrate into China. In the light of the bitter experiences which the policy of co-operation with the Soviet Union and toleration of Communism had produced in the past, the government of Chiang Kai-shek could not of course light-heartedly take the hand extended by the Soviet Union.

    However, the Sian coup d’état in November last year brought about a radical change in the situation. The intrigues of the Chinese Communist Party and Chang Hsueh-liang, by which Chiang Kai-shek was placed in confinement under duress, proved a signal success and virtually caused a complete reversal of the policy pursued by the Generalissimo toward the Communist Party. As described above, the necessary foundation had already been prepared for an alliance between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party, inasmuch as the Communist Chinese Party [sic] and its army had changed their policy since August 1935 and had been declaring their support of the Chiang régime and abandonment of the policy of sovietizing China, under the banner of a united anti-Japanese front. The alliance came into being at last in March this year, and by it the Communist Party and army, abandoning their principles and policies, allied themselves with the Kuomintang as a matter of form, but in fact the Kuomintang and the Communist Party worked together for the establishment of an anti- Japanese and national salvation front.

    Yes, Mao and the Communists went their own way (as I said, basically making your point for you), but that’s AFTER they fulfilled their purpose – which was destroying Imperial Japan. Well done, puppets.

    You are the one with the “twisted view of history,” which is what happens when you confine yourself to mainstream narratives about Germany/Japan, which is basically everything in your post.

    • Replies: @Deep Thought
    , @Malla
    , @Malla
  129. an0n says:
    @d dan

    At one point, you say you respect my view, and then you switch to accusing me and other commenters of bad faith for not joining you to renounce Jews, etc.

    Now you are just combining and merging things I said in several different posts to different people in different contexts. It’s not my fault if you can’t handle nuance. I never said you “renounce Jews” (whatever that means). Please don’t use a vicious straw-man like that to make me look like some crass anti-Semite. That’s just irresponsible and going below the belt. That reflects more about you than me.

    Here’s what I wrote to Deep Thought:

    Why the total radio silence about the Bolshevik/Jewish/Zionist/Russian role in the development of the CCP, guys?

    And here is what I wrote to Godfree Roberts:

    I’m just wondering why you won’t tackle the Jewish/Zionist role in the formation of the CCP and in spreading of Communism in China? You have to know about these issues. Are you afraid of being called anti-Semitic or a Neo-Nazi or a white nationalist? Or do you genuinely think the Jewish role in Communism is just a Nazi meme or an anti-Semitic trope that obfuscates deeper issues? I’ll respect your point of view either way

    Nowhere did I ask people to “renounce Jews.” Please refrain from that kind of loaded language. Is that what you think? Maybe you are the one who feels the need to “renounce” Jews or whatever it is.

    There were so many foreigners who attacked and did bad things to China in the past (British, French, Japanese, Russian, American, Jews, …), we wouldn’t have time to defend the current attacks (yes, you, as well as Kirkpatrick, are attacking China when you utter those words “sinned”, “mistreat”, “discourage’,…) if we have to keep renouncing everyone of every wrongs on every threads.

    Well, if you lump foreigners together in one big group, do you think that’s fair? The fact that you want to lump all foreigners as “white Western” people says a lot about your agenda. It makes it easier for you to defend China,because hating white people is politically correct and has the backing of the establishemt, but it’s not fair to white Christian British people to lump them together with an observant Jew like David Sassoon, who monopolized the opium trade in China and lobbied the British government to protect his interests with gunboats. Ironically, your method of going about defending China by attacking white people exclusively has the backing of the American media and entertainment complex. Way to go in standing up to foreigners. It’s not my fault that you are either too lazy or too disingenuous to look into the details about the differences among foreigners. Should I lump you together with the Japanese and talk about “Asian imperialism” and how these “Asians” took comfort wives in Koreans and tried to conquer all of Asia, following the mainstream propaganda narratives about Japan in WW2?

    if we have to keep renouncing everyone of every wrongs on every threads

    No, this is not a struggle session where we “renounce” people. It’s no wonder you defend the Communists so much. You are so used thinking and acting like them, it would seem.

    • Troll: d dan
  130. an0n says:
    @Deep Thought

    Like Nazi Germany, Japan was a country in search of its own “Lebensraum”,

    Chinese in general are not really in a position to complain about others seeking “Lebensraum” in their country, especially in the context of Tibet of all things. Not to mention Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand, and all of the many wonderful places where the Chinese diaspora communities have found “Lebensraum.” How do you think China became so big? When the Chinese Empire has dominion over Japan, Vietnam, Mongolia, etc, then the Chinese say, “我们都是一家人” When Japan settles its people in Manchuria, then Chinese Communists sing a different tune like 抗日,抗日. Are Manchus and Mongolians the same as Han Chinese? And yet Chinese talk of 清朝 and 元朝…well what’s wrong with everyday living under 日朝? The CCP was the real puppet at the time, as I’ve demonstrated in your post. Can you really complain about the “whites” finding “Lebensraum” in North America when Chinese people find Lebensraum in those very same places – Hong Kong, Singapore, US, Canada, etc – often using the fact that “whites” settled those places first and established governments there?

    • Replies: @Deep Thought
  131. denk says:

    If we truly must build an empire of our own to compete against China, it would make more sense to unify the West under a spiritual, cultural, and racial identity. That great dream of Western unity would be something to strive for. That would be a “shared national purpose” not just for Americans, but for all of us who hail from the great European fatherland.**

    Well I’ve got news for you.
    USA was born an empire, always has been, always will be.

    uncle chutzpah
    https://www.unz.com/freed/china-and-the-washington-oscars/?showcomments#comment-4188437

    PS
    Its puzzling tho
    Why do you have to compete as an empire ?
    China shows that one can get ahead without being predatory, good guy doesnt have to finish last.

    And, though such a civilization-state [?] would necessarily have a white supermajority, it wouldn’t need to revert to Chinese-style concentration camps or try to destroy ethnic minorities.**

    Whats a civilization state, does he mean civilised state ?
    NOt too sure what gringo is babbling about,
    I can only surmise.

    Only we whites can build a civilised state.
    We dont need no gulags, it can always be outsourced …to Cuba, Diego Garcia for example.

    Being white civilisation, we’re meant for bigger stuff, Destroying ethnic minorities are for sissies , we prefer nation wrecking,
    Hell, We’ve 150 failed states to show for since 1945.

    And….

    Of course, barring revolutionary change, we can’t build anything like that….a super white civilised state **

    dunno what you mean
    Are you saying the [[[five liars]]] alliance doesnt cut it ?

    https://journal-neo.org/2018/12/10/anglo-saxon-eyes-are-fixed-on-countering-china/

  132. @an0n

    I basically made your point for you with regard to this aspect of Sino-Tibetan relations.

    If so, what exactly were your arguments against mine?

    Yes, I made a mistake about where the interview was held. But it’s really a moot point. My main point was about the Soviet influence in China at that time, which you were trying to minimize.

    “Soviet influence in China at that time” was such that 李德 was given command of the Chinese Red Army. His command almost cost the live of the Chinese revolution– until he and his ally, 博古, were removed from power at 遵义:

    会议改变了原来的三人团(博古、李德、周恩来)领导,增补毛泽东为中共中央政治局常委,形成了张闻天(洛甫)、周恩来、毛泽东等人的新领导集体,毛泽东恢复了对红军的軍事指揮權

    https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%81%B5%E4%B9%89%E4%BC%9A%E8%AE%AE

    So, what is so remarkable about “Soviet influence” at the time?

    [MORE]

    I never said other Westerners didn’t violate the sovereignty of China. My only concern has been that “white Westerners” are distinguished from certain factions of Jews. The distinction may not matter to you or to Chinese people, but it matters to me and to many Unz readers.

    You are free to go on your eternal duel with the Jews as you like it. But it was/is the white imperialist (that includes Soviet Russia to some extent,) and Japanese militarist, powers that violated the sovereignty of China and trampled on the rights of the Chinese people THE MOST. Jews did far less harm and the harms they did were temporary. China even has imported military technology from Israel these days– as far as I know.

    From the “Sino-Japanese Conflict: A Short Survey” (October 26, 1937) in Section 7 “Communism in China”:

    Japan turned out to be the aggressor that did damages to China and the Chinese people many thousand times those of other imperialists’ COMBINED!!! Yet, you said the following:

    Japan is the nation that helped get rid of the all the Western imperialists (British, French, American) as well as the Soviet/Bolshevik communists – they tried to reinstate the Emperor of China to restore traditional Chinese culture, and Chiang Kai-Shek allowed the Japanese to be in northeast China (both Chiang Kai-Shek and Sun Yat-sen had studied in Japan and understand the goals and aims of the Japanese). You’ve got get your history right.

    So, WHAT is that you are trying to “minimize”??? Are you sure that YOU are not a Japanese???

    Borodin and Galen are Bolshevik Jews by the way. But I guess for you, that’s one of those “irrelevant” details, right?

    They have turned out to be irrelevant! Take a look at those in power in Beijing TODAY, or even in 1949? How many Jews are/were there to order the Chinese leadership around???!!!

    As far as 遵义会议 goes, they didn’t “purge” Soviet influence then – the Soviet policy changed, and CKS was forced to work with the Communists so that they could form a united anti-Japan front reflecting the policy change in Moscow at the time.

    “Soviet policy” had to changed because their agents 博古、李德 were ousted from the central power circle and Zhou Enlai had switched sides!!!

    “CKS was forced to work with the Communists so that they could form a united anti-Japan front reflecting” the wish of the Chinese people. Read the Xi’an incident again.

    Yes, Mao and the Communists went their own way (as I said, basically making your point for you), but that’s AFTER they fulfilled their purpose – which was destroying Imperial Japan. Well done, puppets.

    The Soviets and the US needed the CCP and KMT to tie down the Japanese, while the CCP and the KMT needed the Soviets and the US to destroy Japan. I can’t tell who were the puppets and who were pulling the strings.

    You are the one with the “twisted view of history,” which is what happens when you confine yourself to mainstream narratives about Germany/Japan, which is basically everything in your post.

    Mainstream history may not always be correct in the details but any-damn-one can MAKE UP his own non-mainstream history and you are one of them.

    • Replies: @an0n
    , @an0n
    , @an0n
    , @an0n
  133. @an0n

    Can you really complain about the “whites” finding “Lebensraum” in North America when Chinese people find Lebensraum in those very same places – Hong Kong, Singapore, US, Canada, etc – often using the fact that “whites” settled those places first and established governments there?

    I do NOT ‘complain about the “whites” finding “Lebensraum” in North America’ but I write in RESPONSE to the endless white accusations about Chinese “annexation”, “occupation” of Tibet, “Turkistan”, etc. I call that Retaliation in Kind.

    Tell me, where in “Hong Kong, Singapore, US, Canada”, Australia, etc, etc did the Chinese basically wipe out the entire native populations there. More often, it was/is the Chinese who were/are the victims of discrimination/genocides (e.g. in Indonesia)

  134. an0n says:
    @d dan

    Finally, they do take in Africans, Indians, Arabs, on meritocratic basis, rather than on political correctness – why do you think they can do that?

    This is absolutely not true. The commenter meant “taking in” in the sense of naturalization and citizenship. China does not allow for foreigners to become naturalized citizens, so no, China does not “take in” Africans, Indians, Arabs on a “meritocratic basis” as you seem to disingenuously suggest. China allows Africans, Indians, and Arabs to enter the country as students, guest workers, and entertainers, but that is not the same as “taking them in.”

    Western/white countries, towards whom you obviously want to direct everyone’s anger and grievances, actually grant real citizenship and provide enormous welfare benefits to people from the said countries (Africa, India, Middle East, etc.) And they do this on humanitarian grounds – regardless of the people’s IQ score. You’ve somehow turned in the humanitarian immigration policy of the West (which has been to the benefit of many Chinese) into a some kind of vice or hypocrisy.

    Somehow, you managed to spin things so that China, which doesn’t accept any refugees or allow immigrants to become naturalized citizens, is not racist or xenophobic but rather kinder and more humane, only “meritocratic.” Meanwhile, Western nations, which have accepted immigrants from Africa, the Middle East, Asia and everywhere else, allowing them to become citizens with full benefits, is just being “politically correct” and doesn’t deserve any praise. But is America not “meritocratic” too? How many Chinese students study in the US? About 300,000. How many American study in China? Maybe 10,000. Google it. America certainly allows Chinese to come to the US on “meritocratic” grounds. And if Western countries do accept immigrants out of motives of “political correctness,” it is because race-baiters like you continually attempt to vilify Western countries and make every issue into a race conflicts.

    So when Westerners/whites are kind to non-whites, especially by allowing them to become full citizens, it is still somehow bad, done out of motives of “political correctness.” Ironically, the author is trying to argue against “political correctness” so that American immigration policy can become more sensible, more like that of China’s, but then you go on to condemn him for allegedly stirring racial antagonisms and in the same breath praise China for not being “political correct” but rather “meritocratic” when, in reality, you stir up racial antagonisms CONSTANTLY throughout your posts.

    I wonder what you would have said to Sun Yat-sen, who, writing in the Three People’s Principles, wrote the following:

    Why can the statement that the doctrine of nationalism is the doctrine of the
    national group be properly applied to China only, not to foreign countries? In China since
    the days of Ching6 and Han,7 the country has been made up of one race; while in foreign
    countries, one race may form several states or one state may comprise several different races.

    Sun Yatsen was the biggest race realist and ethnonationalist, totally obsessed with demographics and the demographic future of China vis-a-vis other nations. (He also mentions the separate ethnic identity of Tibetans, unfortunately for you) You can read Chapter 1 of the Three Peoples’s Principles, if you are interested. But to be fair, he also admired Marxism and at the time of the writing of 三民 was already accepting aid from Moscow. He also writes:

    Now the social prophets of the world are saying that in race friction lies the grave danger of another world war. The next world war, they say, will be a racial war, a war between the white nations and the yellow nations. My personal observation does not make me think so. Another war is inevitable, but it will be a class war of interracial character. The Whites will fight with the Whites and Yellow people with Yellow. It will be a war between the oppressed and the oppressors, and a war between right and might.

    What became of Sun’s prediction in the 1920s? Was the “next world war” a “racial war” or an “interracial war,” as Sun predicted? Well, we know, don’t we. In a way, he was correct. Japan (Asian) and Germany(white) fought together for Sun Yatsen’s principle of nationalism against Communism/Bolshevism (including the Soviet Union and Communist China), which fought to destroy and overthrow nations and cultures (as per the 7th World Congress of the Comintern).

    We won’t bring up the Jewish issue here, because I know how scared you are to talk about that. Your whole schtick is too divert people away from that issue.

    • Replies: @d dan
    , @Malla
  135. an0n says:
    @Deep Thought

    Mainstream history may not always be correct in the details but any-damn-one can MAKE UP his own non-mainstream history and you are one of them.

    I’m the one citing documents, not just Wikipedia entries like you. Who’s “making up” their own history here?

    As far as your “Japan wanted Lebensraum” argument goes, Japan was not motivated by the quest for Lebensraum but mainly by the threat of invasion from the Soviet Union (via Communist China acting as a Soviet client state). Here is an article entitled “Japan’s Continental Policy” by Katsuji Inahara, published in 1938 by the Foreign Affairs Association of Japan:

    In the same way it should be easy to understand from Japan’s proximity to the mainland of Asia why she is so vitally interested in what takes place there. Willingly or not, she is bound to see to
    it that no strong foreign Power should dominate the mainland in order to ensure her own peace, or even her very existence. Therefore Japan cannot remain indifferent to the conditions prevailing in Russia and China and to the activities of these two countries. This is especially so in these days of
    rapid transmission and aviation when distance has to be measured in terms of larger units and so makes the problem of security a much more immediate one. The governing factor in the relations between Japan and the mainland of Asia has always been the problem of security, and must always be
    so.
    So, just as we cannot make a correct evaluation of Britain’s foreign policy without giving due consideration to the problem of her security in regard to the continent, we cannot arrive at a correct appreciation of the forces moving in the Far East to create the present situation if we overlook for one moment the question of security for Japan

    In addition, it was China and Russia that conspired during the time of first Sino-Japanese War (1894-95) to threaten Japan. Japan defended itself, winning land from China and also guaranteeing the independence of Korea from Russian meddling and Chinese attempts to make them a tributary state. If you are upset about Japan winning land in China, here is some advice: Don’t start (and then lose) a war against Japan with the help of foreigners (i.e. Russians), in the process throwing Korea under the bus.

    Where do you get the idea that it was the “wish of the Chinese people” to fight against Japan? It was the wish of the Communist Party (and the Soviet Union) to fight against Japan, not the “Chinese people.”

    Inahara goes on to write:

    Nevertheless, the Soviet ferment had already had enough time to permeate no small section of the Chinese people, so much indeed that it had taken practical shape in the formation of Chinese Communist armies. These Red forces Chiang Kai-shek had to tackle, but only with little success. For the Communist armies, under native leaders but assisted by Russian advisers, moved northward and established contact with the Soviet forces in Outer Mongolia, which, in fact, if not in name, is Soviet territory

    Despite the temporary setback following on Chiang’s coup, Moscow never wavered in its faith in Communist China. It knew how to bide its time, until the coveted opportunity arrived at last in December, 1936, in the shape of the Sian episode. There is indeed a general idea, from what followed from this episode, that Russia had played, directly or indirectly, a most important part in it. What is certainly undeniable is that, as a result of the episode, the Soviet-Nationalist entente was reestablished. The common front on which this reunion was achieved was expressed by the slogan “Fight Japan!” This pact proved a turning point. The time of drifting was over. And China now began
    to move consciously toward certain war with Japan. She had 190 army divisions consisting of 2,200,000 officers and men, which huge army was further reinforced by Communist troops. Moreover, behind China and beyond the borders of Manchoukuo loomed the ominous form of the Soviet Empire, whose Far Eastern army alone was declared to be at least as large as the whole of Japan’s standing army. Prior to the Russo-Japanese war Russia had been able to hoodwink the world by means of a secret treaty of alliance signed with China on the strength of which she flooded Manchuria with Russian troops. Now the same thing had come to pass again, though on a much larger scale. In this respect history certainly repeats itself. Moreover, just as her apprehensions regarding Czarist Russia drove Japan to enter into an alliance with Great Britain in 1902, so the danger of Soviet aggression drove her to see an anti-Comintern pact with Germany in November, 1937.

    So much for your “Lebensraum” argument. Again, Japan was defending itself against a prospective Soviet invasion. As far as CKS goes, after the Sian episode (during which he was placed under house arrest), orchestrated by the Soviets, he agreed to ally with the Communists.

    I don’t know where you get the idea of “Japanese militarists,” here is what Inahara says about Imperial Japan’s policy towards China:

    Paradoxical as it may sound, co-operation, not enmity, has always been the aim of this country in regard to China; but the forces which shape or misshape Far Eastern affairs have dragged Japan, and probably China also,into what she least desires. In no age have the Japanese ever lost their sense of respect for the classical culture of China. Neither is it less true that there are statesmen and thinkers in China, who, despite the tragic character of contemporary events, are convinced that friendship between the two countries is the only way to the salvation of Asia and its peoples. These people consider that the use of anti-Japanism by the leaders of the Nanking Government as a means of national policy and their rejection of the Japanese proffer of co-operation have been an almost irretrievable disaster for China as well as for Japan and also for Asia in general.

    As I said, Japan has always respected Chinese culture and wished to preserve it (unlike Mao and the CCP). The Japanese at the time were also Pan-Asianist, believing that a shared Confucian heritage could be the basis for security cooperation among all Asian nations. They appreciated Chinese contributions to their civilization, but it was the Chinese who had an arrogant view towards Japan and other Asian countries:

    All the same, there is no denying that Japan grew greatly in civilization under the influence
    of the continental culture, art, philosophy and legislation imported into this country together with Confucianism and Buddhism. But the Chinese are over-reaching themselves when they declare, as a recent writer puts it, that the Japanese are merely “vulgar upstarts, ungrateful and unprofitable
    pupils.” Nor is there much substance in the popular Chinese view that Japan has little or her own save military vices and modern evils. To this body of rabid and morbid censure it is enough to say in
    reply that if the Japanese were mere copyists, as it would like to make them, they could not possibly be what they are today. Classical Chinese culture is regarded in Japan much in the same light as classical European culture is in modern Europe. Japan regards it neither as exclusively Chinese nor Japanese, but rather as the common heritage of the Oriental peoples,….For this reason, if for no other, there exists a unity in Oriental culture, just as in the case of Occidental culture. Pan-Asianism, at least in its cultural sense, therefore, is no fantasy, but a living reality

    One commenter here argued that that the Chinese had to work with Soviet Union because they were not in a position to act totally independently. Well, Japan was in the same situation when the Europeans came to their shores, and they never approved of the Western powers invading China. They had to deal with the reality of the situation:

    I wish that I could persuade some Chinese of historical knowledge, of statesmanship, and of authority with his own people to explain that all this system of the unequal treaties was not of our choosing. We did not desire it. It was the minimum that we should ask of a China that repelled the foreigner, that would not give him justice in the courts, or secure for him the ordinary advantages of civilized and orderly government. ….
    They[Japan] rubbed their eyes hard and began to look around only to find that China, Japan’s helpless neighbour, was being squeezed by the British and the French from the south and by the Russians from the north. This, they were told, was the result of the Opium War; and the lesson thus learned they have ever since kept constantly in their minds. Thus the contact of the Japanese with the Western world was marked with the conviction driven into the Japanese mind that in order to be able to escape the fate of China, they must be at all costs prepared with sufficient means of defence.

    As far as the Japanese presence in Manchuria goes, it was mainly for security reasons, with China, under Soviet influence, posing a threat to Japan:

    But there was another Power which was threatening the peninsular kingdom more immediately than Russia, namely, China. In the meantime the Korean Government had become rotten
    to the core or, more exactly, the Kingdom’s very existence was at stake, because those who should have governed were guilty of such misgovernment that its capacity to resist any outside Power dropped almost to nothing. To make matters worse, the reactionaries there had the backing of China,
    while the reform party looked to Japan for sympathy and encouragement. This naturally brought abouttension between China and Japan. Something, therefore, had to be done to relieve the strained situation and so the Tientsin Treaty of 1885 was entered into by the two countries. But the restoration of goodwill and friendship was more apparent than real, for a rebellion of the Tong Haks, a reactionary band of fanatics, broke out in 1893, and China, taking advantage of the turmoil, despatched troops to Korea. Now the Treaty of Tientsin provided, among other matters, that “if there should again arise in Korea any disturbance or matter of importance, and if it should seem necessary
    for both Japan and China, or either of them, to despatch troops, they should first communicate mutually on the matter, and then when the trouble had subsided, the troops should be withdrawn and
    not permanently stationed there.”

    The Chinese Minister in Tokyo, however, informed the Japanese Government on June 7, 1894, that the Korean Government, unable to suppress the Tong Haks, had appealed to China for aid, and that Li Hung-chang had, by the order of the Emperor of China, despatched troops to Korea to
    restore order in the tributary state. Japan had been watching China’s designs on the peninsula with growing concern and her anxiety was, therefore, intensified at the turn which the affairs in the
    peninsula was taking. Among other things she took the strongest exception to Korea’s being regarded by China as her tributary state. While China was thus sending troops to Korea, Japan was busily engaged in laying a
    foundation for the welfare of the Koreans and the establishment of an orderly government in that country. So when the Tong Haks were suppressed, Japan lost no time in proposing to China that the
    two countries join in setting Korea on a firmer basis, financially and politically. The Peking Government, however, turned down the overtures. Thereupon Japan informed that government of her
    intention to proceed with Korean reforms on her own responsibility, since the Koreans were
    evidently incapable of working out their own salvation; and also that the troubled conditions in the
    peninsula, inviting as they did the intrusion of foreign Powers, were inimical to the very existence of
    the Island Empire. Then China, evidently under Czarist influence, took to obstruction and even
    threatened to send a large army to Korea in order to drive the Japanese out of the peninsula, with the
    result that the two countries confronted each other on the battle field. During the war, which lasted
    eight months, Japan carried the campaign into South Manchuria, where sanguinary battles were fought
    in different localities

    The Chinese reneged on the Treaty of Tianjin and tried to exploit the situation to make a power grab in Korea in cooperation with Tzarist Russia. Chinese-Russian cooperation at the time was very strong, with Russia helping China secure an indemnity loan, China allowing Russia to build a railway to Vladivostok, and with China and Russia secretly signing the Li-Lobanov Treaty:

    Russia, one of the three interventionists, had long posed as a friend of China. When
    approached by the Chinese Government, however, for assistance, she discovered in it a prime
    opportunity for killing two birds with one stone. She could render China the coveted service on the
    one hand and realize her ambitions on the other. So she lost no time, in conjunction with France and
    Germany, in exercising pressure upon Japan so as to make her disgorge one of the fruits of her
    victory. There is no question that this placed China under a great obligation to Russia, which was still
    further increased when Russia made it possible for China to raise an indemnity loan on the French
    money market. Count Witte, the Russian Finance Minister, agreed to pledge Russia’s resources as
    security for the Chinese loan. Not only that, but he even went the length of taking charge of the loan
    negotiations himself. The relations between China and Russia thus cemented received their finishing
    touch by the Li-Lobanov Treaty of 1896, which opened the flood gate to Russian penetration into
    Manchuria and thus brought on the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5. Li Hung-chang, the first dignitary
    of China who had signed the Shimonoseki Treaty on behalf of the Chinese Empire, proceeded to
    Russia in the same year to represent his country at the coronation of Czar Nicholas II. That such a high
    dignitary as Li Hung-chang was sent to Russia was no doubt to express China’s appreciation of the
    rôle played by Russia in connection with the triple intervention and the indemnity loan…

    Thus it will be seen that China and Russia were on more than intimate terms in keeping up a
    common front against Japan. This explains why Russia easily acquired the practical control of
    Manchuria and slipped into the Liaotung Peninsula out of which she had so recently evicted Japan.
    But in justice to Russia, it must be said that she was not alone in making inroads into Chinese
    territory

    You can talk all you want about “Japanese militarists,” but when you look at real history as supported by documentary evidence, the picture becomes more clear.

    • Agree: Malla
    • Replies: @Deep Thought
  136. an0n says:
    @Deep Thought

    You are free to go on your eternal duel with the Jews as you like it. But it was/is the white imperialist (that includes Soviet Russia to some extent,) and Japanese militarist, powers that violated the sovereignty of China and trampled on the rights of the Chinese people THE MOST. Jews did far less harm and the harms they did were temporary. China even has imported military technology from Israel these days– as far as I know

    “Soviet Russia to some extent”? You realize Mongolia used to be part of the Chinese Empire, right?

    You think Soviet/Bolshevik Russia is a “white imperialist”? Do you know who created the Bolshevik regime? To quote Solzhenitsyn:

    “You must understand, the leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse.

    “It cannot be overstated. Bolshevism committed the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant and uncaring about this enormous crime is proof that the global media is in the hands of the perpetrators.”

    You can get the full quote here:

    https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/04/02/alexander-solzhenitsyns-critical-history-of-jews-in-russia/

    These are the same Bolsheviks who created your CCP. In any case, you are right that there is no Bolshevik/Zionist lobby in Beijing today. But I guess you said it yourself: you wanna get that military technology from Israel. Good luck with that. That’s politics, I guess. Hopefully that works out for you.

    • Replies: @Deep Thought
  137. an0n says:
    @Deep Thought

    In the post-conference period, Japan’s policy toward China was decidedly conciliatory. Certainly, regarding China’s customs autonomy and the abolition of extraterritoriality, she was, to say the least, as conciliatory as any other Power. Speaking before the Diet in 1926, Baron Shidehara, the
    Foreign Minister, laid down the following four points as the guiding principles of Japanese policy toward China:

    (1) To respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of China and scrupulously avoid all interference in her domestic strife.
    (2) To promote solidarity and economic rapprochement between the two nations.
    (3) To entertain sympathetically and helpfully the just aspirations of the Chinese people and co-operate in their efforts for the realization of such aspirations.
    (4) To maintain an attitude of patience and toleration in the present situation in China, and at the same time protect Japan’s legitimate and essential rights and interests by all reasonable means.

    But Baron Shidehara’s policy, laudable as it was, was soon found to be utterly unworkable. The so-called rights recovery movement was launched by the Chinese under the misguided idea that the conciliatory or even the patronizing attitude of the Powers at the Washington Conference was a proof that the Chinese could do what they liked with impunity. The movement was first directed against Britain and then against Japan. In this, China evidently pursued her old policy of making barbarians fight barbarians, leaving herself to reap whatever benefits were left on the field. She persisted in turning a deaf ear to Baron Shidehara’s repeated overtures for a friendly solution of SinoJapanese problems. Not only that, but his policy of conciliation was interpreted by the Chinese as a sign of weakness, and merely served to encourage them in acts of provocation. Had the Chinese known how to appreciate the Japanese policy, a quite different history of the Far East would have
    been written. But that they would not do. On the contrary, they believed that the Japanese could be ousted from China and even that the Japanese rights in Manchuria could be cancelled through foreign intervention. It was China herself, and not the Japanese militarists, as is usually believed, that
    destroyed Shidehara’s chance of success.
    Says Ernest H. Pickering in his Japan’s Place in the Modern World: “The Manchurian authorities had shown themselves quite incapable of controlling, or, maybe, of even wishing to control, the turbulent Chinese elements, and that was the real issue.
    Here the baron (Shidehara) showed considerable warmth, as if he felt that he had been badly let down by the Chinese authorities. He had all along been striving for peace, while they had actually connived at war. The Japanese wanted no more than order and security, and they were denied both. Yet it was they who had brought prosperity to Manchuria, who had made their investments under treaty-guarantees by the Chinese, and whose enterprise had served to swell the coffers of the Chang warloads [sic].”

  138. @an0n

    The Japan, that had “always respected Chinese culture”, was BRFORE the arrival of Matthew C. Perry. It was totally different from then ont. From that time, the Japanese had turned themselves from being Asians into “honourary whites” and hence all the craps you have quoted above.

    [MORE]

    http://theseoultimes.com/ST/db/read.php?idx=2701

    “But the comic book, perhaps inadvertently, also betrays Japan’s conflicted identity, its longstanding feelings of superiority toward Asia and of inferiority toward the West. The Japanese characters in the book are drawn with big eyes, blond hair and Caucasian features; the Koreans are drawn with black hair, narrow eyes and very Asian features.”

    Asia Rivals’ Ugly Images Best Sellers in Japan

    By Norimitsu Onishi

    In “Hating the Korean Wave,” a young Japanese woman says, “It’s not an exaggeration to say that Japan built the South Korea of today!” Photo Courtesy Sharin Yamano/Shinyusha

    TOKYO, Nov. 19 — A young Japanese woman in the comic book “Hating the Korean Wave” exclaims, “It’s not an exaggeration to say that Japan built the South Korea of today!” In another passage the book states that “there is nothing at all in Korean culture to be proud of.”

    In another comic book, “Introduction to China,” which portrays the Chinese as a depraved people obsessed with cannibalism, a woman of Japanese origin says: “Take the China of today, its principles, thought, literature, art, science, institutions. There’s nothing attractive.”

    The two comic books, portraying Chinese and Koreans as base peoples and advocating confrontation with them, have become runaway best sellers in Japan in the last four months.

    In their graphic and unflattering drawings of Japan’s fellow Asians and in the unapologetic, often offensive contents of their speech bubbles, the books reveal some of the sentiments underlying Japan’s worsening relations with the rest of Asia.

    They also point to Japan’s longstanding unease with the rest of Asia and its own sense of identity, which is akin to Britain’s apartness from the Continent. Much of Japan’s history in the last century and a half has been guided by the goal of becoming more like the West and less like Asia. Today, China and South Korea’s rise to challenge Japan’s position as Asia’s economic, diplomatic and cultural leader is inspiring renewed xenophobia against them here.

    Kanji Nishio, a scholar of German literature, is honorary chairman of the Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform, the nationalist organization that has pushed to have references to the country’s wartime atrocities eliminated from junior high school textbooks.

    Mr. Nishio is blunt about how Japan should deal with its neighbors, saying nothing has changed since 1885, when one of modern Japan’s most influential intellectuals, Yukichi Fukuzawa, said Japan should emulate the advanced nations of the West and leave Asia by dissociating itself from its backward neighbors, especially China and Korea.

    “I wonder why they haven’t grown up at all,” Mr. Nishio said. “They don’t change. I wonder why China and Korea haven’t learned anything.”

    Mr. Nishio, who wrote a chapter in the comic book about South Korea, said Japan should try to cut itself off from China and South Korea, as Fukuzawa advocated. “Currently we cannot ignore South Korea and China,” Mr. Nishio said. “Economically, it’s difficult. But in our hearts, psychologically, we should remain composed and keep that attitude.”

    The reality that South Korea had emerged as a rival hit many Japanese with full force in 2002, when the countries were co-hosts of soccer’s World Cup and South Korea advanced further than Japan. At the same time, the so-called Korean Wave – television dramas, movies and music from South Korea – swept Japan and the rest of Asia, often displacing Japanese pop cultural exports.

    The wave, though popular among Japanese women, gave rise to a countermovement, especially on the Internet. Sharin Yamano, the young cartoonist behind “Hating the Korean Wave,” began his strip on his own Web site then.

    “The ‘Hate Korea’ feelings have spread explosively since the World Cup,” said Akihide Tange, an editor at Shinyusha, the publisher of the comic book. Still, the number of sales, 360,000 so far, surprised the book’s editors, suggesting that the Hate Korea movement was far larger than they had believed.

    “We weren’t expecting there’d be so many,” said Susumu Yamanaka, another editor at Shinyusha. “But when the lid was actually taken off, we found a tremendous number of people feeling this way.”

    So far the two books, each running about 300 pages and costing around $10, have drawn little criticism from public officials, intellectuals or the mainstream news media. For example, Japan’s most conservative national daily, Sankei Shimbun, said the Korea book described issues between the countries “extremely rationally, without losing its balance.”

    As nationalists and revisionists have come to dominate the public debate in Japan, figures advocating an honest view of history are being silenced, said Yutaka Yoshida, a historian at Hitotsubashi University here. Mr. Yoshida said the growing movement to deny history, like the Rape of Nanjing, was a sort of “religion” for an increasingly insecure nation.

    “Lacking confidence, they need a story of healing,” Mr. Yoshida said. “Even if we say that story is different from facts, it doesn’t mean anything to them.”

    The Korea book’s cartoonist, who is working on a sequel, has turned down interview requests. The book centers on a Japanese teenager, Kaname, who attains a “correct” understanding of Korea. It begins with a chapter on how South Korea’s soccer team supposedly cheated to advance in the 2002 Word Cup; later chapters show how Kaname realizes that South Korea owes its current success to Japanese colonialism.

    “It is Japan who made it possible for Koreans to join the ranks of major nations, not themselves,” Mr. Nishio said of colonial Korea.

    But the comic book, perhaps inadvertently, also betrays Japan’s conflicted identity, its longstanding feelings of superiority toward Asia and of inferiority toward the West. The Japanese characters in the book are drawn with big eyes, blond hair and Caucasian features; the Koreans are drawn with black hair, narrow eyes and very Asian features.

    That peculiar aesthetic, so entrenched in pop culture that most Japanese are unaware of it, has its roots in the Meiji Restoration of the late 19th century, when Japanese leaders decided that the best way to stop Western imperialists from reaching here was to emulate them.

    In 1885, Fukuzawa – who is revered to this day as the intellectual father of modern Japan and adorns the 10,000 yen bill (the rough equivalent of a $100 bill) – wrote “Leaving Asia,” the essay that many scholars believe provided the intellectual underpinning of Japan’s subsequent invasion and colonization of Asian nations.

    Fukuzawa bemoaned the fact that Japan’s neighbors were hopelessly backward.

    Writing that “those with bad companions cannot avoid bad reputations,” Fukuzawa said Japan should depart from Asia and “cast our lot with the civilized countries of the West.” He wrote of Japan’s Asian neighbors, “We should deal with them exactly as the Westerners do.”

    As those sentiments took root, the Japanese began acquiring Caucasian features in popular drawing. The biggest change occurred during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904 to 1905, when drawings of the war showed Japanese standing taller than Russians, with straight noses and other features that made them look more European than their European enemies.

    “The Japanese had to look more handsome than the enemy,” said Mr. Nagayama.

    Many of the same influences are at work in the other new comic book, “An Introduction to China,” which depicts the Chinese as obsessed with cannibalism and prostitution, and has sold 180,000 copies.

    The book describes China as the “world’s prostitution superpower” and says, without offering evidence, that prostitution accounts for 10 percent of the country’s gross domestic product. It describes China as a source of disease and depicts Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi saying, “I hear that most of the epidemics that broke out in Japan on a large scale are from China.”

    The book waves away Japan’s worst wartime atrocities in China. It dismisses the Rape of Nanjing, in which historians say 100,000 to 300,000 Chinese were killed by Japanese soldiers in 1937-38, as a fabrication of the Chinese government devised to spread anti-Japanese sentiment.

    The book also says the Japanese Imperial Army’s Unit 731 – which researched biological warfare and conducted vivisections, amputations and other experiments on thousands of Chinese and other prisoners – was actually formed to defend Japanese soldiers against the Chinese.

    “The only attractive thing that China has to offer is Chinese food,” said Ko Bunyu, a Taiwan-born writer who provided the script for the comic book. Mr. Ko, 66, has written more than 50 books on China, some on cannibalism and others arguing that Japanese were the real victims of their wartime atrocities in China. The book’s main author and cartoonist, a Japanese named George Akiyama, declined to be interviewed.

    Like many in Taiwan who are virulently anti-China, Mr. Ko is fiercely pro-Japanese and has lived here for four decades. A longtime favorite of the Japanese right, Mr. Ko said anti-Japan demonstrations in China early this year had earned him a wider audience. Sales of his books surged this year, to one million.

    “I have to thank China, really,” Mr. Ko said. “But I’m disappointed that the sales of my books could have been more than one or two million if they had continued the demonstrations.”

    The above article is from The New York Times

    If you are upset about Japan winning land in China, here is some advice: Don’t start (and then lose) a war against Japan with the help of foreigners (i.e. Russians), in the process throwing Korea under the bus.

    If YOU, and other Japanese, are upset about China refusing to submit to Japanese false sense of superiority (towards non-whites only, including the Chinese), remember that you people started a war of conquest against Chinese and had committed untold atrocities against the Chinese people. Payback will come in time. You can see Japan’s future in today’s Mongolia and Manchuria– I call it Retaliation in Kind.

    • Replies: @an0n
    , @an0n
    , @Malla
  139. @an0n

    “Soviet Russia to some extent”? You realize Mongolia used to be part of the Chinese Empire, right?

    You think Soviet/Bolshevik Russia is a “white imperialist”? Do you know who created the Bolshevik regime? To quote Solzhenitsyn:

    Tsarist Russia was an imperialist power that preyed on China when the latter was weak and in decline. Its successor state, the USSR, did similar thing regarding to Outer Mongolia– as you said!!!

    So, why should there be any surprise???

    I’m the one citing documents, not just Wikipedia entries like you. Who’s “making up” their own history here?

    I quoted “Wikipedia entries” that described the same historical facts that I had learnt from trustworthy historical documents. You are welcomed to challenge their validity. For example, you are welcomed to quote from YOUR “documents” that proved that 博古 and 李德 were NOT disposed of but remained in power after 遵义, and that 博古 went on to declare the establishment of the People’s Republic of China at Tiananmen on October the 1st, 1949. I am damn sure that YOU will believe your own quotes!!!

  140. an0n says:
    @Deep Thought

    You should stop making assumptions about my background. Japanese people don’t visit sites like these – they don’t care about politics in general, let alone the politics of foreigners. And their English is generally not that great. You mentioned “honorary whites,” presumably meaning “honorary Aryans” but that’s what Hitler and the Nazis used to refer to Chinese, Japanese, Turks, Arabs, etc. It was actually inclusive terminology. That was not terminology used by Japan.

    With regard to race, here is how Japan felt during the Meiji Period:

    But the anomalous fact is that the United States insists on the open door in Asia, while she keeps her own doors closed against the Orientals. At the Paris Peace Conference, Wilson turned down the Japanese proposal for racial equality. As Prince Saionji stated at that time, specific
    discrimination applied to the Japanese wounds “our normal human pride,” although nothing is farther from Japan’s intention than to suggest to another country how it should regulate its own affairs. The racial equality issue was raised not in order to force our immigrants upon the United States or any other country which does not desire them, but to establish the principle that all races are equal before the law and should not be treated discriminatorily on account of supposed superiority or inferiority. This idea was the motive behind Japan’s proposal at the Paris Conference and still is governing her international action

    You are citing a short article that mentions some fringe Japanese people who write some comic books that nobody reads. I’ve been citing actual scholarly and authoritative sources. At this point, though, it’s obvious you’ll believe what you want.

    • Replies: @Deep Thought
  141. d dan says:
    @an0n

    “The commenter meant “taking in” in the sense of naturalization and citizenship.”

    Really, you know that because you have mind-reading capability? And even that is true for that commenter, many other readers and White nationalists are actually advocating stopping all Chinese students and tourists: just look at what this article author’s rants and FBI Director’s statement about “Chinese whole society.” So, there are many people interpreting “taking in” more broadly than “naturalization and citizenship.”

    Finally, they do take in …

    but that is not the same as “taking them in.”

    Even if the “taking them in” means citizenship, I have already addressed China’s reasons in the “Firstly”, and “Secondly” parts of my comment. You ignore those but jump directly into my “Finally” part.

    Western/white countries, … do this on humanitarian grounds

    LOL.

    “We won’t bring up the Jewish issue here, because I know how scared you are to talk about that. “

    More LOL. Just to help you a bit: Chinese have no love, no hatred, no fear, no interest and no joy in Jewish issue and Whites’ amusing infatuation with them.

    Look, my original motivation to reply was to rebut your groundless attacks on China’s Tibet policies (i.e. China “sinned”, “mistreat”, “discourage”…). Since you have proven so ignorant on this, and then deviate so much to troll on so many other issues, including ad hominem, I have little interest in continuing this conversation.

    • Replies: @an0n
  142. an0n says:
    @d dan

    Really, you know that because you have mind-reading capability?

    It’s standard English. The context was pretty clear too. Why don’t you just google “take in immigrants” and see what happens? In every article in which the phrase “take in” is used, the phrase means citizenship and naturalization (https://www.visualcapitalist.com/does-europe-take-in-enough-migrants-chart/). Invariably all the results involve situations in which immigrants are granted citizenship (and all of the examples are Western countries, not China).

    And even that is true for that commenter, many other readers and White nationalists are actually advocating stopping all Chinese students and tourists: just look at what this article author’s rants and FBI Director’s statement about “Chinese whole society.” So, there are many people interpreting “taking in” more broadly than “naturalization and citizenship.”

    There you go again. You have to mention “White nationalists” in conjunction with this policy and with Chris Ray, the FBI director, proving once again how disingenuous you are. First of all, Chris Ray, the FBI director, is unequivically NOT a “white” nationalist (and may very well be Jewish or at least partly Jewish,given that he was born in New York and went to Yale University – why don’t you research this for us?). You are offended by his “whole-of society threat” comment with regard to Chinese, but you are not offended by his mentioning the need to fight “racist violence,” referring to “white nationalist” violence, which is basically non-existent as many writers on Unz have demonstrated. The FBI director is an issue where you actually do have common interests with “white nationalists” and yet you only make an issue about the “whole-of society” comment, not the implication that “white nationalist” terrorism is a thing. Why is the same person, Chris Wray, disingenuous with regard to the Chinese threat but not with regard to the “white nationalist” terrorism? You are pretty selective in how you quote people and how you characterize them.

    Do you know who Christoper Ray was addressing when he made the “whole-of” society comment? In one instance, it was Marco Rubio, who along with Ted Cruz, are the most vociferous anti-China voices in the US government. Newsflash: Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are NOT “white nationalists.” They are Republican conservatives of Hispanic heritage who, in fact, usually advocate for open borders and are at least in favor of accommodation with regard to illegal immigration. Marco Rubio, being of Cuban descendent and coming from a family that left Castro’s Cuba, is stridently ANTI-COMMUNIST.

    Chinese have no love, no hatred, no fear, no interest and no joy in Jewish issue and Whites’ amusing infatuation with them.

    First of all, I was addressing you as a person specifically, not “Chinese.” You do NOT represent all Chinese people and do not speak for the Chinese race. But thank you for basically admitting (at last), that you are Chinese. Given your need to speak for all of Chinese society, are you some public official or agent of the Chinese government? Maybe Chris Raye’s “whole-of” society comment applies to you, even if it doesn’t apply to the average Chinese student.

    In any case, I have no idea about what you’re talking about with “no love, no hatred, no fear, no interest and no joy” in the Jewish issue. It’s more distorted, loaded language from you. More diversions. It was never about “hatred” or “fear.” In the context of discussing foreign influence in China, I simply made the point that it’s not fair to regard an observant Jew, like David Sassoon, who monopolized the opium trade in China, with white Christian British people, many of whom were Christian missionaries like Hudson Taylor who told Chinese not to use opium. I also made the point that many of the Soviet/Bolshevik handlers and agents who helped establish, fund, and support the CCP from 1921-1949 were of Jewish background, as were most of the leading Bolsheviks in the Soviet government at that time. Given the influence that the Soviet/Bolshevik government had on the formation of the CCP, why wouldn’t it be of “interest” to Chinese people? Given the influence of opium on the Chinese population, why wouldn’t David Sassoon’s background be of interest to Chinese people?

    You stir up fear against the Yellows while insult and distrust the loyalty of any non-Whites: Blacks, Browns, Jews and others.

    So Jews, according to you, are “non-Whites,” and yet you are more than happy for Jews to be lumped together with “whites” when discussing David Sassoon, Boshevik/Jewish influence in the early CCP, or other (((Western influence))) in China. And are you seriously going to lump Jews with blacks, browns, and others, as if they were in the same socioeconomic situation, as if Jews were living in the same kind of poverty as blacks and browns allegedly do.

    You also talk about the “yellows” but Chinese nationals are NOT American citizens. They are not minorities. Even Asian-American with American citizenship are typically not considered “minorities.” The average per-capita income of Asian-Americans is higher than that of any other racial group in the country. They are NOT an oppressed minority nor have they historically suffered oppression like “blacks or browns.”

    You also don’t care to make common cause with “whites” or agree with the author with regard to Yale admission practices that discriminate against both “whites” and “yellows” in favor of Jews. This is not of “interest” to Chinese people? And yet it is of interest to Unz readers – Ron Unz himself having written about it extensively and provided most of the evidence about the discrimination going on. Do you take issue with Ron Unz bringing attention to this issue then? What about the picture of black gorilla in Ron Unz’s most recent article “White Racialism in America, then and now”? Are you going to call out Ron Unz for being a “racist”? You think Michelle Malkin is kissing “white’s arse”? Did you know that Michelle Malkin is married to a Jew who worked for the RAND institute? Does that offend you?

    If not, then stop being a race-baiter who constantly tries to portray China’s enemies as “white nationalists.”

    Do you know where I’ve heard most of the anti-China propaganda, as far as Internet activism goes? From YouTube channels like China Uncensored, which is funded by Falun Gong. Why don’t you direct your anger there? Most of the negative propaganda against China (as far major media outlets and academic institutions go) is from neoconservatives and some anti-Communist Republic conservatives (National Review, Hudson Institute, senators like Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz). That is where most of the anti-China stuff comes from, not “white nationalists.”

    But your purpose on this website is to try to portray China’s enemies as white Westerners while diverting people away from the Zionist issue. And stop whining like a little baby saying “I’m losing patience” blah blah. I’m losing patience with your whining. If you don’t like a comment, then don’t reply! It’s the Internet. Or, make your own blog if you want to control what commenters are considered “trolls” or not, instead of presuming to tell the Unz staff that James Kirkpatrick’s article should be disallowed on the site.

    • Troll: d dan
    • Replies: @denk
  143. @an0n

    You should stop making assumptions about my background.

    I do not assume anything. I asked you whether you are Japanese and got no answer. Therefore, I adopt both possibilities.

    You are citing a short article that mentions some fringe Japanese people who write some comic books that nobody reads. I’ve been citing actual scholarly and authoritative sources. At this point, though, it’s obvious you’ll believe what you want.

    Scholarly and authoritative quotes, if what is quoted is not true, becomes merely authoritative propaganda. The piece you quoted about the Meiji Period is exactly that. The Meiji period was when Japan was at the height of abandoning its “Asian-ness” and adopting Western imperialist/militarist and RACIST concepts. Any talk about these ‘specific
    discrimination applied to the Japanese wounds “our normal human pride,”‘ were on behalf the Japanese themselves but NOT for other non-white peoples, whom the Japanese treated as inferior.

    On the other hand, if what is quoted is TRUE, then even Wiki become authoritative! Let me show you:

    This is what YOU said in a earlier post above:

    That is where Edgar Snow went to inteview Mao.

    And this what I found from Wiki: Post 130 above.

    And Bao’an was a sub-district of Zhidan county, which was a “prefecture-level city of Yan’an,” which was “in the northwest of Shaanxi Province.”

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

    Therefore, Edgar Snow did NOT interview Mao in Xinjiang!!!

    This is what the authoritative YOU finally admitted:

    Yes, I made a mistake about where the interview was held.

    So, you see, it is NOT about where the quoted is from but about whether what is quoted is true or not!!!

    Your “authoritative” quote was given by some Japanese high official who spoke on behalf of the Japanese government that was in the process of aping the white racists and imperialists, while Norimitsu Onishi was a Japanese reporter who lived and breathed among both the Japanese and non-Japanese peoples and could make fair judgments by comparing their views and feelings.

    • Troll: an0n
  144. denk says:
    @an0n

    Tibet
    Mao
    Ad nauseam

    Standard white men burden talking point.

    NUthin about Kirkpatrick’s grand plan to ‘build a white empire’ to ‘check’ China. [sic]

    You support this new eight nations alliance anti Chinese posse ?

    • Replies: @an0n
    , @an0n
    , @an0n
  145. an0n says:
    @Deep Thought

    You can see Japan’s future in today’s Mongolia and Manchuria

    Thank you for showing everyone the Chinese Ultra-Nationalist agenda for Japan. Keep dreaming.

    • Replies: @Deep Thought
  146. @an0n

    “You break it. You own it!”

    Japan broke the multi-millennium long Sino-Japanese peace by its aggression against China and did untold atrocities against the Chinese people, and then the Japanese Ultra-Nationalists blame the Chinese– NOT themselves– for the Chinese feeling of bitterness about their lack of repentance!

    Given below is some talks in the Japan Today forum a long time ago:

    [MORE]

    ************************************************************************

    For China, its business as usual
    odyssey2010 (Feb 21 2005 – 11:36)

    China will complain bitterly over almost everything that Japan does. I have lived in China and seen the hatred for myself, I have read Chinese websites and listen to Chinese news broadcasts, they get upset about trivial things, this is business as usual.

    China actually saw the military cuts in which the self defense force chopped tank batalions, troop division and fighter jets in favor of a missile defense system, as an agressive jesture.

    China won’t be quiet on anything military. If Japan rulled that it was scrapping all of its offensive weapons in favor of a protective ‘force field’ China would probably see that as an act of war.

    The government has every right to be worried about China and should not worry so much about offending it, because China will be offened anyway.

    There are many Chinese websites and buliten boards in China where Chinese naitonals are openly calling for war, and where they are trying to recruit people to murder ALL Japanese people in the name of pride and vengance. In Japan, a post on a public forum like this that called for Japanese citizens to comit an act of murder against anybody would be taken down very quickly

    ************************************************************************

    Wake Up
    Jose_Murphy (Feb 21 2005 – 12:47)

    “..China will complain bitterly over almost everything that Japan does…”

    I don’t blame the Chinese for being bitter. Being your cultural mentor who taught Japanese everything from how to read and write, the arts, the courts, architecture, city planning (just look at Kyoto for Christ sake) and not to eat with your bare hands…etc’, the only way Japan knew how to express her gratitude was to murder millions of Chinese citizens and astonishingly pretends it all didn’t happen.

    “…I have lived in China and seen the hatred for myself..”

    Why shouldn’t the Chinese hate the Japanese ? I mean are you kidding ? Knock Knock !

    “..China actually saw the military cuts in..as an agressive jesture”.

    History tells us Japan is an aggressive, opportunistic and expansionary power. Any moves will be looked upon with suspicion. It’s the legacy of your history.

    You are making a big mistake regarding China. Chinese people are the most forgiving of all. Look at those Japanese orphans left behind in Manchuria and raised by Chinese families as their own. Departing Japanese would have killed their children left behind in Siberia before they become ravaged by the Russians.

    “…There are many Chinese websites and bulletin boards in China where Chinese nationals are openly calling for war…”

    Pal, it’s all cause and effect.

    China lost half a century and countless millions because of Japan. While refusing to acknowledge the past is one thing. Continuing to deliberately and blatantly undermining China peaceful rise can only draw anger and indignation from the Chinese people.

    If you think the Chinese are so problematic a people, when was the last time you saw the Chinese venting such anger against someone else.

    Japan is making a big mistake. While the US will come and go as a Pacific power. China will always be next door and she is very patient. What would have been a case of let bygones be bygones, Japan is sowing the seeds of future conflict. This time history won’t be on your side.

    Regards, Jose

    ************************************************************************

    Japan risks upsetting China on Taiwan
    Hikozaemon (Feb 21 2005 – 13:03)

    The Chinese side works itself into a lathe about how Japan supposedly pretends the past didn’t happen and seeking to continue to hold China down.

    Every Japanese knows that Japan invaded China and killed lots of people, and its elected leaders have made numerous apologies.

    Also, rather than holding China down, Japan was one of the primary providers of development loans that allowed China to build the infrastructure that has enabled its current economic growth, and Japanese corporations are now frequently closing down Japanese factories and firing Japanese workers to give their jobs to Chinese workers in factories in China.

    Old Chinese who actually suffered as victims to the Japanese military 60 years ago are entitled not to forgive. But it seems that many young Chinese and their leaders hate modern Japan for no good reason at all. I mean, we are getting to the point of French people who want all English killed for what happened at Agincort.

    Japan’s emerging policy of joining the US in guaranteeing Taiwan’s security is one that will result in the saving of Chinese lives, both in Taiwan and on the mainland – and guarantees regional peace. Ordinary Chinese should be grateful that such a mechanism exists that prevents their country taking them into yet another disastrous war, like the many others the CCP has been entangled in since it took power in the 1950s.

    Peace

    ************************************************************************

    Are you sure ?
    Jose_Murphy (Feb 21 2005 – 14:01)

    “..The Chinese side works itself into a lathe..pretends the past”.

    The whitewashing of history and Japanese school textbook censorship is widely known in the west for decades”. It’s just that the “loose with the truth” wasn’t directed at the allies. Otherwise the US and indeed UK and Australia would summon the Japan PM on-the-double to Washington to (please explain).

    Now we have a generation of Japanese kids who haven’t the faintest idea why the Chinese hate them. All the while, the Japanese side question about Chinese youth education. It’s bizarre !

    “..Every Japanese knows that Japan invaded China and killed lots of people, and its elected leaders have made numerous apologies.

    (Rubbish. In school books the invasion is descibed as “advance”. The Nanjing massacre is decribed in one sentence…which reads someting like “many civilians died”..what from mosquito bites ? The brutality is explained away as the spirit to free Asia from European colonialism).

    All the so call official apologies amounted to “I regret for stepping on your foot !”. What sincerity is that ?

    What’s up with your culture ? Why is it so hard to say sorry ?

    Also,… frequently closing down Japanese factories and firing Japanese workers to give their jobs to Chinese workers in factories in China..”.

    Are you insane ? Do you understand basic economics ? It’s called transformation. Japan had been shipping lower-end productions to Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia for decades. It is no charity pal. Japanese corporations make a bundle of money with this arrangement. All the while Japan is becoming less cost-efficient and China’s skilled work force more advanced and sophisticated. Problem is that Japan risks losing those high end jobs as well to the Chinese. It’s survival of the fittest. Again, this is why the Japanese are getting so shell-shocked.

    “Old Chinese…point of French people who want all English killed for what happened at Agincort…”.

    You can take things as far back to the ice age if you want for your argument. Someone comes to your house and kill your old man. None of your business I guess. (Now, invite the killer to a cup of Sake…why don’t you). Chinese today are still being killed and maimed by chemical weapons used for perverse experiments.

    “..Japan’s emerging policy of joining the US in guaranteeing Taiwan’s security is one that will result in the saving of Chinese lives…”.

    You are the first Japanese I have heard who is interested in saving Chinese lives. For that I commend you.

    Regards, Jose

    ************************************************************************

    Japan risks upsetting China on Taiwan
    mad_god (Feb 21 2005 – 14:41)

    Link from lundy:

    http:/ / http://www.hawaii.edu/ powerkills/ CHINA.CHAP1.HTM

    ” Someone comes to your house and kill your old man”

    So it’s a reason for you to hate someone’s grandson? You should go to see a psychologist.

    And tell me your behaviour if you know the old man of your family committed lots of atrocities in people of your own family, is that OK?

    Looks like just another case of brainwashing well succeeded by China.

    ************************************************************************

    Choice is Yours
    Jose_Murphy (Feb 21 2005 – 16:33)

    Perhaps I should have made my point clearer. Chinese anger towards Japan doesn’t equate to anger towards Japanese. On an indivisual basis, I know of many Chinese and Japanese getting along very well. In fact, many are even genuine friends in the true sense of the word.

    The present problem in relations is complex. Although the most important one is Japan’s denial and whitewashing of the past. Hence, we go back to your point about forgiveness. From the Chinese perspective, Japan is both guilty and dishonest. How can you forgive the dishonest ?

    Another point is that Japan (Government) should stop antagonising the Chinese for it is unwise. You should understand why Japan was on the receiving end of two atomic weapons (WMD tagetted upon civilians) and not the Germans. The Americans (I am one) are merely pitting one yellow man against another. One day Japan will be left high and dry dealing with a provoked and angry Chinese superpower.

    It isn’t far fetched. Just a few years ago, China was a rural economic backwater. Today, it consumes more steel that the USA. It has more mobile phones and TV. An economy growing so fast that it dictates the prices of world commodities. Koizumi is nervous but has taken the wrong approach. He decided to provoke the Chinese. A people with a long history and long memories.

    The Chinese may not even have to fire a shot to hurt Japan. One day, maybe all she needs to do is to pull the economic lever (trigger). They can disriminate Japanese firms in favor of Europeans, restrict Japanese imports, cut you guys out of their market (when Japan may then be again in recession). Reminds me of Tokyo in the 30s.

    It’s ironic that I am telling you this. A think the Chinese have a proverb that reads something like, “When the clam and the stock fight, the fisherman reaps the reward).

    Jose

    ************************************************************************

    Hikozaemon (Feb 21 2005 – 21:27)

    Dude, you are writing like you have some idea of how the education system is set up in Japan, when it seems all you have heard is the hysteria of the media blowing up the textbook issue.

    1) There are no fixed history textbooks that all schools use. In Japan, textbooks are made independently of the government, and approved/ rejected on an accuracy basis only.

    2) This principle was tested by Saburo Ienaga’s textbook that describes the Nanjing Massacre as a massacre, Japanese invasion as an invasion, includes biological weapons testing, Unit 731, comfort women. After a 20 year court case, Ienaga won, and the Supreme Court approved his history textbook and declared that the massacre, biological weapons testing and so on were “undeniable facts of history”. His is one of the many history textbooks used by various schools in Japan.

    3) Jiang accepted Koizumi’s apology made on the Marco Polo Bridge no less as an apology. Nothing half hearted there.

    4) ODA extended to China after diplomatic relations were established was charity. Under Mao’s rule and at that time, no one else was willing to give it such aid. Chinese diplomats in Japan often repeat how grateful they are for it, and stress this is one of the reasons to keep economics and politics separate.

    Japanese kids learn more than you give them credit for. You also misjudge and overestimate the role the government in Japan is able to play in education. Laws set up by the Americans are designed to prevent education being used for political brainwashing. Something many of Japan’s neighbours lack.

    And as for Chinese lives, I wish so many Chinese hadn’t died in the past, and I don’t want to see any more die now in a stupid political dispute. I have friends in Taiwan, and I don’t want some stupid generals angry about history and some polititians to go dropping missiles on them. If Japan or any other country is willing to act to keep peace in the region, that is a good thing.

    Jose, I recommend you take all the energy from that hate you feel for Japan, and use a bit of it to learn about what Japan today really is. You may be surprised to know that many Japanese hate the wartime government as much as you do, and that Japan today is a very different place to what you seem to think it is.

    Peace

    ************************************************************************

    Hikozaemon
    Jose_Murphy (Feb 22 2005 – 00:14)

    It may be semantics to you, but the word “sorry” was never uttered in any of the official expressions of “regret”. It is not a trivial distinction. It is this perceived lack of sincerity on the part of Japan that ferments suspicion and resentment among ordinary Chinese to this day.

    The question (what matters) is not whether Jiang accepted Koizumi’s apology. It is whether the Chinese nation perceive that Japan has come cleaned on the past (the answer is no).

    I have no hatred for anyone nor am I taking sides. I merely responded to earlier postings seeking to label all Chinese as blinded by unjustifiable hatred. Japanese atrocities committed against Chinese have no parallels. China suffered immensely last century and Japan was largely responsible.

    All I can say is that views being expressed on this forum and those on the Chinese side do not bode well for the future. Political alignment with the US over Taiwan (after a serious of recent events interpreted to be anti-Chinese provocations) merely rubs salts over the old wounds as the Chinese understandable feel being further victimized by Japan. How would Japan feel if China issued a joint declaration with the Russians over Okinawa ? (Not a good example, but you get my point).

    Contrary to popular Japanese belief, Anti-Japanese feelings is not a PRC phenomenon either. Chinese living in HK (long before the return to the PRC) and to a lesser degree in SEA are also resentful. This is a legacy of Japan’s past.

    The problem now is neither side understands the other nor seek to.

    (This is what I saw in the original posting).

    Regards, Jose

    By the way, did you collect your present quote from an “scholarly and authoritative” source???

    I always quote what is/are TRUE!

    • Troll: an0n
  147. an0n says:
    @denk

    Standard white men burden talking point.

    Yeah, I agree. I’m tired of talking about “white men” too. You are the one who brought them up.

    Let’s talk about people who are NOT white, like David Sassoon, the observant Jew who monopolized the opium trade and turned Chinese people into a nation of drug addicts, while Christian white men like Hudson Taylor built churches, orphanages, and hospitals in China and told people NOT to smoke opium.

    Ever hear of 清华大学, Tsinghua University, the top university in China? Guess who founded it: Christian missionaries.

    Ever hear of the Communist Party of China, the current regime in China? Guess who founded it: Bolshevik Jews (like Borodin and Joffe).

    Ever hear of Mao’s Little Red Book? Guess who wrote it: Israel Epstein, the Bolshevik Jew

    I’m against racism against Chinese like you. For example, I don’t like how Einstein (a Zionist Jew) called Chinese people a “filthy, industrious, and obtuse” people. I also don’t like how he said, “It would be a pity if these Chinese supplant all other races. For the likes of us the mere thought is unspeakably dreary.”

    Zionist Jews shouldn’t be so racist against Chinese, right? I agree with you – let’s not talk about “standard white men.”

    • Troll: d dan
  148. an0n says:
    @denk

    Standard white men.

    I agree, let’s stop talking about “white men.” Let’s talk about people who are NOT white. For example, David Sassoon, the observant Jew who monopolized the opium trade in China and turned the Chinese people into a nation of drug addicts (unlike a white Christian missionary like Hudson Taylor, who founded hospitals, schools, and orphanages in China, telling Chinese people NOT to smoke opium).

    Another person who is NOT a “standard white man” is Albert Einstein, the Zionist Jew, who said Chinese people were a “filthy, industrious, and obtuse people” and who also said, “It would be a pity if these Chinese supplant all other races. For the likes of us the mere thought is unspeakably dreary.”

    I hate this talk of demographic replacement and racism, don’t you? I’m glad you are with me helping to combat anti-Chinese racism. I definitely do NOT want to join the anti-China posse of Einstein, Sassoon, and other racist Jews.

    Ever hear of Tsinghua University, the top university in China? It was founded by Christian missionaries, but that’s more “standard white men” stuff. Ever hear of the Communist Party of China – it was founded by Bolshevik/Soviet Jews. Ever hear of Mao’s Little Red Book? It was written by a Bolshevik Jew named Israel Epstein, definitely not a “standard white man”

    • Replies: @Deep Thought
  149. an0n says:
    @denk

    If you go on Baidu and look up “David Sassoon,” here is what you will find:

    1840年中、英鸦片战争暴发,英国政府进而通过《南京条约》把香港窃为己有,可是很少有人知道,英国发动这场战争所要保护的对象——鸦片,出自著名的沙逊集团创始人犹太人大卫·沙逊之手

    If you don’t need me to educate you, then let the Chinese government (via Baidu.com) educate you: “Very few people actually know that the interests England was trying to protect (i.e. opium) by starting the [Opium] Wars, came from the scheming of the famous Sassoon Company founder, the JEWISH David Sassoon”

    That’s my little translation, but you can go ahead and use Google Translate if you want.

    多吃一些红片吧 !

    God bless you China. Keep up the good work and keep on speaking the truth (unlike some commenters here on Unz). Thank you for telling your people the truth and naming the 犹太人. I LOVE YOU CHINA! THE FUTURE IS YOURS!

    • Replies: @denk
    , @denk
  150. @an0n

    Agree that the opium pushing Jews were disgusting, but David Sassoon did NOT monopolize the opium trade in China. There was, at least, one American in the game then:

    “But today, one facet of the first multi-millionaire’s biography might seem to tarnish his shining legacy: his dabbling in smuggled opium. Astor’s enormous fortune was made in part by sneaking opium into China against imperial orders. The resulting riches made him one of the world’s most powerful merchants—and also helped create the world’s first widespread opioid epidemic.”

    https://www.history.com/news/john-jacob-astor-opium-fortune-millionaire

    Ever hear of 清华大学, Tsinghua University, the top university in China? Guess who founded it: Christian missionaries.

    Apparently, you are only telling half of the story. 清华 was established with Chinese money:

    https://www.tsinghua.edu.cn/en/About/History.htm

    The imperialists sent armies to rob China and filled their pockets with Chinese money. But the US of A was more generous than the others. It gave the money it had robbed to established a preparatory school 清华 to train future Chinese students for studying in the US.

    Ever hear of the Communist Party of China, the current regime in China? Guess who founded it: Bolshevik Jews (like Borodin and Joffe).

    Can you give credible reference to your claim? I managed to come up with this and none of the names sounds Jewish:

    The Communist Party of China was founded on July 1, 1921 in Shanghai, China. Between July 23 and 31, 1921, Mao Zedong, He Shuheng, Dong Biwu, Chen Tanqiu, Wang Jinmei, Deng Enming, Li Da, Li Hanjun, Zhang Guotao, Liu Renjing, Chen Gongbo and Zhou Fohai, representing 50-odd members of various communist groups, held the first National Congress of the Communist Party of China.

    https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/ccp-history.htm

    Another person who is NOT a “standard white man” is Albert Einstein, the Zionist Jew, who said Chinese people were a “filthy, industrious, and obtuse people” and who also said, “It would be a pity if these Chinese supplant all other races. For the likes of us the mere thought is unspeakably dreary.”

    Believe or not, I manage to find something about it by googling! I don’t know if the reference is true or not though. However, as far as I know the only things Einstein wrote that were “scholarly and authoritative” were his theories in Science, especially in physics, though.

    Ever hear of Mao’s Little Red Book? Guess who wrote it: Israel Epstein, the Bolshevik Jew

    Again, can you give credible reference? I thought the “Little Red Book” was a compilation of what Mao had said. Do you mean when Epstein wrote on paper, Mao’s lips moved accordingly? Maybe, Mao said those things and Epstein mere complied his sayings later?

    • Replies: @d dan
    , @an0n
    , @an0n
    , @an0n
  151. d dan says:
    @Deep Thought

    “but David Sassoon did NOT monopolize the opium trade in China. There was, at least, one American…”

    “you are only telling half of the story. 清华 was established with Chinese money”

    You are totally correct with your comments, Deep Thought (and denk and several others also). This guy “an0n” started by attacking China/Tibet etc with lies, misinformation and half truth. When caught, he switched tactics and wanted Chinese to like Whites, with lies, misinformation and half truth. The above statements are just 2 examples of his latest half truth.

    He must think that all Chinese are super-ignorant.

    • Troll: an0n
  152. denk says:
    @an0n

    It was UK who did OPium war and burning of Yuan MIng Yuan.
    Then the baton was passed on to US, which has been waging wars on China since 1949.
    Hence FUKUS, the sheriff and the deputy,

    Make way UK the deputy..
    Oz is the rising star these days, willing to shoot its own foot whenever the sheriff call the shot.
    London, albeit upstaged, is still tagging along gamely , reminiscing good old time by sending gunboat up the SCS.
    Ottawa isnt far behind, kidnapping Huawei CFO at uncle sham’s behest.
    Even NZ Is giving Oz a good run for its money, conjuring up all kind of crazy yellow peril stories.

    China is waging a hybrid war on the civilised west


    hehehheh
    All in all, a family affair.

    Sassoon , Einstein ?
    It’s the Queen who sent gun boats up the Yangzi.

    How about something contemporary….
    BUsh, Clinton, Trump, Pence, Blair, MOrrison, Turnbull, JOhnson, Abbot, Bishop, McCain, Cameron, Bannon,
    JOhn perfidious Derb, James Kirpatrick…..

    Are you telling me the anglos have been the Jew’s catpaws ever since the day of OPium war. ?

    • Replies: @an0n
    , @an0n
    , @an0n
  153. denk says:
    @an0n

    YOu havent answered me…

    Seeing that you never challenge Kirkpartick, are you with him…
    a certified sinophobe ?

  154. an0n says:
    @Deep Thought

    Agree that the opium pushing Jews were disgusting, but David Sassoon did NOT monopolize the opium trade in China. There was, at least, one American in the game then:

    David Sassoon did indeed monopolize the opium trade, as has been admitted even by academic sources on the matter (BTW, I never used the phrase “opium pushing Jews” like you. I only mentioned Sassoon by name, striving not to suggest that he was representative of all Jews). But even the other opium traders were Jews:

    According to a 1930s edition of Fortune Magazine (USA), the Sassoon Family monopolized more than 70% of the opium trade and controlled every nook and corner of opium traffic between India and China. This is also consistent with research and observations according to Edward LeFevour in “Western Enterprise in Late Ch’ing Dynasty China”. According to these sources, in the middle 1800s, the Sassoon group was acknowledged to be the major holder (more than 70%) of all opium stocks in India and in China.

    The Sassoons were not the only Jews involved in the trade; much of the remaining 30% was shared with other Jewish families.

    There was Hartung (哈同) – who is listed as “the richest of the rich” after the Sassoons, Hardoon, Kadoorie, Arnold, Abraham, Ezra and Solomon, among others.

    Sassoon himself hired only Jews to help run his business:

    The Jewish Encyclopedia of 1905, states that Sassoon expanded his opium trade into China and Japan. He placed his eight sons in charge of the major opium exchanges in China. According to the 1944 Jewish Encyclopedia: “He employed only Jews in his business, and wherever he sent them he built synagogues and schools for them. He imported whole families of fellow Jews . . . and put them to work.”

    You mention (((John Jacob Astor))) as a counter-example – that is, a so-called (((American))) who is supposedly not Jewish? And yet John Jacaob Astor came from a Jewish bloodline.

    However, as far as I know the only things Einstein wrote that were “scholarly and authoritative” were his theories in Science,

    Why are you trying to defend Einstein’s racism? If he were a “white” man, I am pretty sure you would be all over him. The quote I gave you is from his private diaries, which he wrote while traveling in the Orient, which means the quotes expresses real thinking and innermost thoughts on the matter. Do you think Einstein is going to publish an article in Science entitled “Why the Chinese are a Filthy, Obtuse, and Industrious Race”? You are expecting a scientific article on par with his work in physics with regard to racial issues? Your defense of Einstein’s racism is pretty desperate.

    Apparently, you are only telling half of the story. 清华 was established with Chinese money:

    https://www.tsinghua.edu.cn/en/About/History.htm

    The imperialists sent armies to rob China and filled their pockets with Chinese money. But the US of A was more generous than the others. It gave the money it had robbed to established a preparatory school 清华 to train future Chinese students for studying in the US.

    You are the one telling half-truths here. The page from Tsinghua University merely references the Boxer Indemnity (i.e. Gengzi Indemnity)… It doesn’t say ” imperialists sent armies to rob China and filled their pockets with Chinese money.” During the Boxer Rebellion, a xenophobic secret society attacked and killed a lot of Christian missionaries in China. You can argue that this was an expression of an underlying dissatisfaction towards foreign occupation, but ultimately it’s not the same “robbing China.” Not only was the US “more generous” (as you begrudgingly admit), they reduce the indemnity required and basically returned most of the rest to China, using the funds to help establish the university. And this was at the urging of missionaries like Arthur Henderson Smith, a wonderful Christian man (who wrote “Chinese Characteristics,” a wonderful book in which speaks glowingly and adoringly of Chinese people), and Chancellor James of University of Illinois (also a WASP Christian). Here is from a study by Xiaojuan Zhou published by the University of Nebraska (https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgireferer=&httpsredir=1&article=1193&context=:

    [MORE]

    There was three-year long controversial negotiation between the Qing Empire and those receiving reparations over whether payments would be made in silver or gold. In the end, the Qing Empire paid by gold, which resulted in paying more than the amount on the Boxer Protocol (Wang, 1974, pp. 185-219). During the negotiation, the U.S. promised to only take silver. The Chinese Ambassador to the U.S., Cheng Liang, proposed to United States Secretary of State John Milton Hay that the Qing Empire pay in silver to America individually. The proposal was rejected. However, Hay did think the gold reparations exceeded the actual amount. In order to propose and support reducing reparations, Liang took a chance (Liang, 2003a, pp. 1056-1057). In September 1905, Liang met President Roosevelt and brought up reducing the reparations again. This time, Roosevelt agreed (Liang, 2003b, pp. 1494-1495).

    The recent developments in the Orient have made it apparent that China and United States are destined to come into ever more intimate relations, social, intellectual, and commercial. The Chinese will come to this country for the purpose of studying our institutions and our industry. A striking evidence of this fact is afforded by the work of the Chinese Commission now or lately in the United States. Our own people will go to China for the purpose of studying Chinese institutions and industry. Anything which will stimulate this mutual intercourse and increase mutual knowledge must redound to the benefit of both nations. (James, as cited in Smith, 1907, p. 213)

    Preacher Arthur Henderson Smith (1907) suggested that the U.S. government help more Chinese students study in America in his book China and America To-day. He wrote:

    China is now turning to other nations for guidance and for help in educating her young men. . . . Under circumstances such as these, is it not the part of wisdom for us to put forth our best exertions to deflect this stream of students to our own shores, not for the good of China alone, but also for the welfare of America and of the world? Our former ill-treatment of those who in the past have desired to come is the greater reason for the adoption of this policy upon a large scale. ‘A Chinese gentleman once said to the writer that he would much have preferred to have his son study in the United States, but having vainly spent six months of time and much money in the effort to get him into the country, he had sent him to more hospitable England. The unmitigated folly of our course of action is now becoming manifest even to ourselves. It only requires an educated public opinion not merely to remove restrictions, but to extend a welcome to Chinese students to our educational institutions all over the land. (Smith, 1907, pp. 210-212)

    United States President Theodore Roosevelt delivered the State of the Union
    Address on December 3, 1907. In his address, he explained remitting half of the Boxer Indemnity: I ask for authority to reform the agreement with China under which the indemnity of 1900 was fixed, by remitting and cancelling the obligation of China for the payment of all that part of the stipulated indemnity which is in excess of the sum of eleven million, six hundred and fifty-five thousand, four hundred and ninetytwo dollars and sixty-nine cents, and interest at four per cent. After the rescue of the foreign legations in Peking during the Boxer troubles in 1900 the Powers required from China the payment of equitable indemnities to the several nations, and the final protocol under which the troops were withdrawn, signed at Peking, September 7, 1901, fixed the amount of this indemnity allotted to the United States at over $20,000,000, and China paid, up to and including the 1st day of June last, a little over $6,000,000. It was the first intention of this Government at the proper time, when all claims had been presented and all expenses ascertained
    as fully as possible, to revise the estimates and account, and as a proof of sincere friendship for China voluntarily to release that country from its legal liability for all payments in excess of the sum which should prove to be necessary for actual indemnity to the United States and its citizens.

    This Nation should help in every practicable way in the education of the Chinese people, so that the vast and populous Empire of China may gradually 21 adapt itself to modern conditions. One way of doing this is by promoting the coming of Chinese students to this country and making it attractive to them to take courses at our universities and higher educational institutions. Our educators should, so far as possible, take concerted action toward this end. (Roosevelt, 1907, para. 131-132) On May 25, 1908, with approval from the United States Congress, President Roosevelt signed the agreement to reduce reparations (Sixtieth Congress, as cited in Wang, 1974, p. 278).

    As mentioned in Table 1, the Boxer Indemnity reparations to the U.S. were $24,440,778 (U.S.), which were reduced to $13,655,492 (U.S.). The U.S. would return $10,785,286 (U.S.) to China. Until the end of 1908, the U.S. received more than 7,000,000 dollars. In addition to interest, China would still have to pay the U.S. the principal sum $9,644,367 (U.S.). China agreed to pay an annual sum of $539,588.76 (U.S.) from 1909 to 1940 (The First Historical Archives of China, 2003b, pp. 2165-2167). China could keep the balance if they agreed to use the money for education including sending Chinese students to the U.S. to study. In 1924, the U.S. passed another bill announcing all reparations paid after 1917 would be all returned to China. The amount of principal sum with interests was $12,545,437 (U.S.) (Sixty-eighth Congress, as cited in Wang, 1974, p. 304). In 1906, the Chancellor of University of Illinois, Edmund James, wrote to President Roosevelt about assisting Chinese students in studying in the U.S.

    • Replies: @Deep Thought
  155. an0n says:
    @Deep Thought

    China even has imported military technology from Israel these days– as far as I know.

    I don’t blame China for making a business deal for “military technology.” But what does this tell you about Israel if they are exporting “military technology” (as you say) to China while claiming to be America’s greatest ally at the same time? Does this sound like a reliable ally?

    • Replies: @Deep Thought
  156. an0n says:
    @Deep Thought

    Believe or not, I manage to find something about it by googling! I don’t know if the reference is true or not though. However, as far as I know the only things Einstein wrote that were “scholarly and authoritative” were his theories in Science, especially in physics, though.

    Are you learning about Einstein’s assessment of Chinese people for just the first time? Here is a link:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/2018/06/13/albert-einsteins-1920-s-travel-diaries-contain-shocking-slurs-against-chinese/698448002/

    This has been news for awhile now. From the article:

    Some of Einstein’s thoughts make for eye-opening, unsettling reading: China is a “peculiar herd-like nation,” its citizens “often more like automatons than people,” he writes. He says “even the children are “spiritless and look obtuse.” After commenting on the alleged fecundity of the Chinese, he laments:

    “It would be a pity if these Chinese supplant all other races. For the likes of us the mere thought is unspeakably dreary.”

    Would you have preferred that Einstein call the Chinese a “filthy, obtuse, and industrious” people in a more prestigious journal instead of in his private diaries? I guess you would prefer that Einstein publish an article in Nature or Science entitled “Will the Filthy and Obtuse Chinese Supplant All Other Races? The Mere Thought is an Unspeakable Dreary.”

    • Replies: @Deep Thought
  157. an0n says:
    @Deep Thought

    Let me make more clear the quotes from the study about how America basically forgave the Boxer Indemnity and used the money to help China. The article, written by Xiaojuan Zhou, was published by the University of Nebraska:

    There was three-year long controversial negotiation between the Qing Empire and those receiving reparations over whether payments would be made in silver or gold. In the end, the Qing Empire paid by gold, which resulted in paying more than the amount on the Boxer Protocol (Wang, 1974, pp. 185-219). During the negotiation, the U.S. promised to only take silver. The Chinese Ambassador to the U.S., Cheng Liang, proposed to United States Secretary of State John Milton Hay that the Qing Empire pay in silver to America individually. The proposal was rejected. However, Hay did think the gold reparations exceeded the actual amount. In order to propose and support reducing reparations, Liang took a chance (Liang, 2003a, pp. 1056-1057). In September 1905, Liang met President Roosevelt and brought up reducing the reparations again. This time, Roosevelt agreed (Liang, 2003b, pp. 1494-1495).

    Roosevelt said:

    The recent developments in the Orient have made it apparent that China and United States are destined to come into ever more intimate relations, social, intellectual, and commercial. The Chinese will come to this country for the purpose of studying our institutions and our industry. A striking evidence of this fact is afforded by the work of the Chinese Commission now or lately in the United States. Our own people will go to China for the purpose of studying Chinese institutions and industry. Anything which will stimulate this mutual intercourse and increase mutual knowledge must redound to the benefit of both nations. (James, as cited in Smith, 1907, p. 213)

    America has always loved China. They are good friends that go way back, even to this time. You already know about how America helped China in WW2, how Nixon met with Mao, etc. Way before that, American missionaries were in China helping to build hospitals, schools, orphanages, etc.

    Continuing with the article-Preacher Arthur Henderson Smith (1907) suggested that the U.S. government help more Chinese students study in America in his book China and America To-day. He wrote:

    China is now turning to other nations for guidance and for help in educating her young men. . . . Under circumstances such as these, is it not the part of wisdom for us to put forth our best exertions to deflect this stream of students to our own shores, not for the good of China alone, but also for the welfare of America and of the world? Our former ill-treatment of those who in the past have desired to come is the greater reason for the adoption of this policy upon a large scale. ‘A Chinese gentleman once said to the writer that he would much have preferred to have his son study in the United States, but having vainly spent six months of time and much money in the effort to get him into the country, he had sent him to more hospitable England. The unmitigated folly of our course of action is now becoming manifest even to ourselves. It only requires an educated public opinion not merely to remove restrictions, but to extend a welcome to Chinese students to our educational institutions all over the land. (Smith, 1907, pp. 210-212)

    United States President Theodore Roosevelt delivered the State of the Union
    Address on December 3, 1907. In his address, he explained remitting half of the Boxer Indemnity:

    I ask for authority to reform the agreement with China under which the indemnity of 1900 was fixed, by remitting and cancelling the obligation of China for the payment of all that part of the stipulated indemnity which is in excess of the sum of eleven million, six hundred and fifty-five thousand, four hundred and ninetytwo dollars and sixty-nine cents, and interest at four per cent. After the rescue of the foreign legations in Peking during the Boxer troubles in 1900 the Powers required from China the payment of equitable indemnities to the several nations, and the final protocol under which the troops were withdrawn, signed at Peking, September 7, 1901, fixed the amount of this indemnity allotted to the United States at over $20,000,000, and China paid, up to and including the 1st day of June last, a little over $6,000,000. It was the first intention of this Government at the proper time, when all claims had been presented and all expenses ascertained as fully as possible, to revise the estimates and account, and as a proof of sincere friendship for China voluntarily to release that country from its legal liability for all payments in excess of the sum which should prove to be necessary for actual indemnity to the United States and its citizens.

    This Nation should help in every practicable way in the education of the Chinese people, so that the vast and populous Empire of China may gradually 21 adapt itself to modern conditions. One way of doing this is by promoting the coming of Chinese students to this country and making it attractive to them to take courses at our universities and higher educational institutions. Our educators should, so far as possible, take concerted action toward this end. (Roosevelt, 1907, para. 131-132) On May 25, 1908, with approval from the United States Congress, President Roosevelt signed the agreement to reduce reparations (Sixtieth Congress, as cited in Wang, 1974, p. 278).

    Even under Trump (whom I totally despise, like almost everyone else), the number of Chinese students in the US hovers around 300,000 (by contrast, American students in China are only 10,000). Even Donald Trump, whose children have made many business deals in China and whose grand-children have learned Chinese with a personal tutor, has been nicer to China than you think.

    And not only that, who personally asked Trump to ban Tik-Tok? It was Mark Zuckerberg, who asked Trump in private to ban Tik-Tok. Zuckerberg didn’t want to publicly advocate a policy of American protectionism or come out in support of such a policy because Zuck wants to be able to virtue-signal with his friends in Silicon Valley and avoid being associated with Trump’s policies. Zuck promoted H1-B visa immigration and wanted to appear “open-minded” but then privately told Trump to enact protectionist policies to save his company. Trump never even ended H1-B visas from India and China, despite promising to protect American workers. In fact, at a recent CPAC convention, Trump boasted about bringing in intelligent and qualified workers (i.e. mainly Indian and Chinese). Don’t be so easily misled by the media reports and political theater about “Chinese spies.”

    Meng Wanzhou, Huawei CFO, was arrested because Huawei was supposedly doing business with Iran. Why is it such a problem to do business with Iran? The interests of Israel are paramount. In other words, Meng Wanzhou was arrested only because it is the interests of Israel that matter.

    Stop falling for all the fake media news coverage about “Chinese spies”

  158. an0n says:
    @denk

    If you go on Baidu and look up “David Sassoon,” here is what you will find:

    1840年中、英鸦片战争暴发,英国政府进而通过《南京条约》把香港窃为己有,可是很少有人知道,英国发动这场战争所要保护的对象——鸦片,出自著名的沙逊集团创始人犹太人大卫·沙逊之手

    If you don’t need me to educate you, then let the Chinese government (via Baidu.com) educate you: “Very few people actually know that the interests England was trying to protect (i.e. opium) by starting the [Opium] Wars, came from the scheming of the famous Sassoon Company founder, the JEWISH David Sassoon”

  159. @an0n

    Sassoon Family monopolized more than 70% of the opium trade

    70% does not constitute a monopoly– especially when there is an American who got involved in the rest.

    • Replies: @an0n
  160. @an0n

    But what does this tell you about Israel if they are exporting “military technology” (as you say) to China while claiming to be America’s greatest ally at the same time? Does this sound like a reliable ally?

    Tell that to the US. Israel is a an ally of the US– NOT China. China merely uses it as a channel to obtain the desired technology.

  161. @an0n

    Would you have preferred that Einstein call the Chinese a “filthy, obtuse, and industrious” people in a more prestigious journal instead of in his private diaries? I guess you would prefer that Einstein publish an article in Nature or Science entitled “Will the Filthy and Obtuse Chinese Supplant All Other Races? The Mere Thought is an Unspeakable Dreary.”

    I care as much about Einstein’s private preferences as about Trump’s.

    YOU said earlier that you quote from “scholarly and authoritative” sources. Einstein did produce something “scholarly and authoritative” and those were the Theories of Relativity and about the Photoelectric Effect, etc … He was NEVER known to be “scholarly and authoritative” on matters of biology or ethnic matters. The fact that YOU did NOT quote his “scholarly and authoritative” publications but quote his utterings that were NOT “scholarly and authoritative” is YOUR fault. And he should NOT be blamed for YOUR fault.

    • Replies: @an0n
  162. an0n says:
    @Deep Thought

    I care as much about Einstein’s private preferences as about Trump’s

    I DO care about Einstein’s comments because they are extremely racist and do harm to the image of Chinese people. I think Chinese people are hard-working, intelligent, and fun people to be around. I AM PERSONALLY upset about Einstein’s comments about Chinese. It’s a disgrace that he should insult Chinese people on a racial level by calling them “obtuse and filthy,” and saying that it would be “unspeakably dreary” if they were to “supplant other races.” That is the racist language of demographic replacement for which “white nationalists” are regularly criticized in American media. It’s one thing to criticize the Chinese government (i.e. the CCP), it’s another thing to make such a disparaging comment towards the Chinese people, who have contributed so much to human civilization.

    It’s fine for you not to care, but most people would be outraged if Trump were to say something of that nature. In fact, when Trump’s “shithole countries” comment came to light, we never heard the end of it. In fact, for any non-Jew, a comment as racist as that made by Einstein would immediately result in their being “canceled.” Look at what happened to James Watson, the man who discovered DNA, for suggesting that there might be genetic differences among races. The fact that a Jewish person like Einstein can get away with a racist comment like that with no consequences says a lot about the influence that many Jews have in the media.

    Why not just denounce Einstein’s racist views towards Chinese instead of trying to make excuses for it? The fact that people try to evade the issue shows me how much you and other commenters want to avoid the issue of Zionist and Jewish racism. You personally don’t have to care about what Einstein said in private, but given the things that people have said in this comment thread, I’m pretty sure that if he were “white,” people would never stop in condemning him, denouncing him, vilifying him, etc.

    The larger point, though, is not whether the comment is “authoritative” in the sense of being published in a prestigious journal or not. It’s ridiculous to even demand such a standard, and if an eminent white person made racist comment in private about Chinese, I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t care about whether or not it was published in a journal. The point is that many times in our society, when a Jewish person like Einstein makes a “racist” comment, it is non-Jewish white people who get condemned. In fact, you might hear the media talk about Einstein’s comment in the context of “white racism” even though he is totally Jewish and totally a Zionist.

    • Replies: @Deep Thought
  163. an0n says:
    @Deep Thought

    Other merchants, apart from Sassoon, who were involved in the opium trade were also mostly Jewish:

    The Sassoons were not the only Jews involved in the trade; much of the remaining 30% was shared with other Jewish families.

    There was Hartung (哈同) – who is listed as “the richest of the rich” after the Sassoons, Hardoon, Kadoorie, Arnold, Abraham, Ezra and Solomon, among others.

    Of the non-Jews, many were Parsees and Arabs. And even the British East Company, which started growing opium in India, was heavily influenced by Jews.

    The maternal grandfather of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Warren Delano, was a Jew who made his fortune in distributing opium to China:

    Warren Delano was a senior partner in Russell & Company, whose ships carried the opium that was imposed on China.

    The reason Russell & Company were allowed to transport and trade in opium around Canton was that they were a Jewish company and did not interfere with the business of Sassoon’s East India Company. The market was large enough for both. Russell & Company got their opium from Afghanistan through a harbor in Turkey.

    Delano said later he could not pretend to justify the opium trade on moral grounds, “but as a merchant I insist it has been . . . fair, honorable and legitimate”, and “no more objectionable than the importation of wines and spirits to the US.”

    He returned to America a rich man, and gave his daughter Sara in marriage to a James Roosevelt, the father of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the American President.

    Roosevelt’s fortune was inherited from his maternal grandfather Warren Delano. Roosevelt always knew the origin of the family fortune but neither side of the family cared to discuss the source of their great wealth.

    Sassoon’s children also merged with the Rothschild family, which had great influence in the British government, where a Jew like Benjamin Disraeli became even the head of state, that is, prime minister. It was because of the Rothschild connections that Sassoon could appeal to the British government to send the gunboats in and demand that the Chinese allow for his opium to be smuggled into China.

    https://www.islam-radio.net/islam/english/jewishp/china/jew-opium-monopoly.htm

    The English crown profited as well. It is to their shame and disgrace that they were involved in it. No one is excusing them. But distinctions should be made between Jews and non-Jews when necessary. People are regularly offended when a person is mistakenly identified as a Jew – such a mistake is regarded as wanton paranoia and anti-Semitism. Well, why shouldn’t white Christians be equally offended when Jews are mistakenly identified as white Christians?

    There have been cases of Korean/Japanese tourists in Turkey being mistakenly identified as Chinese and getting bullied or harassed. They don’t appreciate that. People from Hong Kong and Taiwan hate being mistakenly identified as mainland Chinese, and mainland Chinese would probably hate being mistakenly identified as Filipino, Vietnamese, or something else.

    • Agree: Malla
  164. @an0n

    The point is that many times in our society, when a Jewish person like Einstein makes a “racist” comment, it is non-Jewish white people who get condemned. In fact, you might hear the media talk about Einstein’s comment in the context of “white racism” even though he is totally Jewish and totally a Zionist.

    You could either blame the Jewish person for being white or quote his crap and then pretend that you are quote from a “scholarly and authoritative” source!!! But, I just don’t care.

    Other merchants, apart from Sassoon, who were involved in the opium trade were also mostly Jewish:

    Then you are merely admitting the Sassoon did NOT monopolize the opium trade in China– as you claimed earlier!!! Are you honest enough to admit that you were wrong?

    America has always loved China.

    The Chinese LOVE America. They love it so much that they were willing dying for every miles of rail roads built there. And in return, the Chinese got this;

    https://www.youtube.com/results?sea

    And in return, the Chinese got this:

    https://www.youtube.com/results?sea

    • Replies: @Malla
  165. Malla says:
    @an0n

    Very true, one of the many reasons why the USA has become more popular in Indian youth today than in the past (our older generation is very anti-USA) is because the USA has granted citizenship to millions of Indians as well as Indians have become successful in the USA. China just cannot compete with that, that is why Indians are more comfortable (wrongly so with U.S. tech companies getting access to the Indian market while Chinese companies being thrown out after the recent skirmishes.

    • Thanks: an0n
  166. Malla says:
    @Deep Thought

    Then you are merely admitting the Sassoon did NOT monopolize the opium trade in China– as you claimed earlier!!!

    Sassoons did not monopolise but were the biggest fish. There were many Jews and Indian mercantile families involved in it. As well as British and American families. But I think the Indian (Parsis, Baniyas) involvement was higher after Jews. Remember, the opium was grown in British India.

    • Agree: an0n
    • Replies: @Deep Thought
  167. Malla says:
    @Deep Thought

    Read Fukuzawa’ ideas carefully. Fukuzawa Yukichi wanted Korea and China to modernize and together face the powers of the West + Russia. He built University for Chinese and Korean students. But because he was not getting support from the mainland side, the was deeply saddened. This is partly because Chinese and the Koreans only considered the Japanese as “barbarians” and could not stomach the rise of Japan. Kind of reminds me of Indians who cannot stomach “the rise of Chinese “barbarians” who sat at our feet and learned Buddhism and who would beg to come to great Bharata for Buddhist texts”. Same bullshit.
    This attitude of Japan to “break away” from mainland North East Asia was formed due to this arrogance and reluctance of the Korea and China of that period to change and give up its feudal ways.

    Fukuzawa Yukichi founded Keio University and invited many (about 50) Korean students from Chosun/Korea later known as 개화파(modernization/independence party) such as Kim Okgyun, and 박영효 . He helped 개화파 publishing the first newspaper called 漢城旬報 in Korea in 1883.
    He helped the development of the modern educational system in Korea using Hanja-Hangul for the first time in the Korean history.
    But he felt desperate and deeply saddened when he heard his students(The Gaehwapa, or Enlightenment Party) failed in Gapsinjeongbyeon incident and many of his students were slaughtered including Kim Ok-gyun.

    He tried so much and fought very hard for the enlightenment and modernisation of Asian countries through education. He personally supported Koreans and Chinese students in order to help modernize these countries. This Japan having no option but moving away from mainland East Asia was his acknowledgement of failure and desperation in trying at that time period to modernise feudal Korea and China, which was needed to face the powers of the West & Russia./b>

    • Agree: an0n
    • Replies: @Deep Thought
  168. Malla says:
    @an0n

    Japan really was facing a wall of communism in its West with Soviet Russia’s Asian part as well as possible Communism in China. Remember, Japan had sent forces in Russia to fight the reds and after the reds won, gave up all conquered territory in Russia’s far East and its soldiers came back. The murder of the Russian Tzar by the Jewish Bolsheviks caused even more fear in Japan about this ideology as the Japanese deeply revered their Emperor, the oldest Imperial Family on Earth.
    Indeed Communist threat was rife in China before WW2.

    From Nesta Webster’s book “Surrender Of An Empire”
    ” Meanwhile the pure doctrines of Bolshevism were being spread China, by Siag Sea Fu, pampblet published by the Communist Party instilled into Chinese minds by the agents of Moscow. Agitators were trained at the Communist University of Tashkent. Communist groups were formed in Peking and Shanghai, Marxist evening classes were held in Canton. In 1921 the Chinese Communist Party was founded in Shanghai; by the following year Canton had become the hub of the movement.

    [MORE]

    Through all this. Western inspiration was clearly visible, as for example in the Appeal to Seamen issued in 1922 by the Communist Party of Canton, where the passage occurs ; Brothers, let your iron hands grasp the Capitalist’s throat, your knees press on the Capitalist’s breast and your iron fists strike fiercely the Capitalist’s head and break his skull to powder.
    Compare this with the concluding words of the German Communist pamphlet. The German Spartacists:
    In this last struggle of history for the highest aims of humanity our motto towards the enemy ‘is “ Hand on throat and knee on the breast.” In January 1923 a compact was definitely formed between the Chinese revolutionaries and Moscow, when Sun-Yat-Sen and Joffe, the head of the Soviet Mission, met in Shanghai and issued a joint manifesto linking up -the Chinese with the Bolshevist movement. The Bolsheviks were now able to penetrate the Kuomintang with their influence, and a Communist Section of the Kuomintang was formed.
    …snip…
    “From Germany he (Sun-Yat-Sen) succeeded in getting several volunteer airmen and from the U.S.S.R. a certain number of volunteer officers.” ‘ The intermediary in this affair seems to have been again Morris Cohen, as an interesting paragraph from the Jewish World of August 25, 1927, indicates. Under the heading “ Who is ‘ Cohen Moi-Sha ’ ? ” the writer goes on to say : He is so-called, I am informed, in China, where he is exercising the part of a Jew Suss, being a sort of power behind the throne among the Nationalists at Hankow. He started life, so it is said, as Mo Cohen, in the East End of London, whence he went to China with his father when he was a lad.
    * China, by Sing Sen Fu, p. 83.

    Cohen went later to Canada, where he became a prominent member of a Secret Society called the Kop Twang, through which he in some way came across Sun-Yat-Sen and agreed to join his forces in China. It was through him that help was obtained for the organisation of Sun’s army from Russia, and Cohen then turned his attention to the finances of the Hankow Nationalists. It is said that he is now the best hated man in Hankow, and to such an extent is this so, that he has found it necessary to spread reports of his assassination so that he may not become the victim of jealous plots. I need scarcely say that I retail these particulars with all reserve. But it seems to me that if there be such a man with such a career, his name might well be Cohen. Countering the probability of being killed by advertising himself as already assassinated certainly smacks of Jewish ingenuity.
    In China as elsewhere the leadership of the revolutionary movement was thus largely in the hands of foreigners or of Chinese who had received a foreign education. This was the case with the three men, Gallent, Borodin and Chen, who carried on the campaign against Britain in Canton after the death of Sun-Yat-Sen on March 12, 1925.
    Gallent or Galen, who has now assumed the name of Blucher, was a Russian general, dispatched by Moscow, of whom the Bolsheviks still have great hopes as a leader. Jacob Borodin, alias Michael Grusenberg, was a more complex character. First heard of in Spain, where he had been sent by the Third International to carry on propaganda, he reappeared during the following year in Mexico and the United States, where he became known as a leading agitator. In 1922 he was smuggled into England as an ” underground ” agent to act as adviser to the British Communist Party. In August of the same year he was arrested under the name of George Brown in Glasgow,
    sentenced to six months’ imprisonment and subsequently deported. Borodin then passed into the service of Sun-YatSen, and was appointed Chief Adviser to the Government of Canton, where he received his salary regularly from the Soviet Embassy.

    Borodin’s colleague Mr. Eugene Chen, the Cantonese Foreign Minister, appears to have been a real Chinese, but born in 1878 under the British flag in Trinidad, where he was known under the name of E. Bernard Acham (or Ackam). Later he came to England and qualified as a solicitor in London. He seems to have been living in Richmond when he suddenly made up his mind to go and “ help China.”

    • Thanks: an0n
    • Replies: @Malla
  169. Malla says:
    @Malla

    Continued from above from Nesta Webster’s book

    “What influences brought him to this decision have never been revealed, but it is interesting to note, that like many an Indian agitator, it was in England, to which he owed all his advantages of education and training, that he became the enemy of our too hospitable country. On his arrival in China he entered Government service, and during the War edited certain Peking newspapers in one of which, the People’s Tribune, he daily vilified the British as “ brutal murderers, robbers, exploiters and liars.” In 1919 he joined Sun-Yat-Sen’s Party, and in 1922 became Foreign Adviser to the Canton Government, Such were the men with whom the Conservative Government
    was called upon to conduct negotiations on their accession to power in the autumn of 1924.

    [MORE]

    It will be seen that this was no matter of opposing Chinese Nationalism, but of defending British interests against the intrigues and attacks of Britain’s most relentless enemy—Soviet Russia.
    By the spring of 1925 the revolutionary movement, still under the guise of Chinese nationalism, began to take the form of open violence. Anti-British riots, instigated by Soviet agents, broke out at Shanghai and Shameen in May and June. The revolutionary army, known as the Kuominchun under the so-called ‘* Christian General” Feng-Yu-hsiang,” had been formed in the north, whilst the Canton army was commanded by Chiang-Kai-shek. By the autumn of 1926 the latter’s forces had moved from Canton to Hankow, which was occupied on September 10, and now became the centre of direction.
    Then came the capture of the British Concession in that city on January 5, 1927, which brought matters to a head. Throughout this period the Conservative Government had continued to pursue a policy of conciliation and of ” sympathy with Chinese aspirations.” “ Our only wish,” said Sir Austen Chamberlain on September 18, 1925, ” is for a strong, united, independent, orderly and prosperous China. , . . We are ready to meet China half- way. We are ready to relinquish special rights just in proportion the Chinese Government can assure to our own nationals the due enjoyment of the ordinary rights of foreigners in every country.”
    This might have been all very well if there had been any such thing as “ China ” to deal with. But China was now only a geographical term, not a political entity, since the whole country was split up into factions all at war with each other.
    As Mr. Kellogg, the American Secretary of State, pointed out in January 1927, although the United States were ready to enter into negotiations for neW treaties with a Central Government, it was difficult to know with whom to negotiate since there was no Government to speak for the whole of China. This was the view generally taken by the other Powers.
    Great Britain, however, persisted in regarding as representative of Chinese aspirations the so-called Nationalists who were in reality the least entitled to this name, since they were working in co-operation with German and Soviet agents intent on pursuing their own aims regardless of Chinese interests.
    In accordance with this policy Mr. (now Sir Miles) Lampson, the new British representative, carried on friendly conversations with Mr. Chen at Hankow ………..snip….
    The reply to this Memorandum was the attack on the British Concession in Hankow on January 4, 1927, by a mob yelling ” Down with British Imperialism” The Concession, defended only by a small contingent of British marines who displayed exemplary patience in holding back the frenzied crowd for four hours without firing a shot, was finally overrun and the women and children were hastily evacuated from Hankow. It should be noted that the other foreign Concessions remained immune from attack, which was thus concentrated on the Concession of the only Power that had condescended to negotiate with the Nationalist leaders. Mr. Chen, when appealed to, replied that matters were now outside his Government’s control, and indeed it was recognised that the whole affair had been instigated by the Russian Bolshevist general, Gallent. Of what use then to parley further with Chen ? Clearly the time for words had gone by and the moment for action had arrived. The capture of the Hankow Concession had shown the British forces in China to be inadequate, and the Government decided to send out troops for the defence of Shanghai, which was now threatened with the same fate as Hankow. The first transport sailed for China on January 24, 1927.
    This resolute action met with the instant opposition of the so-called *’ Labour ” movement. Throughout the past six months they had increased the Government’s difficulties in dealing with Mr. Chen, by negotiating with him on their own account and assuring him of their Sympathy. A link had been established with him in London by means of the “ Chinese Information Bureau,” at 6, Phene Street, Chelsea, the house of Colonel L’Estrange Malone, now Labour Member for Northampton, from which office atrocious accusations against the British in China had been Systematically circulated throughout the summer of 1925. During the Shanghai riots in May and June the Bureau had circulated an illustrated sheet headed : ” The Peaceful Chinese Patriots died by Barbarous British Hands”; other pictures showed British machine-guns prepared to fire on unarmed Chinese demonstrators. The Bureau, which worked in touch with the Minority Movement, moved later to 65, Belgrave Road, where it was continued under the direction of Colonel Malone and of Mr. R. O. Bridgeman, formerly in the British Diplomatic Service. A further step was taken in December 1926 by the formation of a ” British Labour Council for Chinese Freedom,” under the chairmanship of George Hicks, and with Ben Tillett, G. Lansbury and Colonel Malone on the council.”

    • Replies: @Malla
  170. Malla says:
    @Malla

    Further

    [MORE]

    On April 6, 1927, the Soviet Embassy in Peking was raided by Chang Tso Lin’s emissaries and the whole plot was laid bare. The arms, ammunition and money, it was found, were supplied to the troops of Feng-Yu-hsiang in the north and to the Cantonese in the south by the Bolsheviks, although on August 3, 1926, Karakhan, the Soviet Ambassador in Peking, had said:
    I can state categorically that the Soviet Government is not supplying arms to Feng-Yu-hsiang and the Kuominchun. All reports about the supply of arms are false, as is also the report that an agreement has been concluded to supply arms. The minutes of a secret meeting, held in Moscow the very day after these words were uttered, were discovered, showing how the whole movement in China was being directed by the Soviet Government and instructions issued to Borodin and Gallent.

    “Minutes of other meetings of the Polit Bureau and the Military Council of China were found, with discussions on the funds required for carrying on the campaign. One document, marked “ Strictly confidential,” contained instructions to the Soviet Embassy from Moscow, saying : ” Stir up the mob to violence against Europeans in general, and the British in particular.” In Peking, as in London and elsewhere, it was clearly shown that the Bolsheviks were abusing diplomatic privileges by making the Soviet Embassy a centre of intrigue and revolutionary propaganda.”
    …snip…
    “As it was, the Chinese Nationalists were left to act alone, and the anticommunist elements in the Kuomintang, under the leadership of General Chiang Kai-shek, now severed their connection with the Bolsheviks and set up a new Nationalist Government in Nanking.”
    …snip…
    “In a manifesto to the Chinese people, Chiang Kai-shek declared; “We cannot allow the Communists to make China the experimental field for Communism and cause millions to die without reason. The tactics of the Bolsheviks are to stir up mob violence through wholesale destruction in order to seize political power. . , , If we allow their horrible politics to prevail all will be brought to nought.”
    The victory over Bolshevism seemed for the moment complete, but the spirit of unrest had entered into the Chinese populace and was not to be so easily allayed. In December Canton was captured by the Red forces after a fresh influx of agents from Soviet Russia, and an orgy of burning and looting took place, followed by fearful atrocities. Then came the reaction and counter-terrorism exercised against the Bolsheviks. Henceforth China was to be the scene of a swaying battle, Communists and anti-Communists alternately gaining the upper hand in one city after another up to the present time. These so-called Communists subscribe, however, in no way to the doctrines of Communism, their only idea being loot. All that the Bolsheviks have accomplished is to stir up in them a spirit of anarchy which has reduced the country to chaos.”
    …snip….
    ” I find it difficult, however, to believe that such institutions as the Round Table Group, Chatham House, the League of Nations Union or even the Fabian Society—which has certainly succeeded in penetrating the Ministries and the whole Civil Service—could, unless in alliance with financial power, exercise so decisive an influence on the councils of the nation and bend statesmen of every party to their will.”

  171. Malla says:
    @an0n

    Also Japan was targeted a lot even before WW2. From Ralph Townsend’s book “America Has no Enemies in Asia”
    ““The Soviet Union has long sought control of China. It has backed the Communist faction within China. Japan opposes the prospect of a red China. This makes Japan an enemy of the Soviet Union.’ The Soviet Union wants American aid against Japan. This partly explains why reds were eager to see conflict between China and Japan. Such a war, it was hoped, would ally America and Moscow. Warrant for this statement may be found in writings of Bolshevik leaders, too lengthy to quote here.
    Bear in mind that it was a Chinese Communist faction, directly allied with Moscow, that kidnapped Chiang Kaishek to force him into war with Japan. Concerning this Bolshevik scheme to have America fight Japan for Moscow’s convenience, the following statement of red strategy is informing:
    Our salvation would be more readily assured if the imperialist powers (meaning, in this case, America and Japan) became embroiled in a war. If we are forced to tolerate such scoundrels as the capitalistic thieves, each one of whom is whetting his knife against us, then it is our immediate duty to turn these knives against each other.” -From the speech of Lenin to the Moscow unit leaders of the Communist Party in Russia, Nov. 26, 1920. Collected Works of Lenin,
    Vol. XXV.
    Why any ally of Moscow, such as China, is always sensationalized in America as a victim of “aggression” is explained in the following statement of red philosophy:
    “Every war which the Soviet League will wage will be a defensive and a just war, regardless of whoever starts it.”
    -From the Soviet writer L. S. Diegtyarev, in his book, Political Work in the Red Army, 1930, page 15.
    The Soviet aim to get a “capitalist” nation as an ally for convenience in attacking any opponent of the Soviet Union is informingly set forth thus:
    ” . . . . we can form a military alliance with another bourgeoisie (capitalist country), so that we can crush a third bourgeoisie by means of this . . . . In this form of national defence-a military alliance with bourgeois states, it is the duty of the comrades in such a country to help this alliance to victory.”
    -From a speech by Bukharin at the Fourth World Congress of the Comintern, 1922, quoted in Red Militarism, by Peter Garwy, 1928.”
    ..snip..

    “Recent statements by ruling Soviet officials show that such aims are still part of the Soviet creed.From the plainest of evidence it is clear that reds do not object to loss of life as such-they merely sensationalize that which may aid in stirring resentment against their enemies, and aid in gaining an American alliance against anti-red nations on the pretext of fighting for “democracy.” The “democracy” the reds have in mind of course means the Soviet variety.

    In 1904-05 US papers lavishly favored Japan. Many Americans didn’t know then that such press praise for Japan was partly stirred by organized forces here working for revolution Russia. Above item appeared 12 years later, in 1917. Backing Japan to defeat the Czar from without aided revolutionaries seeking his overthrow f rom within. Such facts show how newspaper campaigns of hate or praise may be influenced by interests not suspected at the time. U. S. papers on the whole favored Japan as long as Japan opposed Czarist Russia, but turned anti-Japanese after 1917 when Japan became a potential enemy of revolutionary Russia.””

    • Agree: an0n
    • Troll: d dan
    • Replies: @Malla
  172. Malla says:
    @Malla

    Further

    “For decades in China it has been the fashion to blame foreigners for the distress brought on partly by overpopulation and partly by Chinese civil wars and official cruelties.
    Probably less than five per cent of China’s population can read, though the number of Chinese graduates of American universities is large. Mass ignorance makes anti-foreignism a natural choice of corrupt politicians.

    [MORE]

    After America and England bombarded Nanking to rescue foreigners and showed a firm resolve to defend the Shanghai Settlement, Chiang’s party found that anti-American and anti-British policies did not pay. So Chiang’s party moderated that tack and began to seek U. S. aid. Chiang wanted aid to help him subdue rival claimants for the dictatorship. He promptly got U. S. backing, for reasons too devious to relate here, despite just having finished a campaign of anti-Americanism in which much American property was burned and in which a number of Americans were killed.
    When U. S. and British backing became assured, Chiang’s party shifted the anti-foreign emphasis to Japan. The Anglo-Japanese alliance had expired. Bolshevist publicity against Japan had been effective in America. Thus isolated, at that time not having either Italy or Germany as theoretical allies, Japan was the ideal target-much better than America or England- for traditional Chinese anti-foreignism.

    China’s Anti-Japan Campaign It seems to this writer that there was no justification for the new anti-Japan policy in China. Chinese businessmen by the thousands were well-treated in Japan. At that time Japan had not occupied Manchukuo, then called Manchuria. Japan in 1922 had voluntarily handed back to China the former German concessions of railways, etc., in the Chinese province of Shantung, which Japan had taken from Germany in the World War. Japan’s return to China of these properties was a generous gesture, very exceptional in the history of international dealings. It was particularly significant on the part of Japan, which is a relatively poor country and in need of outside resources.

    Just why the Japanese returned the Shantung properties to China, this writer can not say. Japanese papers at the time were full of arguments that Japan should take the lead in cultivating Chinese good will, and thus open trade relations with China which would be more valuable than the Shantung concessions. This sentiment seems to have been strong, for a little later, in 1929, the Japanese Government appropriated 72 million yen to establish scholarships for Chinese students to study in Japan as “good will” guests. Also, the Japanese opened a number of good will hospitals in China, financed in Japan, for the benefit of poorer classes of Chinese. Certainly the anti-Japanese campaign in China did not originate with the Japanese occupation of Manchuria. It was provably under way years before that event.

    The Manchurian Conflict
    During the Japanese conflict with Chinese in Manchuria, between- 1931 and 1933, Chiang Kai-shek never once took the field against the Japanese. That conflict was largely between the Japanese and Chang Hsueh-liang, war chief who ruled Manchuria as his own province, independent of Chiang’s regime in China Proper.””

    • Troll: d dan
    • Replies: @Malla
  173. Malla says:
    @Malla

    Further we read
    “Japan’s return of the Shantung concessions to China and other good will gestures may have placated some of the better elements in China. But they failed to halt the antiforeignism which was the main political expedient of many Chinese politicians and racketeers. The failure of Chinese officials to halt anti-Japanese campaigns, often resulting in violence, aroused bitterness in Japan, coming as they did on top of Japanese good will gestures which had meant considerable sacrifices to Japan.
    Anti-Japanese agitators in China did not propose to buy Japanese properties. Their slogans called for confiscation.”

    …snip…..

    Anti-Japanese Violence
    It is commonly supposed by uninformed Americans that anti-Japanese agitation in China, during years preceding the present conflict, was a matter of boycotts and press criticism. It was not. The writer of this booklet offers an illustrative instance of which he had direct knowledge:
    In Foochow, a South China city, there, were some hundreds of Japanese. They were there as tea buyers, wholesalers, and other legitimate occupations, entitled to the same protection Chinese business men received in Japan. In one house lived a Japanese school teacher and his wife. Chinese secret societies threatened the life of the school teacher-not, so far as any one could learn, on complaints that he had committed any offense-but because it was planned to kill him as a demonstration of “Chinese patriotism.”
    The Japanese Consul asked the Chinese officials to provide guards for the teacher’s home. Chinese guards were sent. A few days later, mysteriously, the guards suddenly left their posts without notice. At once a gang of “Chinese patriots” burst into the home and shot both the Japanese teacher and his wife. In this case, the charge of the Japanese was not that the Chinese officials had ordered the killings, but that they had connived at it or permitted it by abruptly withdrawing the guards without notice at a time when it was known a gang contemplated the crime.”

  174. Malla says:

    “Chiang’s Predicament
    Anti-Japanese agitation from 1928 to 1937 was waged considerably by Chinese elements – particularly Chinese Communists-who hated Chiang. If he could be entangled in a losing war, reds might hope to gain power in large areas of China in consequence of wartime disorganization. When Chiang Kai-shek undertook to subdue anti-Japanese lawlessness, his enemies in China shouted that he was pro-Japanese. Yet to compromise with the anti-Japanese elements and officially sanction their violence would invite war with Japan. Chiang was in a hard position. Finally he yielded to the factions clamoring for war.

    In June of 1936 a South China faction revolted with the announcement that its aim was to force Chiang to attack the Japanese.

    [MORE]

    Then in December of 1936 the Chinese Communists, in an alliance with another faction, kidnapped Chiang and announced he would be killed unless he agreed to war on Japan. War came seven months later.The point is not that Chiang Kai-shek himself provoked the present war. But it is a matter of plain evidence that provocations from the Chinese side were numerous.”

    Chiang’s Kidnaping
    From Madame Chiang Kai-shek’s book on the kidnapping of her husband, plus other evidence, it seems plain that Chiang had to choose between risking his dictatorship in civil war or joining the movement to make war on Japan. The Blue Shirts, an organization of anti-Japanese officers in the Chinese army, might join the factions against him if he refused to side with the factions seeking war on Japan. Chinese businessmen and the more stable variety of educated Chinese generally seem to have opposed war. The common coolie and farmer classes dreaded war. But these pro-peace elements were shouted down by the radicals. Meanwhile, red propagandists spread the word that aid from America could be expected if war could be started. While affairs were thickening, after Chiang was kidnaped by reds in December of 1936, Chinese radicals were shouting that China, with nine times as many ready troops, could win against Japan.

    When Conflict Came
    Probably no foreigner knows positively who began the shooting on the night of July 7, 1937. This was in itself unimportant. It became serious when the Chiang Kai-shek central government of China, under pressure from pro-war elements, refused to recognize the negotiations of local Chinese officials at the scene of the incident. The local officials seemed ready to settle it peacefully. Chinese radicals in Nanking and Shanghai were shouting that the local officials were sell-outs to Japan, and that Chiang should not accept their settlement. This meant war.”

    • Troll: d dan
    • Replies: @Malla
    , @an0n
    , @Deep Thought
  175. Malla says:
    @Malla

    And finally from the book

    “Defining the Aggressor
    The League of Nations sessions at which Japan was called the aggressor were dominated by Soviet Commissar Maxim Litvinoff, known also as Finkelstein.”

    [MORE]

    …snip….

    “The League blundered badly in 1931 when it sent out the Lytton Commission to gather facts. The Lytton Commission findings showed an embarrassing array of Chinese provocations. The League didn’t make that mistake again in 1937. Directed by Comrade Litvinoff it took action for China, Moscow’s ally, without any inquiry-a procedure as high-handed as would be a judgment without evidence in an ordinary court case.”

    …snip….

    “Voluntarily, Japan returned to China in 1922 the Shantung properties won from Germany in the World War. Japan’s relatively small army, one-ninth the size of China’s prior to the present conflict, would hardly indicate adequate preparation to fight China alone, not to mention America and the rest of the world.
    Japan’s peace offer to China in January of 1938, with a view to ending the present war, did not demand an inch of Chinese territory. The main demand was that anti-Japanese violence and agitation of the sort causing the massacre of Japanese civilians at Tungchow be suppressed.”

    “If the Japanese were looking for conflict with China, as the Tanaka Memorial says, there were numerous provocations between 1927, the date Chinese claim the Tanaka Memorial was drafted, and 1937, the date present fighting began. In 1927, in fact, the British Government, now allied with Moscow against Japan, appealed to Japan to send troops to China to help defend British lives against Chiang Kaishek’s anti-British drive. If Japan wished to attack China, that was a splendid opportunity-with British approval. At any time prior to 1937, Japan could have attacked Chiang when he was less well equipped with imported foreign arms. During years prior to 1937, too, Chinese militarists repeatedly sought Japanese aid, promising all sorts of concessions in return for aid resulting in victory over other Chinese factions. These were refused by Japan.”

    • Replies: @an0n
  176. @Malla

    Sassoons did not monopolise but were the biggest fish.

    Then again, you are merely confirming that I was right! So, what exactly is your argument with me on this matter?

    There were many Jews and Indian mercantile families involved in it. As well as British and American families.

    I did not say there were no other nationalities involved. Hell, there must have been some Chinese involved too!

  177. @Malla

    Fukuzawa Yukichi wanted Korea and China to modernize and together face the powers of the West + Russia. He built University for Chinese and Korean students.

    Even if your claims were true, that could NEVER have justified Japan aggression a China in decline and murdered up to 30 million of its citizen in unspeakable cruelty. It is clear that what Japan wanted was the conquest of China and the acquisition of their own Lebensraum in the East.

    But because he was not getting support from the mainland side, the was deeply saddened. This is partly because Chinese and the Koreans only considered the Japanese as “barbarians” and could not stomach the rise of Japan. Kind of reminds me of Indians who cannot stomach “the rise of Chinese “barbarians” who sat at our feet and learned Buddhism and who would beg to come to great Bharata for Buddhist texts”. Same bullshit.

    It was the “same bullshit” that Japan after Meiji Reformation thought of its Asian neighbours. For the “same bullshit”, Japan, the US of A and the white West as a whole, also “cannot stomach the rise of” China TODAY. I am sure that if, and when, India becomes strong enough to match China, the Chinese will display the “same bullshit” again!!! For that is simply human nature.

    China today wants Japan to repent its ways and come “together to face the powers of the West” too. But, instead of obliging China, it chooses the QUAD and against China– similar to its choice a century ago!!! It should learn from itself what to expect.

    This attitude of Japan to “break away” from mainland North East Asia was formed due to this arrogance and reluctance of the Korea and China of that period to change and give up its feudal ways.

    If so, Japan was welcome to ignore East Asia and to leave it alone. But, that could NEVER have justified invading the other Asian countries and committed unspeakable atrocities against their peoples. What motivated Japan to do the latter was its OWN arrogance towards other Asian peoples and their feeling of inferiority towards the whites. It is abundantly clear that Japan is reluctant– as YOU said– to give up its “whiteman’s nigger” (see Edward Said) role.

    Norimitsu Onishi:

    Writing that “those with bad companions cannot avoid bad reputations,” Fukuzawa said Japan should depart from Asia and “cast our lot with the civilized countries of the West.” He wrote of Japan’s Asian neighbors, “We should deal with them exactly as the Westerners do.”

    • Troll: an0n
    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Malla
    , @Malla
    , @Malla
  178. an0n says:
    @Malla

    Thanks a lot. Where can people get these books? And how come this information is not provided on the Unz website? Why doesn’t Godfree Roberts talk about this? How come no author/writer/contributor for Unz talks about these issues?

    • Thanks: Malla
    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Malla
  179. an0n says:
    @Malla

    Then in December of 1936 the Chinese Communists, in an alliance with another faction, kidnapped Chiang and announced he would be killed unless he agreed to war on Japan. War came seven months later.The point is not that Chiang Kai-shek himself provoked the present war. But it is a matter of plain evidence that provocations from the Chinese side were numerous.”

    This would be the Sian affair. The Japanese were well aware of this. I mentioned it in one of my posts too. Thank again.

  180. an0n says:
    @denk

    Ottawa isnt far behind, kidnapping Huawei CFO at uncle sham’s behest.

    As I said before, this was on behalf of Israel, since Meng Wanzhou was alleged to have done business with Iran, which has been heavily sanctioned in order to please Israeli interests. That story deserves a lot more research though.

    Apparently, Unz writers have written about this:

    https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/lets-boycott-israel-and-its-friends/?highlight=Meng+Wanzhou

    I have to apologize to Mr. Unz, because in another post I was skeptical of why Unz staff writers hadn’t really considered how the issue of Sheldon Adelon’s casinos in Macau might affect Sino-American relations, as well as the Jewish/Israeli connection to Sino-US relations.

    This is from the article:

    Ron Unz has suggested that Beijing might just want to execute a quid pro quo by pulling the licenses of Sheldon Adelson’s casinos operating in Macau, China and shutting them down, thereby eliminating a major source of his revenue. Why go after an Israeli-American casino operator rather than taking steps directly against the U.S. government? The answer is simple. Pressuring Washington is complicated as there are many players involved and unlikely to produce any positive results while Adelson is the prime mover on much of the Trump foreign policy, though one hesitates to refer to it as a policy at all.

    Apparently, I need to read more articles on Unz before jumping to conclusions about this Webzine. I have to confess that I haven’t fully exhausted all of the resources Mr. Unz has made available.

    Nonetheless, Beijing is fully aware of the degree to which Jews influence US policy, and Unz staff writers are aware of the extent to which rich Zionists like Adelson have investments in China.

  181. @Malla

    Then in December of 1936 the Chinese Communists, in an alliance with another faction, kidnapped Chiang and announced he would be killed unless he agreed to war on Japan. War came seven months later. The point is not that Chiang Kai-shek himself provoked the present war. But it is a matter of plain evidence that provocations from the Chinese side were numerous.”

    This is obvious a Nehru inside you that is talking. By that time, Japan had not only colonised Korea and China’s Taiwan, but also occupied The Chinese territory of Manchuria. No Chinese soldier were occupying Japanese territory. ALL the provocations were from one side– the Japanese.

    The more I deal with the Japanese and the Indians, the more I find how similar their mentalities are. And they must be dealt with similarly.

    • Agree: d dan
    • Replies: @Malla
  182. Malla says:
    @an0n

    Where can people get these books?
    https://archive.org/download/in.ernet.dli.2015.173489/2015.173489.The-Surrender-Of-An-Empire.pdf
    https://ia903006.us.archive.org/5/items/asiaanswers007580mbp/asiaanswers007580mbp.pdf
    https://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=moore

    Why doesn’t Godfree Roberts talk about this?

    LOL

    How come no author/writer/contributor for Unz talks about these issues?

    Brother, we are all brainwashed by the Matrix and the truth shall set us free.
    Anyways check these out.
    It is surprising how China of that period is like India now. Indian nationalists going crazy for war and the politicians blaming foreigners for all the problems in the country. But ironically their target foreigner nation is China. Crazy huh!!! How history turns
    Also Politically Incorrect Truth about the Japanese Empire!! Parts 1,2 & 3

    • Replies: @Deep Thought
  183. Malla says:
    @an0n

    Also check this out: Japan Bites Back: Documents Contextualizing Pearl Harbor by Joshua Blakeney

    In September 2014 Joshua Blakeney undertook extensive archival research at the National Diet Library in Japan. The documents he retrieved, along with the other essays in this book, provide the “Japanese side of the argument” about the origins of the “clash of civilizations” that was WWII in Asia. The bolshevization of China, Western meddling in Asia, Soviet infiltration of the White House, U.S. expansionism in the Pacific, the anti-Japanese provocations which spawned the Pearl Harbor operation and Japan’s Pan-Asianist policies are all subjects explored in the book.

    THE PAN ASIAN IDEA WAS A VERY IDEALISTIC PROJECT THAT AIMED AT THE CREATION
    OF A LEAGUE OF ASIATIC NATIONS FREE FROM BOTH WESTERN IMPERIALISM AND
    SOVIET COMMUNISM
    .
    Check out the video below discussing this book:

    【Questioning Japanese History】Japan Bites Back: the Book by Joshua Blakeney

  184. @Malla

    It is surprising how China of that period is like India now. Indian nationalists going crazy for war and the politicians blaming foreigners for all the problems in the country. But ironically their target foreigner nation is China. Crazy huh!!!

    I am not surprised that it is an Indian who says the above.

    China-India today is totally different from the China-Japan situation last century. China has NOT occupied any of Indian territory or taken any Indian posts. Modi categorically stated that NO Chinese soldier had crossed into Indian territory (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/neither-has-anyone-intruded-into-indian-territory-nor-has-anyone-taken-over-any-post-pm-modi/articleshow/76470868.cms). Nor did China have a “Forward Policy” to encroach Japanese home territory a century ago.

    In fact, if you look closely, you can find that there is some similarity between the India of today with the Japan of early last century. India today is trying to emulate what militarist Japan was doing to China. It should very interest to see the end results.

    • Replies: @Malla
  185. Malla says:
    @Deep Thought

    Even if your claims were true, that could NEVER have justified Japan aggression a China in decline

    I have explained upteen times it was defensive move coupled later with provocations. Neither Germany nor Japan were driven by “lebensraum” in their policies decisions nor did both want any war with the USA (but the USA wanted war with both). Both were reaction to the rise and threat of Communism. If at all it, of the three Axis powers, it were the Italian fascists who wanted an Empire, bringing back Roman Empire 2.0. All that Italian misadventures and their incompetence cost Germany a lot, had to send German troops every time their Italian allies failed and asked for assistance and getting stuck in theaters they never wanted to go in the first place.

    China today wants Japan to repent its ways and come “together to face the powers of the West” too. But, instead of obliging China, it chooses the QUAD and against China– similar to its choice a century ago!!! It should learn from itself what to expect.

    Yes I agree. Japan is free to do as it wants and make alliances as it wants , but the truth is USA today has a lot of influence on Japan. Also there is an old distrust towards the CCP among some rightwinged Japanese politicians, not China itself. But the CCP is more stable now, the world is not 1940s anymore, PRC is doing well, 100s of millions have been brought out of poverty, so I think the distrust should go away. The World has changed.
    I think in the long term, the best would be if all North East Asian region nations end up as allies, iron out all their differences and have a NATO like defense alliance bringing peace and tranquility. America has no business of being here anymore. Japan can have nukes plus ICBM (which technologically advanced Japan can develop very fast if it wanted) which can solve all their insecurity and the USA can go back to America and solve its own problems. China, Japan, United Korea, Mongolia and Vietnam could have a friendship alliance, that would be best for the region.
    Similarly Western Europe, Central ex Warsaw pact Europe (who are anti-Russian because of Soviet days) and Russia could iron out their differences and past problems and have a similar pact. The USA should have no business there too, the USA has major problems of its own and the USA Empire is actually doing damage to the American people. All that money could be spent at home to solve American problems. Remember George Washington and the founding fathers had wisely warned against such Empire business.

    What motivated Japan to do the latter was its OWN arrogance towards other Asian peoples and their feeling of inferiority towards the whites.

    Ridiculous. Japan fought with Russia, played a big role in decolonisation of major parts of Asia. White man’s nigger does not seem like it.

    • Replies: @Deep Thought
  186. Malla says:
    @Deep Thought

    Fukuzawa said Japan should depart from Asia and “cast our lot with the civilized countries of the West.” He wrote of Japan’s Asian neighbors, “We should deal with them exactly as the Westerners do.”

    I have already explained Fukuzawa San was unhappy with the resistance to modernization by the peaceful Japanese initiative in mainland North East Asia. There was a lot of resistance to change by strong conservative elements in both Chosun (the powerful Min family close to Korean royalty) and Sino (Empress Dowager Cixi). This is not something he wanted. He wanted modernised Sino and Chosun to join Japan in an alliance so that they could talk to the West (incl Russia) with strength and because modernization was inevitable. He even said modernization is not perfect but that is the most practical way. Japan had its own Meiji Restoration which (by then when he wrote) China and Korea did not. China later had its own modernization revolutions but Korea was modernized by Japan, maybe Korea would have had its own modernization had it not been a part of Japanese Empire, but during Fukuzawa’s time it all seemed very unlikely. He wrote all this in 1885, remember just one year earlier in 1884, the Gapsin Revolution in Korea where Korean reformers sought to initiate rapid changes within the country, including eliminating social distinctions by abolishing the legal privileges of the yangban class was crushed and Fukuzawa’s Korean student Kim Ok-gyun was slaughter which personally pained him a lot. As late as 1898, the Wuxu Reforms in China initiated by the Guangxu Emperor was crushed and reformers Tan Sitong, Kang Guangren, Lin Xu, Yang Shenxiu, Yang Rui and Liu Guangdi and later Tan Sitong were executed. Reformers Kang Youwei and Liang Qichao, fled to Japan and wanted a modern Chinese State with a constitutional monarchy. So Fukuzawa was not wrong in his assessment of his neighbours. What was Fukuzawa to do? He tried modernizing and to him it seemed Korea and China will always remain feudal states out of touch with the reality of the situation of the world and hence out of frustration, sadness and anger from the behaviour of conservative elements in Korea and China did he a advocate Japan going its own way.

    He also wrote
    “Recent movement of westerner’s global rapid action is remarkable. However, this is only a result of the Industrial Revolution and subsequent steam engines and does not mean there was some kind of progress in terms of human spirits(or humanity). Therefore, in order to stand up against and to prevent the invasions to the orient by western great powers, first of all, we only need to get ready in our mind(meaning “to keep open mind and learn, not to have physical strength”). Westerners are the same human being. But, that does not mean we can disregard the reality of Industrial Revolution. In order to keep an independence of a country, it is necessary to just jump into the wave of the Industrial Revolution and accept not only it’s benefits but also it’s disadvantages as well. This is now required to survive in this modern civilized society. Modern civilization is like influenza. Can we prevent infection of influenza on the sea front? No, I strongly believe we can’t. Influenza has no benefit, and we can’t avoid infections once it spreads. But, modern civilization bares both benefits and disadvantages, and how can we protect ourselves from modern civilization which has more benefits than disadvantages. It is, in a way, a duty for intellectuals to push the infections while providing antidotes.”
    also
    “In this era of a rapid information exchange, while knowing the modern civilization and the international law, two countries (Chosun-Korea and Sino-China) still adhere to the past. This national mind is nothing more than the one from the 1000 years ago. In this actively progressive era of the modern civilization, the education is limited to Confucianism where they learn superficial knowledge, and in practice, their attitudes seem not only disregarding the scientific principles, but also morally collapsing while they have no self-examinations but arrogance. In my view, China and Korea cannot survive as independent nations with the onslaught of modern civilization to the East if they keep the way they are. There is no doubt that ruins and divisions of countries are inevitable unless noble men of reform appear in these two countries and manage to reform the countries from top to down just like the Meiji Restoration. It is because locking self up in a closed room and shutting the air flow avoiding the wave of modern civilization, will only suffocate themselves.”

    also
    “For instance, if Sino and Chosun are under dictatorship or if they are country of Confucianism, the western scholars might misunderstand that Japan might as well be so. Or if Sino ignore the international law or manners without hesitation/shame, some might think Japan may do the same. If Chosun brutally executes people, some might doubt Japan do the same. And there are countless examples like this. This is as if outsiders looking at a village full of cruel and crazy people. Even if one person in the village is criticizing other members of the village, it does not make much difference to outsiders. Japan should no longer wait nor expect the two countries to possess international common sense. Japan should now ditch the illusion that those countries, together with Japan, will help archive the prosperity in Asia. In stead, Japan should leave those countries behind and join the western civilization to go forward.”

    Remember: Fukuzawa tried so much and fought very hard for the enlightenment and civilization of Asian countries through education. This was his acknowledgement of failure and desperation.

  187. Malla says:
    @Deep Thought

    This is obvious a Nehru inside you that is talking

    What you do not know is that Indian nationalists consider Nehru a traitor for a number of reasons, one major being he was too soft on China and that he was China’s stooge. Trust me, check it out yourself. There is even a rumour going around that the USA was ready to give India a permanent seat in the UN but Nehru gave it to enemy country China. LOL. But I hop you understand, Indian nationalists are angry that Nehru was too soft on China, had pro-Chinese sentiments (and he was backstabbed by perfidious China like a fool).

    I have explained upteen times that Japan faced a communist threat from the Soviet Russia as well as a lot of Communist movements in China. Its like talking to a brainwashed blockhead. I am sure now Chinese nationalists are not that different from Indian Nationalists, both sides of blockheads deserve each other. Listen very carefully, Mall is not an Indian nationalist, none of the Indian hypernationalist are her on Unz, deal with them, they would make you cry with frustration.

    The more I deal with the Japanese and the Indians, the more I find how similar their mentalities are

    .
    Ridiculous, we are nothing like the Japanese, Chinese have more similarities with the Japanese than we have with the Japanese just like Russians have more similarity with Germans than we Indians or Chinese. This is common sense. We are similar to Pakistanis.

    And they must be dealt with similarly.

    LOL and how do you plan to do that? That is exactly what Indian nationalists say about China. “China should be taught a lesson for insult to Indian motherland. Sons of India be ready to fight the Chinese devils.” Do not believe me? Ask the Chinese ambassador to India. He would agree.
    I personally do not support this, I have supported China’s position because for the simple reason, I felt China’s position w.r.t India is more right. Simple.
    And how would you deal with India? Defeat us militarily. Kiddo, your enemy is the billion strong brainwashed hyper nationalist blockhead Indian People, one more military defeat and accompanying propaganda spin will make the billion strong Indian people even more determined in taking retribution against the dragon for the “Holy Motherland” on some future date. Its all bullshit but nationalism is a game not only the Chinese can play. Actually Indian nationalists cannot even believe that Chinese nationalists even exist. “China is a fake, posh yellow pussyboy country” “How can those chinki robots have nationalism? Do they even have feelings?” “We are brown macho sons of the soil, real and simple revolutionaries fighting Chinese Imperialists.” “There is only one holy Mother, Mother India and for her we shall shed blood our holy motherland” shouts an Indian hypernationalist blockhead. And there are hundreds of millions of them. LOL All B.S really. B.S makes the world go round.
    Anyways I do not want some war but I do not see any solution to the Indian blockheads and now it seems even the Chinese blockheads. And the sneaky ZOG controlled American behaviour. Looks like an explosive situation.

  188. Malla says:
    @Deep Thought

    Let us look at it not from Malla’s perspective but from the 100s of millions of Indian nationalist’ point of view. OK?

    China has NOT occupied any of Indian territory or taken any Indian posts.

    LOL Say that to the Indian Nationalists. According to them “China has taken Akshai Chin, which to them is Indian territory, part of the Motherland. Always will be.”

    Nor did China have a “Forward Policy” to encroach Japanese home territory a century ago.

    Agree but see the problem from the Indian Nationalist viewpoint “Forward policy” is unknown to nearly everybody in India. Even if you tell them this truth, they will call it Chinese propaganda, will attack any Indian who says this as a “Chinese agent’, “traitor to motherland’ and attack him. You see the problem.
    Now what is believed in India
    “Chinese officials came to India and told us Hindi Chini bhai Bhai’ translated “Indians Chinese brothers’ and then backstabbed India by suddenly invading India 2 days later. “Sneaky Chinese can never be trusted”
    Secondly China supports Pakistan, which is India’s enemy. Pakistan supports terrorists who kill our Indian soldiers.

    China does not allow India to become permanent memeber of Security Council, it vetoes us. China does not allow us to join the Nuclear Supplier’s Group. China is encircling India via her string of pearls in India’s neighbourhood to keep us down.
    If you do not believe me go to the website of Times of India and go to comment section of any article on China, and see what people write. And that is the English media. You do not want to go to local language media, Hindi or Gujrathi. There the flood of anti-China comments are huge. The Westernised Indian elites are atleast divided into two groups with one side wanting dialogue and friendship with China and understanding China’s position. But that is because many of them Westernised pro-China elites have traveled to China and have good experience with friendly Chinese people, admire Chinese culture and admire China’s development and so they cannot believe China could be that bad as claimed by the idiotic media, especially the idiotic low IQ Hindi media (English media is not much better honestly). But the masses, they hate China as “enemy to motherland to be taught a lesson’. These Westernised elites who support friendship with China are called “traitors to Mother India’.
    Check this out

    See how Indian Army Major Arya (guy on the left) at 13.40 minutes speaks about China and see the reaction of Major General Bakshi (white mustache guy). He talks about a pro-China lobby in India, I was writing about above.
    Now at 15:34, the clean shaven major Arya speaks about China. See it. After a minute he says that China cannot be trusted. This is how the Indian nation thinks about China.

    • Replies: @Deep Thought
  189. @Malla

    I have explained upteen times it was defensive move

    Invading other people’s country and killing 10’s of millions of its people can NEVER be a”defensive move”.

    Ridiculous. Japan fought with Russia, played a big role in decolonisation of major parts of Asia. White man’s nigger does not seem like it.

    You are the one who is ridiculous. If All that Japan wanted was to fight Russia, it should have invaded Russian direct! Instead, Japan tugged its tail between its legs as soon as it got kicked on the arse by Zhukov.

    Japan did not “decolonisation” any part of Asia. It competed with the white West for the colonisation of the rest of Asia. And it turned out that Japanese colonisation were ten thousand times more atrocious than those of the Europeans’.

    I have already explained Fukuzawa San was unhappy with the resistance to modernization by the peaceful Japanese initiative in mainland North East Asia.

    It was never up to Fukuzawa to be happy or unhappy about other peoples’ modernisation. Other people following their own time and schedule for their own modernisation. Whatever Fukuzawa was happy or unhappy, it was none of Japan’s business to put its nose in other peoples’ modernisation. And certainly that could NEVER justify Japan’s atrocious aggressions against other countries in East Asia.

    You are merely an apologist for the Japanese militarism.

    What you do not know is that Indian nationalists consider Nehru a traitor for a number of reasons, one major being he was too soft on China and that he was China’s stooge.

    What Indian nationalists think is their business. The Chinese don’t care. The “Fukuzawas” might care though.

    Ridiculous, we are nothing like the Japanese, Chinese have more similarities with the Japanese than we have with the Japanese just like Russians have more similarity with Germans than we Indians or Chinese

    Despite the genetic closeness between the Chinese and Japanese, the mentality of the Chinese and Japanese are very different. For one thing, the Japanese have a strong caste mentality which is absent in the Chinese. Guess who have even stronger caste mentality in this world?

    LOL and how do you plan to do that?

    Ask Nehru!!!

    LOL Say that to the Indian Nationalists. According to them “China has taken Akshai Chin, which to them is Indian territory, part of the Motherland. Always will be.”

    According to Chinese nationalists, neither South Tibet or Aksai Chin belongs to India.

    Summaries about the Sino-Indian dispute can be found here: http://indiaschinablog.blogspot.com/

    Agree but see the problem from the Indian Nationalist viewpoint “Forward policy” is unknown to nearly everybody in India. Even if you tell them this truth, they will call it Chinese propaganda, will attack any Indian who says this as a “Chinese agent’, “traitor to motherland’ and attack him.

    Then, it is the responsibility of the Indian government to educate the Indian public about the TRUTH of 1962. Releasing The Henderson Brooks-Bhagat Report would be the first step of doing so.

    http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1461102/neville-maxwell-interview-full-transcript

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Hiya Doody
  190. Malla says:
    @Deep Thought

    What motivated Japan to do the latter was its OWN arrogance towards other Asian peoples and their feeling of inferiority towards the whites.

    You are confusing everything. Fukuzawa Yukichi did not promote as far as I know any invasion of china. Japan’s actions was driven by need of security and provocations it faced. and China did not provoke Japan, Chinese Communist movements and subversive agents did. The Communists (including their Soviet masters and they in turn their banker masters) wanted a war in between Japan and Chinese nationalists and as well as a war in between Japan and USA. Japan wanting lebensroum over inferior Chinese is just propaganda. It has already been proven several times on Unz that Germans and their Untermensch was Allied propaganda B.S.
    OK I will tell you what propaganda is going on around now in India. It looks eerily similar to things in China before.

    Would India crush China? Tarek Fatah chats with Tahir Gora
    Check out from 0.40 seconds
    It is in Hindi, but I translate for you. You can check my translation with anybody. Indians use a lot of English words while speaking Hindi, those English words both in the transcripts as well as translations will be in capital as well as in bold in transcripts. These English words can be used as reference markers if you listen to his conversation.
    Tarek Fateh at 0:40 seconds says: “Dekhiye, Chin ka jyo masla hai, wo kisi bhi ek IMPERIALIST COUNTRY ya POWER ka jyo hota hai. Ki jyada se jyada TERRITORY aur duniya ke TRADE par kabsa karna. “
    English Translation: See, China’s issue is that what happens with any IMPERIALIST COUNTRY OR POWER. That conquering more and more TERRITORY as well as capturing the World’s TRADE as much as possible.

    At 0:56 seconds:: “To Chin pichle koi tees charlis saal se uski koshish ye hai aur uski PARTY ki jyo DICTATORSHIP hai uski koshish ye hai ki Hindustan unke competition me na aye. Usko dabake rakhe.”
    English Translation: So China for the last 30 to 40 years has been trying and its PARTY DICTATORSHIP has been trying to ensure that India does not become its competitor. To keep India down.

    At 1:13 minutes he says:: “Ek to unki IDEOLOGICAL aur CULTURAL LEVEL pe hum Hindustaniyonko Insaan hi nahi samajte hai.”
    English Translation: One thing is that they in their IDEOLOGICAL and CULTURAL LEVEL do not even consider us Indians as human beings.

    At 1:21 minutes ::“Unki nigah me aur unki zabaan me bhi ilfaaz hai jo show karte hai ki ye LESS DEVELOPED jisko BLACK DEVILS bhi kaha jyata hai ki Angrez to gora to firbhi usse baat kar lenge lekin ye kachra wachra jyo jama hua hai niche African hai, indian hai, bahgladeshi hai koi idhar udhar isko mai nahi samazta hu insaan bhi samaj te hai. “
    English Translation: ” In their eyes and even in their language it shows that the LESS DEVELOPED for whom the word BLACK DEVILS are also used….English the Whites OK, we (Chinese) can at least talk with them but these garbage peoples collected down south, Africans, Indians, Bangladeshis, I do not think they (Chinese) consider as human beings.”

    At 1:45 minutes he says:: “Aur unki SUPERIORITY COMPLEX ye hai ki wo ek lihaz se RACIST andaaz aktiyar karte hai.”
    English Translation: And their SUPERIORITY COMPLEX is such that they have a RACIST viewpoint.

    1:54 minutes he says:: “Ki hum DESERVE karte hai ki duniya pe hamara kabza ho, ye hamara kyo ki hum ek SUPERIOR PEOPLE hai.”
    English Translation: That we (Chinese) DESERVE to conquer the World because we (Chinese) are a SUPERIOR PEOPLE.
    ———————————————
    Now do you think Chinese think that way? But that is the propaganda now being spread among Indians about Chinese people and China. How can you be not sure such propaganda against Japanese was not spread before?

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Deep Thought
  191. @Malla

    China does not allow India to become permanent memeber of Security Council, it vetoes us. China does not allow us to join the Nuclear Supplier’s Group. China is encircling India via her string of pearls in India’s neighbourhood to keep us down.

    And you pretend NOT to know WHY? You have discovered the reasons yourself:

    Agree but see the problem from the Indian Nationalist viewpoint “Forward policy” is unknown to nearly everybody in India. Even if you tell them this truth, they will call it Chinese propaganda, will attack any Indian who says this as a “Chinese agent’, “traitor to motherland’ and attack him. You see the problem.

    Now what is believed in India

    “Chinese officials came to India and told us Hindi Chini bhai Bhai’ translated “Indians Chinese brothers’ and then backstabbed India by suddenly invading India 2 days later. “Sneaky Chinese can never be trusted”

    Secondly China supports Pakistan, which is India’s enemy. Pakistan supports terrorists who kill our Indian soldiers.

    Pakistan was NOT China’s first choice for a strategic partner:

    “If India and China come together, they will be a powerful global force to stem the tide of American unilateralism. Second, China today faces a threat from Islamic terrorists in its western back yard and may want to forge a common bond with India. Is there anything wrong about it? China has opposed Indian political moves in the past, but India should blame itself for it. For several decades, India had frozen relations with China and when the latter tried to seek understanding, the former rudely rebuffed her. It was only then that China started opposing India’s political moves [such as membership of the United Nations Security Council] and forging a full-scale relationship with Pakistan. ”

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EF21Df01.html

    • Replies: @Malla
  192. Malla says:
    @Malla

    But those Indians who actually go to China as tourists or travelers , they end up having a positive opinion of the Chinese and China!!!
    For example

    HOW CHINA TREAT INDIANS ? My First Hitchhiking in China
    This guy “Nomadic India”, is in northern China. It is in Hindi and I cannot translate the whole thing. He keeps on talking about how Chinese people are so friendly and kind. Many of the Indian commentators are very surprised. He strongly recommends China for traveling.
    He is hitchhiking to Beijing. He keeps on saying in his other videos that Chinese are very similar to Indians except China is much cleaner and organised than India. At 13:50 minutes the Chinese toll officers take him to a restaurant and buy him food and courteous enough to enquire if he eats chicken feet. At 16:34 minutes a Police officer gives him free ride to Beijing.
    And that is the strange thing, Indians who go travelling to China as tourists end up having a good opinion of China or Chinese people, many of my friends who have been to China as tourists have a very high opinion about the Chinese people and agree that we are being brainwashed by our media. But I doubt they would dare praise China in public here as they may be attacked verbally as “China lover’, “traitors’ etc…
    Similarly Chinese tourists in Japan have a very positive opinion of Japan and Japanese people and many of them have changed their views about Japan.

    They say Japanese people are very friendly to Chinese people. Most of them say that they were surprised about Japan. In another video which I have not linked here, where Japanese are asked about China, one Japanese person said that younger generation Chinese and Japanese are not that different from each other now.

  193. Malla says:
    @Deep Thought

    Invading other people’s country and killing 10’s of millions of its people can NEVER be a”defensive move”.

    It was a defensive move and I (and anon) have explained it well. I cannot keep on repeating everything. They faced a threat from Communism.

    If All that Japan wanted was to fight Russia, it should have invaded Russian direct! Instead, Japan tugged its tail between its legs as soon as it got kicked on the arse by Zhukov.

    Idiot, I was talking about the earlier Russo-Japanese war. Russia had its reasons too wanted access to a warm water port, that has always been Russia’s problem, huge land but no access to good ports.

    It was never up to Fukuzawa to be happy or unhappy about other peoples’ modernisation.

    Sure but I was explaining the whole thing in correct wholistic perspective, you were putting a different spin on things

    And certainly that could NEVER justify Japan’s atrocious aggressions against other countries in East Asia.

    Fukuzawa was not involved with the military actions of Japan.

    According to Chinese nationalists, neither South Tibet or Aksai Chin belongs to India.

    According to Indian Nationalists (not me) they are part of India and they will not fight for a thousand years to keep it a part of India. Deal with it. Blockheads stuck in dreadlock.

    Ask Nehru!!!

    Stupid answer.

    Then, it is the responsibility of the Indian government to educate the Indian public about the TRUTH of 1962. Releasing The Henderson Brooks-Bhagat Report would be the first step of doing so.

    India is not the only country which does propaganda on its people.

    Despite the genetic closeness between the Chinese and Japanese

    Maybe so, but from Indian perspective all you “chinki”s are the same. Just like all “goras” (whites) are the same. All different from us.

    For one thing, the Japanese have a strong caste mentality

    The system in Japan and India are very different from each other. Dr. Ambedkar had written about this in his works.

    You are merely an apologist for the Japanese militarism.

    Indian nationalists call me an apologist for Chinese militarism, I do not care.

    Japan did not “decolonisation” any part of Asia.

    I have posted many quotes from Asian leader which says otherwise.

  194. Malla says:
    @Deep Thought

    Pakistan was NOT China’s first choice for a strategic partner: If India and China come together…..

    If that article says is true, this is very sad. Well I hope Indian nationalists understand this (very unlikely). Is that link live? I could not open it.
    But, way things are now, from an Indian NATIONALIST perspective, “Pakistan is an enemy which supports terrorism in our motherland. And Pakistan’s such close friend who has territorial issues with India becomes India’s enemy. China will have to deal with this as it gets so close to Pakistan.”
    The truth is China was not the no.1 enemy as it has become now. The latest clashes in Galwan made China replace Pakistan as enemy no.1 in the nation’s eyes. Maybe India was the aggressor, maybe China. I do not know. CCTV has shown a video showing our soldiers being the aggressor, but the narrative in India is very different.

    And you pretend NOT to know WHY? You have discovered the reasons yourself:

    Justified or not, these actions will make Indian nationalists even more anti-China. There is no way out of this.

    • Replies: @Deep Thought
  195. @Malla

    You are confusing everything. Fukuzawa Yukichi did not promote as far as I know any invasion of china. Japan’s actions was driven by need of security and provocations it faced. and China did not provoke Japan, Chinese Communist movements and subversive agents did. The Communists (including their Soviet masters and they in turn their banker masters) wanted a war in between Japan and Chinese nationalists and as well as a war in between Japan and USA. Japan wanting lebensroum over inferior Chinese is just propaganda.

    “Fukuzawa Yukichi HIMSELF might not have “promoted” any invasion of china.” His views simply reflected that of the Japanese as a people at that time, which in turn led to Japan’s aggressions against other Asian countries.

    If “China did not provoke Japan”, then Japan’s invasion of China was pure aggression– by definition.

    “Chinese Communist movements and subversive agents” in China were none of Japan’s business. It was a matter for the people of China to settle.

    Japan’s aggression of China had already created a war with China.

    Japan’s invaded Taiwan, Manchuria and setting up colony and puppet governments were proof of “Japan wanting lebensraum” in China. Japan sent more than a million colonisers to Manchuria to take over the land. They had to flee when the Russians came at the end of WWII. Many abandoned their very OWN children in order to save their own necks.

    You are bullshitting.

    [MORE]

    Now do you think Chinese think that way? But that is the propaganda now being spread among Indians about Chinese people and China. How can you be not sure such propaganda against Japanese was not spread before?

    I don’t mean to hurt your feelings. India and Indians, at present, are not important subjects in the minds of the Chinese!!! Maybe, 50 years from now India might have a bigger impact, I don’t know.

    Japan have invaded China since the end of the 19th century. What was spreading in China about Japan was simple about the truth.

    But those Indians who actually go to China as tourists or travelers , they end up having a positive opinion of the Chinese and China!!!
    For example

    Let us hope that these Indian tourists could tell other Indians the truth about 1962. I dearly hope that the Chinese and Indian civilizations could become “sister civilizations:

    “This does not – and will not – mean that we have to adapt to a China-led order. As a sister civilization, China knows that India can never be a vassal state. The heart of the matter is that China also does not want to export its model. It can live with a diverse multipolar world. ”

    https://asiatimes.com/2020/09/modis-legacy-to-be-defined-by-virus-war-defeat/

    It was a defensive move and I (and anon) have explained it well. I cannot keep on repeating everything. They faced a threat from Communism.

    Killing tens of millions in unspeakable cruelty can never be a “defensive move” no matter how you try to spin it.

    Idiot, I was talking about the earlier Russo-Japanese war. Russia had its reasons too wanted access to a warm water port, that has always been Russia’s problem, huge land but no access to good ports.

    You are the IDIOT. The Chinese who got killed by the Japanese didn’t/don’t see it that way.

    If the Japan really wanted to fight the Russians, they should just have invaded Russia itself. But the Japanese knew better– Russia just before WWII had sharper teeth than the Chinese in 1950.

    Sure but I was explaining the whole thing in correct wholistic perspective, you were putting a different spin on things

    Fukuzawa was not involved with the military actions of Japan.

    Whether Fukuzawa himself was doing the invading is irrelevant– Japan was and the Japanese people as a whole have to take that responsibility. Fukuzawa, however, did provide part of Japan’s inspiration to go militaristic.

    Yours is a “Hole-listic” perspective.

    According to Indian Nationalists (not me) they are part of India and they will not fight for a thousand years to keep it a part of India. Deal with it. Blockheads stuck in dreadlock.

    China has been “dealing with it” since 1962– that includes doing all those things the Indians don’t like. For now, it is the Indians who have to “deal with it!!! So, why did you complain about what China has done?

    • Replies: @Malla
  196. @Malla

    If that article says is true, this is very sad. Well I hope Indian nationalists understand this (very unlikely). Is that link live? I could not open it.

    Apparently, it is no longer live but I kept a copy:

    [MORE]

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EF21Df01.html

    South Asia

    India in China: Going beyond chow mein
    By Sultan Shahin

    NEW DELHI – Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s five-day China visit, starting on Sunday, has set off bitter controversy between a belligerent pro-American lobby fearful of Chinese designs and a peace lobby consisting of opposition secular and communist politicians and intellectuals pleading for the premier to take his opportunity to mend fences with China and accept an overall border settlement through a package deal offered by the Chinese leadership, apart from developing trade and other ties.

    These sentiments are best represented by two headlines of opinion pieces giving divergent views in the largely circulated newspaper the Hindustan Times: “Beware the dragon’s designs”, says one, but the other advises “Climb over the wall”. Both the camps, however, feel – one hopes and the other fears – that the visit may not go beyond the prime minister consuming more chow mein and Peking duck than his health permits, as he is fond of Chinese food, plus a joint declaration using high-sounding words showcasing the “historic” importance of the trip but in reality leading to little progress.

    The feeling emanates from a perception that even though Vajpayee needs a breakthrough in Sino-Indian relations badly, having failed to achieve any success on any other front, with elections only months away, he is surrounded by people, both bureaucrats and politicians, who will not allow him to forge ahead. Observers have not forgotten the Agra summit with Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf in July 2001, in which a breakthrough agreement is believed to have been reached between the two heads of government and their foreign ministers, but was later scuttled by Hindutva (the philosophy of Hindu predominance) elements, leading to recriminations that continue to this day. Vajpayee’s latest peace initiative with Pakistan has also been in effect foiled by people around him. After five years of non-performance, his government is now perceived, in the words of columnist Prem Shankar Jha, as “rudderless”.

    This despondency is also caused by a near-unanimous view among analysts of all hues that India doesn’t have a China policy as such – indeed, it doesn’t have a foreign policy with well-defined aims and objects – and that governments merely react to events or short-term political needs. Both former prime ministers Rajiv Gandhi and P V Narasimha Rao, for instance, visited China in 1988 and 1993 respectively and came back with so-called historic agreements, which in effect meant nothing. One observer in fact dismisses the coming visit in the Hindustan Times contemptuously: “The PM, being a smart and seasoned politician, perhaps realizes better than anyone else that next year may not see him in political power or physical fitness which he enjoys today. So why not have a family picnic at government cost and Chinese hospitality when the sun still shines brightly?”

    China, on the other hand, is credited with a well-crafted India policy, as indeed a well-designed foreign policy with a clear view of its long-term strategic goals. Analyst Pravin Sawhney summarizes a widespread Indian view: “As an acknowledged regional power preparing for a global role, China’s approach towards India is a mix of four elements. These are to ensure through a ‘strategic partnership’ with Pakistan that India remains a subregional power, to permit no political or diplomatic concessions, to keep the core border issue diffused, and to utilize the peace so obtained to build national power, including military power. In Sun Tzu’s words: ‘to defeat the enemy without a battle’. Beijing has been more than successful in accomplishing these objectives.”

    Admiration for Chinese mandarins also engenders fear. How the enigmatic Chinese will take advantage of the aimlessness of Indian politicians is a constant unknown. Hawkish Brahma Chellaney has many admirers in the ruling Hindutva camp. He claims to have penetrated the inscrutable Chinese mind: “The 1988 and 1993 accords supremely suited Beijing’s strategy of seeking to change Indian perceptions about China without conceding any ground to New Delhi and yet continuing to quietly contain India. The result was that with the Indians lulled by the ‘peace’ overtures, the Chinese opened a new flank against India by setting up eavesdropping and naval facilities along the Burmese coastline. Today the Chinese are building a naval base at Gwadar, Pakistan, and working to swamp Indian interests in the Maldives. The Chinese navy is positioning itself along sea-lanes vital to Indian security and economy.

    “For the old apparatchiks who constitute the new leadership in Beijing, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s impending visit to China is an opportunity to further Chinese interests. They believe that Vajpayee wants to show success at least on the China front because of the little headway he has made with his initiatives with Pakistan since Lahore and the slow progress on building an Indo-US strategic partnership, which was to be the centerpiece of his foreign policy. So the Chinese have intensified their now-familiar ‘peace’ spiel. That this lingo represents only cliched ad lines to sell something less innocuous is apparent from what they have conveyed to Indian officials for ensuring a major ‘breakthrough’ during Vajpayee’s visit – India abandoning some of the cardinal principles on which its bipartisan policy towards China is built. Having watched Vajpayee’s policy pendulum swing from one end to the other on Pakistan, Beijing believes it could use his yearning for a successful visit to alter the fundamentals of India’s China policy. It is dead wrong in its calculations.

    “If anything, the Chinese are providing valuable training to Indians on how to talk peace but aggressively pursue national interests. Clearly, the Chinese want peace with containment, a win-win posture that permits them to maintain direct strategic pressure and mount stepped-up surrogate threats.”

    Even though the Vajpayee visit has been on the anvil for some time, its timing has become the subject of speculation in both camps. Chellaney explains why: “His decision to visit at a time when foreigners are shunning China because of the SARS [severe acute respiratory syndrome] epidemic may be read by his hosts as confirmation that he is desperate to score some foreign-policy success. More broadly, the visit is part of a pattern of diplomatic zealousness that has seen India making all the first moves and first visits since Mao [Zedong]’s death. As if India had to pay obeisance to the self-perceived Middle Kingdom, the first visits at the president, prime minister and foreign minister level were by Indians. In fact, Vajpayee has the dubious record of ignoring warnings of Chinese designs and making the first foreign minister-level visit in 1979, and then cutting short his tour after China attacked Vietnam for the same admitted reason it invaded India in 1962 – ‘to teach a lesson’.”

    There are other analysts, however, who seem to think the present visit offers Vajpayee an opportunity and a challenge to prove his leadership. If he shows vision and guts, they think, he will “forge strong ties with China and return as a hero”.

    The main problem Vajpayee will face, however, if he decides to settle the boundary dispute, is one of his own making. He had pushed for parliament to resolve to recover every bit of territory “lost” to the Chinese in the 1962 war. The then Chinese premier Zhou Enlai offered a permanent status quo as a solution. But Vajpayee and other Hindu nationalists would not hear of it. They vowed to recover every bit of territory.

    A former advisor to External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha, when the latter was holding the finance portfolio, Mohan Guruswamy, comments, “That status quo is pretty much what exists on the ground today. It is not within our power to alter it, nor does it seem to be in China’s power to alter it. For either side to be able to do so will require military and political resources well beyond what is available now. The ends are so meager that no cost justifies them. For India it is the Aksai Chin, a barren, desolate, cold and windswept desert high up amidst the mountains. Then prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru said it was so useless that ‘not a blade of grass grows’.

    “That resolution [to recover lost territory] still hobbles us. But what is worrisome is that he [Vajpayee] seems to have had little change of mind. Quite clearly, the Chinese are not about to give back Aksai Chin and abutting territories, over which our claims are quite tenuous if not dubious. The time has come for him to backtrack. Good sense and common sense both dictate that sticking to unreasonable and unsustainable colonial positions doesn’t make for better neighborliness. But given his history and the company he keeps, can he do it?”

    It is a measure of the sea-change that has taken place in the Indian attitude toward the territory lost to China in 1962 that responsible people can express opinions that would have been considered subversive and anti-national not long ago. An entire generation has grown thinking that India’s chief national goal was to recover territory from China. That people from this generation are willing to admit that the 1962 war was not entirely a case of Chinese aggression and that we, too, had made mistakes is indeed remarkable.

    Analyst V V Paranjpe is even more daring in calling for peace on realistic terms and rejecting the Hindutva thesis of fearing the dragon. He writes a rejoinder: “Chellaney’s main worry seems to be China having designs on India and that it will extort valuable concessions. One may well ask: What designs can China possibly have on India? Territorial, economic, military or political? China has a much larger territory than India’s and if China had wanted to occupy Indian territory, it could have easily done so when the Chinese troops entered India in 1962 and occupied territories in the NEFA area [North East Frontier Area, now called Arunachal Pradesh]. But within a month, China withdrew all its troops to the north of the McMahon Line claimed by India but not recognized by China. Economically and militarily, China is far ahead of us and does not need to get any advantage from us. The only advantage that China might seek is political.

    “If India and China come together, they will be a powerful global force to stem the tide of American unilateralism. Second, China today faces a threat from Islamic terrorists in its western back yard and may want to forge a common bond with India. Is there anything wrong about it? China has opposed Indian political moves in the past, but India should blame itself for it. For several decades, India had frozen relations with China and when the latter tried to seek understanding, the former rudely rebuffed her. It was only then that China started opposing India’s political moves [such as membership of the United Nations Security Council] and forging a full-scale relationship with Pakistan.

    “Our main grouse today is about a Sino-Pak collusion. We have vainly tried to rope in the US to contain Pakistan but without any result. Still we put all our eggs in the American basket and continue to woo the US despite the BJP’s [ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s] realization of American ‘double standards’. Would not improving our relations with China provide a better alternative to restrain an isolated Pakistan and win Chinese support to our many other political objectives?”

    Paranjape displays even greater courage in tackling the border issue: “Chellaney has talked about 22 years of futile border talks with China. He is evidently unaware of the facts of our border case. The border issue arose because we were trying to force China to accept a borderline that was unilaterally decided by the British. Even the British were careful in not pressing it too hard, but we proved to be more stubborn advocates of the British legacy. Even then, the Chinese wanted to resolve the issue through negotiations. But India declared that the borders were not negotiable and China must accept our claims in toto. That gave rise to the border dispute. We refused to enter into any discussions with China. The border dispute is, thus, of our making.

    “When this line failed, India adopted the diversionary tactic of determining the line of actual control – a totally meaningless exercise. India never once suggested any alternative solution to the border problem, while Chinese did twice. Once, when Chinese prime minister Zhou Enlai came to Delhi and suggested a compromise solution. We had then rebuffed him. A second time in 1979, when Vajpayee went to Peking and met Deng Xiaoping. Vajpayee, under the clutches of MEA [Ministry of External Affairs] bureaucrats and without a mind of his own, refused to even listen to Deng’s idea of the package deal. Today, if the Chinese are resurrecting the idea, we should accept it. In actuality, the border dispute has virtually ceased to exist. India and China have both got what they wanted. China has occupied Aksaichin, which was never under our control, while China has tacitly accepted our rule over NEFA and the border is peaceful. China is presumably asking us to legalize this reality through a package deal. Is anything wrong in that?”

    Apart from these two groups of people who support or oppose the settlement of border disputes and normalization of relations with China, there is a third group of observers who think that instead of focusing exclusively on such thorny issues as long-festering border disputes, Indian and Chinese leadership should try to tackle first more basic day-to-day problems and encourage people-to-people relations to create an atmosphere conducive to the solution of more difficult problems. “The stark reality today,” says C Raja Mohan of the Hindu newspaper, “is that more than five decades after becoming modern states, India and China don’t have simple things that neighboring states should put in place – settled boundaries, good fences, border trade, tourism, and … frequent high-level political contact. Covering up this pathetic situation on their borders by tilting at global windmills is a gigantic self-deception that New Delhi and Beijing have often engaged in.

    “Messrs Vajpayee and [President] Hu [Jintao] should instead focus on problem-solving and expanding functional cooperation. If the two leaders are looking for one big idea that can encompass many small mutually beneficial steps towards cooperation it is building a bridge across the Himalayas. Mutual distrust and rivalry that have hobbled relations between India and China for the last so many decades are rooted in the Himalayan range. An unresolved boundary dispute, China’s refusal to recognize Sikkim as part of India, and Beijing’s fears about New Delhi playing the Tibet card have made the Himalayas an impenetrable barrier between the two nations.

    “The leaders in Beijing now say that in the millennia of civilizational interaction India and China have fought each other only a brief 1 percent of the time in the latter part of the 20th century. But that short confrontation has choked off historic trading routes, religious pilgrimage and cultural interaction between the people across the mountain range developed over thousands of years. Dismantling these barriers put up in the last few decades could electrify the Himalayan region and provide a better context for bilateral relations. And that is within the grasp of Mr Vajpayee and his Chinese hosts.

    “New Delhi and Beijing cannot create an Asian century on the shifting sands of mutual distrust and lack of even minimal cooperation on their frontiers. There will be many other issues such as trade and mutual investment, China’s support to Pakistan, and the prospects for cooperation on global issues in play during Mr Vajpayee’s visit to China. But nothing is more important at this stage in Sino-Indian relations than taking the first firm steps towards building a bridge across the Himalayas.”

    There is little doubt in anyone’s mind that Vajpayee means business. He wishes to solve or at least make some progress in resolving tricky foreign-policy issues such as India’s relations with China or for that matter with Pakistan, as well as domestic issues such as the unseemly and unnecessary dispute over the demolished Babri mosque. But he has set a sort of record of always caving in before his colleagues in the Hindutva camp and the bureaucrats who run India’s permanent government. This has disappointed his admirers and given rise to a lot of cynicism. The Chinese leadership, therefore, will have to give him a lot of help if they have made a strategic decision to normalize relations with India.

    (Copyright 2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact [email protected] for information on our sales and syndication policies.

    • Thanks: Malla
  197. Malla says:
    @Deep Thought

    His views simply reflected that of the Japanese as a people at that time, which in turn led to Japan’s aggressions against other Asian countries.

    Idiotic assumptions count for nothing. Japans actions had more to do with the Soviet Union and their agents in China and the USA than Fukazawa San.

    “Chinese Communist movements and subversive agents” in China were none of Japan’s business. It was a matter for the people of China to settle.

    There was no China then. It was broken into pieces with war lords in many places. With communist intrigues. In Manchuria, Japan fought a local landlord who was outside the control of the Nationalists at that time. For Japan, Manchuria was a buffer zone.
    I have already posted in my posts that if Japan would have wanted to invade the rest of China for lebansraum, it had many far better opportunities. It did not. Chinese warlords at times sought their assistance, great opportunity to go in, Japan refused. I have posted in my earlier post well enough which prove without doubt that Japan had no desire to conquer the rest of China. I cannot type all my posts again.

    I don’t mean to hurt your feelings. India and Indians, at present, are not important subjects in the minds of the Chinese!!!

    LOL, I know that. So it does not hurt my feelings. Chill.

    Let us hope that these Indian tourists could tell other Indians the truth about 1962.

    Impossible. No one would believe him. He would be attacked for being a stooge of enemy country Chinese. “Traitor to Motherland”. You should know how hyper nationalists behave.

    If the Japan really wanted to fight the Russians,

    Japan had no interest in invading Russia. During the Russian civil war, huge chunk of Russian far Eastern territory was in Japanese control. Russia was weak and broken, its Treasury looted by Bolsheviks and sent to New York bankers, in the middle of a civil war, Japan could have easily kept a lot of Russian far Eastern territory, a move which would have been of great help for Japan. But Japan did not, its armies went back to its bases.

    Japan was and the Japanese people as a whole have to take that responsibility. Fukuzawa, however, did provide part of Japan’s inspiration to go militaristic.

    You are trying to make some idiotic connection which have no legs to stand on.

    China has been “dealing with it” since 1962– that includes doing all those things the Indians don’t like. For now, it is the Indians who have to “deal with it!!! So, why did you complain about what China has done?

    I do not. I support China on the 1962 issue, because I know we were on the wrong on that one. China was right, so I support China, simple as that. People like me in India are like 0.0000001%. I have tried explaining China’s point of view about Zhou En Lai’s visit etc…, and have convinced some of my friends. Hope it spreads. It is easier to convince the Westernised Indians as they are more open minded but the masses of hundreds of millions, that is a huge task. I was explaining how the majority of Indians think especially the Indian hyper nationalists, not my point of view.. And I am not talking about the Hindutva branch of the nationalists. Muslims, Christians etc… are included as far as China is concerned.

    • Replies: @Deep Thought
  198. @Malla

    Japans actions had more to do with the Soviet Union and their agents in China and the USA than Fukazawa San.

    “Japan’s actions” were its aggressions against other East Asia nations– especially China. Japan turned tail as soon as Soviet Russia rolled up its sleeves and landed real punches.

    There was no China then. It was broken into pieces with war lords in many places.

    If “There was no China then”, how was the China that “was broken into pieces” happened to be there?!!! You have to be logically consistent with yourself.

    Even when China was divided, its was the CHINESE warlords who did so and the national government was the ROC with its capital in Nanking. It represented the sovereign nation of China at that time.

    For Japan, Manchuria was a buffer zone. I have already posted in my posts that if Japan would have wanted to invade the rest of China for lebansraum,…

    Japan sent more than a million colonizers to take over the land in Manchuria– that is the definition of making that place its lebensraum.

    Japan had no interest in invading Russia. During the Russian civil war, huge chunk of Russian far Eastern territory was in Japanese control.

    Apart from its colonization of Korea, invasion and occupation of Manchuria in China, Japan also planed to invade Russian Far East. Japan gave up after it had its face punched-in by Zhukov. If Japan had no desire on Russia, how come there was “huge chunk of Russian far Eastern territory was in Japanese control” in the first place??? Again, you should, at least, TRY to be logical consistent with yourself!!!

    You are trying to make some idiotic connection which have no legs to stand on.

    Japan had caused untold suffering to hundreds of millions of people in East Asia– with tens of millions died in unspeakable cruelty. Here is the Rape of Manila. Japan’s cruelty was a thousand times greater in scale and intensity in China.

    “Women were raped and sliced with bayonets from groin to throat and left to bleed to death in the hot sun.

    “Children were seized by the legs and had their heads bashed against the wall. Babies were tossed into the air and caught on bayonets. Unborn fetuses were gouged out with bayonets from pregnant women.”

    http://www.battlingbastardsbataan.com/som.htm

    You have both your legs standing inside your own mouth.

    Impossible. No one would believe him. He would be attacked for being a stooge of enemy country Chinese. “Traitor to Motherland”. You should know how hyper nationalists behave.

    What China wants is the truth of 1962 be spelt out. It is up to the Indians then. All that China can, and will, do is to respond accordingly.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @Malla
  199. @d dan

    I scrolled to “Jews” and “loyalty” in the same sentence and my phone burst into flames.

  200. @Deep Thought

    “Invading other people’s country and killing 10’s of millions of its people can NEVER be a”defensive move”.

    Which is what Jews have done to Russia (war and soviet repression) and America (war, abortion, social engineering and subversion of health/education/dietary policy).

  201. @Deep Thought

    America was created by European peoples.

    Those you refer to are just the last Beringian migration to rape, plunder and murder their way into the Western Hemisphere.

    Said migrants created or invented NOTHING.

  202. anonymous[286] • Disclaimer says:
    @Deep Thought

    Women were raped and sliced with bayonets from groin to throat and left to bleed to death in the hot sun.

    “Children were seized by the legs and had their heads bashed against the wall. Babies were tossed into the air and caught on bayonets. Unborn fetuses were gouged out with bayonets from pregnant women.”

    What other “atrocities” did the Japanese do? Did they also turn Korean scalps into sushi rolls and ramen noodles? or did they make sukiyaki with Chinese eyeballs, teeth, and tongues? Did they make tatamis using Chinese grandmas after raping them under a Torii gate? Let me guess: they also did time travel experiments using bashed skulls of Chinese babies and went back into the Tang Dynasty to rape Yang Guifei and the emperor’s concubines?

    I always thought Chinese were not the creative types. Thanks for proving me wrong.

  203. anonymous[286] • Disclaimer says:
    @d dan

    You … distrust the loyalty of any non-Whites: Blacks, Browns, Jews and others.

    Wait, I thought Jews were just (((fellow whites))). Where did I go wrong? Now they’re not white?!? So Harvey Weinstein is definitely not a (((rich white man))) abusing all those fine-ass shiksas on the casting couch?

    I wonder why anyone would “distrust” the loyalty of Jews?!? Ever hear of the USS liberty? Jonathan Pollard? “dancing Israelis”?

    Are you saying we shouldn’t “distrust” the loyalty of Jeffrey Epstein? LOL

  204. Malla says:
    @Deep Thought

    Japan’s actions” were its aggressions against other East Asia nations– especially China. Japan turned tail as soon as Soviet Russia rolled up its sleeves and landed real punches.

    Bullshit, Japan had loads of opportunities to invade China, it did not. Japan could have kept Russian Far Eastern land lands in the earlier Russian Civil War. Those were sparsely populated, became part of Russia far later with very few Russians, it was not Russia proper West of the Urals. It did nothing of the sort. Forces in China were continuously provoking Japan. Japan could have not returned Shandong, it was nice place, it is still a nice place today. Close to Japan, great for lebensraum.

    If “There was no China then”, how was the China that “was broken into pieces” happened to be there?!!! You have to be logically consistent with yourself.

    There was no defacto United China. How was there a Sino Tibet war in 1930? Explain it to me. Either Tibet was part of China or it was not. You need to be logically consistent with yourself.

    If Japan had no desire on Russia, how come there was “huge chunk of Russian far Eastern territory was in Japanese control” in the first place???

    Seriously? What are you? an idiot? Japan sent forces to support the White Russian Forces against the Reds. I am talking of the period of the Russian Revolution.

    Japan sent more than a million colonizers to take over the land in Manchuria– that is the definition of making that place its lebensraum.

    That was not the primary intent as I have explained earlier. And it does not mean that densely populated China proper was to be used for lebensraum or it was even a sensible idea to seek lebensraum in areas South of Manchuria with such high population densities.

    Apart from its colonization of Korea

    Colonisation of Korea is a different topic and it had nothing to do with lebensraum.
    During the 1880s, discussions about Japanese national security focused on the issue of Korean reform. The discourse over the two were interlinked, as the German military adviser Major Jacob Meckel stated, Korea was a “dagger pointed at the heart of Japan”. What made Korea of strategic concern was not merely its proximity to Japan but its inability to defend itself against outsiders especially powers with modern military even if Korea was close to China. Both china and Korea was still feudal and weaker than modern countries. If Korea were truly independent and modern, it posed no strategic problem to Japan’s national security but if the country remained backward it would remain weak and consequently would be inviting prey for foreign domination. The political consensus in Japan was that Korean independence lay, as it had been for Meiji Japan, through the importation of “civilization” from the West. To Meiji leaders, the issue was not whether Korea should be reformed but how reform might be accomplished. There was a choice of adopting a passive role requiring the cultivation of reformist elements within Korea and rendering them assistance whenever possible, or adopting a more aggressive policy, actively interfering in Korean politics to assure that reform took place.

    In 1880, King Gojong of Korea sent a mission to Japan. The mission was headed by Kim Hong-jip, who was a very enthusiastic observer of the reforms taking place in Japan. While in Japan, the Chinese diplomat Huang Zunxian presented him with a study called Chaoxian Celue (A Strategy for Korea). It warned of the threat to Korea posed by the Russians and recommended that Korea maintain friendly relations with Japan,, to work closely with China, and seek an alliance with the United States as a counterweight to Russia. After returning to Korea, Kim presented the document to King Gojong, who was so impressed with the document that he had copies made and distributed to his officials. Many conservatives were outraged by the proposal to seek alliance with Western barbarians or even to maintain friendly relations with Japan. Some even plotted a coup, the King responded by executing one prominent official and banishing others.

    Japan had caused untold suffering to hundreds of millions of people in East Asia

    It was in the middle of a War. I am not saying everything the Japanese did were perfect, in War shit happens. And also a lot of propaganda happens. China killed a million Tibetans too.

    What China wants is the truth of 1962 be spelt out.

    I want it too, but it seems unlikely.

    do is to respond accordingly.

    Of course that is for China to decide. But I doubt China has much options, it is unfortunately stuck with India.

  205. Malla says:
    @Deep Thought

    China today wants Japan to repent its ways

    Repent its ways? Didn’t Japan officially surrender to China after WW2? China was a victor country of WW2 and was given a permanent seat in the security council (well earlier ROC and later PRC). Who did China defeat? Germany? Italy?

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All James Kirkpatrick Comments via RSS