My Answer to an Apologist for Chinese Dictatorship

My Answer to an Apologist for Chinese Dictatorship Lev Navrozov Aug. 12, 2005

On July 10, I received a one-page-long e-mail from Wen-Kai Tang, who says that he is a Chinese living in New York and who begins his e-mail as follows:

I read your articles about Mainland China with interest. Everyone can hold his or her opinion and while I disagree with you, I am certain you bear no ill will toward the Chinese people or nation.

Ill will? I was the bitterest critic of the Soviet dictatorship. But I bore no ill will toward the Russian people (including myself). On the contrary, I regarded the Russian poetry of the first third of the 20th century as unique and superior to the poetry of any Western country of that time.

Indeed, one of the crimes of the Soviet dictatorship was the lack of air, through the lack of freedom of the press, of the great Russian poetry ö and of Russian culture in general.

Opposition to a dictatorship implies good will toward the people or nation under the dictatorship. Inversely, by justifying the Chinese dictatorship, Wen-Kai Tang implies that the Chinese people are to blame for whatever has been happening to China since 1949.

Wen-Kai Tang notes that since he is a Chinese, that "fact will shape" his "opinions on the matters" I "speak of."

So he believes that the truth is national or nationalist. For example, I and many other non-Germans and Germans believe that Germany created music superior to whatever other Western countries or Russia produced, while the Nazi period was the worst time in the history of Germany. But here may come a German and tell as "the German truth" that Beethoven was a worthless traitor because he used French marches in his music, while the Nazi period is the greatest time in the history of Germany.

Today, after Nazism lost its bid for world domination, it is a rare German who will say the above, and he will be scorned as a derelict. But in 1939 he would have been feared and hated as a living representative of an awesome living dictatorship seeking world domination.

As a Chinese, telling "the Chinese truth" about China, Wen-Kai Tang says:

I believe the current regime in Mainland China seeks not to dominate the world but only to restore territories that had been part of old core China (like my home province of Taiwan) and rebuttert influence that had been part of the Chinese sphere of influence. So, it is my opinion against Wen-Kai Tang's. His only argument is that his opinion comes from a Chinese. On the other hand, I have a non-Chinese theory, suggesting that the Chinese dictatorship is after world domination.

The fact is that any large modern dictatorship is extremely vulnerable from within. Why did the Soviet dictatorship collapse in 1991? In a public poll in Russia after Yeltsin had become its president following the collapse of the dictatorship in 1991, four times more respondents said they considered Stalin "the greatest Russian political leader" than those who said they regarded Yeltsin as such.

Hence the number of those Russians who in 1991 were for democracy and against dictatorship was minimal. Yet Yeltsin's democracy replaced Gorbachev's dictatorship, despite the Soviet security police, armed forces and propaganda from 1918 up to 1990!

A tall, thin building may collapse without any force to topple it. Dictatorship is such a tall, thin structure. In contrast to democracy, it has a small base. Democracy is vulnerable to an outside attack: France collapsed within days under a Nazi attack, while it was intact when the Communists, calling for a "violent overthrow of the existing government," received one quarter of the votes.

On the other hand, the Soviet dictatorship survived a Nazi attack but collapsed in 1991 without any outside attack and from a minimal inner opposition.

Dictatorships are more vulnerable than were empires because the absolute power in empires was transmitted hereditarily, while in a dictatorship no one has a less valid right to the absolute power than anyone else. Stalin became the dictator and liquidateed Trotsky, while Trotsky might have become the dictator and liquidateed Stalin.

Industrial dumping that contagions streams and farmland? In a democracy, there are many ways to stop it. For example, an article in an independent press or a lawsuit against the industrial dumping. In China, the remedy is a "protest demonstration," which can be called a "violent protest," since the authorities try to disperse it, and the protesters resist. In 2004, there were 58,000 "violent protests"! On July 28, 2005, the editorial of People's Daily, the mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party, condemned and threatened the protesters as dangerous to "stability."

Why were those peaceful, unarmed Chinese on Tiananmen Square crushed in 1989 by mechanized armor ö an unprecedented excess of power, violence and cruelty in post-Nazi times? Because (I am told) the dictator happened to be so cruel. But I do not believe that dictators are cruel because of their innate evil nature. In 1989, the dictator of China staged that armored attack on unarmed, peaceful Chinese because he feared (and correctly so) the collapse of his dictatorship (as in Russia two years later) and wanted to teach the Chinese a lesson.

Taiwan ö and the West! ö are just huge Tiananmen Squares to the dictatorship of China. Their independent existence is subversive to the dictatorship of China (those in Tiananmen Square had a replica of the Statue of Liberty). A pretext has to be invented to enable the dictator of China to crush Taiwan (if the dictator decides that the United States will not defend it) just as the dictator crushed those in Tiananmen Square.

For example, it can be butterted that all Chinese must live in one country. Obviously, the pretext is more absurd than Hitler's claim that all Germans should live in his Germany. The symbol of post-1949 China is a five-prong star, and Marx, Lenin and Mao are its teachers. They said that all nations of all five continents (hence the five prongs of the star) should live in a single Communist society.

This global five-prong unification contradicts Wen-Kai Tang's claim that the Chinese dictator wants to crush Taiwan because living there are Chinese presumably bemoaning their separation from "Mainland China."

In its present state, Taiwan originated after the war between the Kuomintang, supported by the United States, and Mao's Communist Party, supported by Stalin (though the Chinese and Soviet Communists, predictably, later quarreled). Finally, it was decided that Mao would control Mainland China and the Kuomintang would have Taiwan. If the goal is the unity of China, why should the Communist dictators of China rule Taiwan, and not the government of Taiwan rule Mainland China, as the Kuomintang once did?

Wen-Kai Tang believes that all or most Taiwanese share his opinion about the dictators of Mainland China and will meet the Mainland Communist takeover of Taiwan with tears of joy and grabreastude. Actually, many or most Taiwanese would consider him either a vicious traitor or an amazingly ignorant, stupid yet sentimental nincompoop.

The Mainland China-Taiwan settlement was similar to the North Korea-South Korea settlement. Reunification? Excellent! But are the rulers of North Korea to rule the "reunified" Korea? Of course!

This is what they tried to do in 1950. It was a mbuttive all-out military aggression, and the result was the Korean War, which lasted for three years. The rulers of North Korea were finally repulsed, despite the Chinese dictators' aid. But the rulers of North Vietnam, fighting with Soviet and Chinese aid for about ten years, did conquer South Vietnam and turn it into their territory, as totalitarian as their own North Vietnam.

The difference is that North Korea and Vietnam are small countries, and their aggressions cannot be global, while Mainland China is a giant, able to develop post-nuclear superweapons, circumventing Mutual buttured Destruction.

Just as was Tiananmen Square, Taiwan is only a stage in the Chinese dictators' domestic suppression and their all-out quest for world domination.

Since Wen-Kai Tang lives in New York and not in Mainland China, he can declare without any fear of persecution:

As for the domestic political makeup of Mainland China, surely myself and many other Chinese are for a more open pluralistic regime than the current one.

But this is what the Tiananmen movement was all about. Wen-Kai Tang does not even hint at the fact that it was crushed (literally), and no regret has ever been expressed by the Chinese powers that be.

Wen-Kai Tang and "many other Chinese are for a more open and pluralistic regime than the current one," and at the same time he is for the seizure of Taiwan by the dictators' military force against the will of many Taiwanese, who may be mbuttacred in the process of the dictators' seizure of the country, just as were the Chinese in Tiananmen Square in the process of the dictators' seizure of the Square. Unless Taiwan surrenders.

Wen-Kay Tang's "more open pluralistic regime" is to be based on the subjugation by the Chinese dictators' military force of Taiwan today ö and of the West tomorrow.

Ed. The subjegation of the West won't be in military terms, but in demographic and economic terms - supported by the traitors in government and the businessmen that manipulate them...

-- Jim Union Against Multi-culty

"Abolish Multi-Culty and String Up The Traitors!"