Showing posts with label communism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label communism. Show all posts

Thursday, June 04, 2020

Tiananmen square commemoration

Today is the 31st anniversary of the Tiananmen square massacre. Hong Kong has been holding annual vigils to commemorate the victims massacred by China for 30 years.

However, for the first time since Hong Kong's handover to China, China has banned Hong Kongers from holding vigils under pain of imprisonment and potentially death. Indeed, Hong Kong has effectively lost its democracy and is under the control of China today, due to the new "security law". No more "one country, two systems"; now it's "one country, one system". It's all communist China. Yet Hong Kongers still came out in droves to commemorate Tiananmen square. This is real protest in the face of a totalitarian regime.

How many rioters (including Antifa) would dare to come out in "protest" if they didn't live in a free and democratic society but instead lived under the thumb of a nation like China? How many rioters would dare to come out in "protest" if they were essentially weaponless (no viable access to weapons like guns and knives) and knew the slightest hint of physical resistance or opposition could result in their deaths? Just how "brave" or "courageous" is Antifa when it costs them so very little to "protest" in comparison to Hong Kongers? (I might not make much of this comparison, but I've noticed some or many on the left comparing their "fight" with what happened at Tiananmen square, our government with communist China, and so on.)

Tuesday, June 02, 2020

America's Tiananmen square

(Thanks to Jitt Teng for helping restore this post!)

I notice some people are comparing the riots to Tiananmen square. I suppose the idea is Trump's administration, the military, and the police are akin to the communist Chinese government, while the "protesters" are akin to the democracy-loving Chinese people. I guess George Floyd is Tank Man.

1. The Chinese people couldn't and didn't fight back against their government. Rather, the communists government massacred the people. Men, women, and yes even children were murdered. They were gunned down. Tanks rolled over them. Tiananmen square literally ran with blood. The entire area was aggressively "cleansed" by an army group that was notoriously vicious. It was called upon by the CCP leaders precisely because the army group was known to be so vicious.

2. By contrast, protesters are allowed to protest. The Trump administration hasn't silenced their voice. If anyone wants to see silence, then consider how China has ended Hong Kong's democracy just days ago. And consider what's still happening in Hong Kong:

Trump hasn't unilaterally sent in the US military. And the US military certainly hasn't massacred anyone.

3. No doubt police brutality is a legitimate concern. It should be dealt with. But how is "protesting" by rioting helping deal with police brutality? The rioters are behaving anything but peacefully. They're looting stores, burning down buildings, and violently attacking innocents. They're shooting police officers (e.g. here, here).

4. I don't know if rioters in general have any sort of ideology. (However, I think organized groups like Antifa do have an ideology.) At the very least, rioters aren't respecting democracy. In fact, I suspect many if not most rioters are ignorant about our system of government. That's quite unlike the student-led protests at Tiananmen square. Many of these students were well-versed in the intellectual history of democracy. Many of them could argue for democracy, but how many rioters have ever read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, even some of the Federalist papers?

5. If anything, the rioters seem to want anarchy. Evidently they want to live out Alan Moore's twisted vision in V for Vendetta and Watchmen.

6. Some intellectuals are defending the riots. However, as George Orwell said: "Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them".

The Navy SEAL that killed Osama bin Laden may have a truer perspective when he calls the protesters "terrorists".

7. It looks like the left is actively supporting and perhaps inciting rioters like Antifa (e.g. here, here). If so, I presume the short-term goal is to bring down Trump. To make his administration seem impotent to do anything.

Yet leftist politicians like Biden may be playing with fire. If they start a revolution, the revolution may not necessarily end with them in charge (e.g. here, here). Consider whether Bernie bros ever wanted Biden. Even Robespierre the guillotiner was guillotined.

Wednesday, May 27, 2020

"U.S. Says Hong Kong’s Autonomy Is Gone"

The Trump administration said it could no longer certify Hong Kong’s political autonomy from China, a move that could trigger sanctions and have far-reaching consequences on the former British colony’s special trading status with the U.S.

Secretary of State Michael Pompeo announced the decision Wednesday, a week after the government in Beijing declared its intention to pass a national security law curtailing the rights and freedoms of Hong Kong citizens.

“Hong Kong does not continue to warrant treatment under United States laws in the same manner as U.S. laws were applied to Hong Kong before July 1997,” Pompeo said in a statement. “No reasonable person can assert today that Hong Kong maintains a high degree of autonomy from China, given facts on the ground.”

(Source)

Sunday, May 24, 2020

One country, two systems

Despite coronavirus restrictions, thousands in Hong Kong protesting because Hong Kong could effectively lose its democracy and be fully absorbed into communist China when the national security law passes.

The anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre is coming up too. Hong Kong has always gathered each year to commemorate the fallen in the Tiananmen Square massacre, but if Hong Kong loses its democracy, then China likely won't allow Hong Kong to do so anymore. It's forbidden to commemorate the fallen in the Tiananmen Square massacre in China.

Tuesday, May 19, 2020

The death of democracy in Hong Kong?

The Communist Party of China has been busy with Hong Kong during the pandemic:

For one thing, China arrested leaders of Hong Kong's pro-democracy movement last month.

Also, not many hours ago, Hong Kong's democratically-elected council has been forcibly removed and a new pro-communist chairman "voted" in.

Thursday, April 02, 2020

Chinese Health Organization

By the way, in addition to how China has been treating Taiwan, let's not forget how China has been treating Hong Kong, which I've posted about in the past.

Also, I think we should stop funding the WHO.

Tuesday, February 25, 2020

Comrade Bernie

Many people, including many conservatives, believe Bernie is authentic. A man of conviction. That he's always been sincere in his convictions about socialism. Sure, one may vehemently disagree with comrade Bernie, but at least he's the real thing. Or so it's often claimed.

1. I'll certainly grant comrade Bernie is more forthright and honest than Obama or Hillary. However, that's a pretty low bar! The latter two are snakes in the grass; it's always a challenge to sink lower than a snake.

2. At the same time, there's no virtue in being courageous and true to oneself if one is also a fool. One can be courageous and true to oneself, but rush headlong into disaster. Consider all the Muslim suicide bombers who believe they'll obtain 72 virgins if they die killing infidels in the name of Allah. They're true believers in Islam, and it takes some courage to kill oneself with a suicide vest, but that doesn't mean they weren't idiotic or stupid. As the saying goes: fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

3. If someone wants to be a fool, then I guess "whatever" for them. The real tragedy is when their foolishness harms or kills others. That, again, can be seen in Muslim suicide bombers who murder others. However it can just as well be seen in comrade Bernie. If his socialist vision was ever fully implemented, there's good reason to believe it would severely harm our nation if not worse.

4. All that said, I'm skeptical about Bernie truly having the courage of his convictions these days. If comrade Bernie is truly a man of his convictions, then why doesn't he live like it anymore?

Let me take a step back. I think there are at least two ways to test a person's convictions. Either make it cost him significantly to stick to his beliefs or bait and entice him away from his beliefs. See if he will withstand sufferings or see if he'll be drawn out by temptations.

For example, as Christians know, that can be seen in our faith either when we suffer for being Christian (e.g. friends and family turn against us, we lose our livelihoods) or when we're tempted away from Christianity (e.g. wealth, sex). Satan is both dragon and serpent, persecutor and seductress, murderer and liar, dark angel and angel masquerading in light.

Along similar lines, I think comrade Bernie may have been true to his socialism in his marginalized years. True to his socialism when he had little. When he was a no-name senator on the sidelines. When he was no-one and had nothing. So I'd agree it does say something that comrade Bernie could cling onto his socialism in these lean years. His socialist faith was not a fairweather faith.

However, where hardship and adversity didn't work, it seems to me charms and beguilements did. That is, it seems to me comrade Bernie used to be a man of his convictions, back when he was relegated to obscurity and irrelevance in American politics, but now that he's become the popular leader of an ever-growing movement that has helped line his pockets, he's caved to the bourgeoisie life. For example, Victor Davis Hanson recently noted:

Oddly, Sanders’s rivals on the debate stage never really hit the presumptive leader where he is most vulnerable: his reprehensible past empathy for the genocidal Soviet Union, and his praise of communist dictatorships such as those in Nicaragua and Cuba. Then there remains the embarrassing paradox of a die-hard socialist redistributionist eager to cash in on his political career—to the extent of setting up his wife as an in-house, well-paid consultant (with her past failed career as wheeler-dealer small college president who bankrupted her institution and for a while won the attention of the FBI), while becoming a millionaire with three homes. Mention that, as Bloomberg did in the recent debate, and Bernie becomes livid, in a fashion that appears dangerous for a septuagenarian who recently survived a heart attack.

In short, I think comrade Bernie's life mirrors what happens to socialists and communists once they've achieved power. They willingly suffer through long marches and bloody revolutions, but once they're in charge they begin to bask in their newfound position and power.

Look at the lives of Stalin, Mao, Castro. Consider today's communist leaders like Xi Jinping (China) and Kim Jong-un (North Korea). All of their lives have been marked by far more affluence and even opulence than what their compatriots endure day by day.

Of course, that's not to say socialist and communist leaders will ever stop claiming to be bona fide socialists and communists. Quite the contrary. They'll instead willingly break the backs of their supposed working-class comrades for their own ends or pleasures. They're like the pigs in George Orwell's Animal Farm who used and abused the horse Boxer then sold him off to a glue factory once his strength was spent. They'll engage in doublespeak to justify themselves: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Monday, February 17, 2020

Is China at breaking point?

[A commenter named Wyoming Doc:] I pray for my wife – all the time. This has been incredibly hard on our family. But we will make it. What I can also tell you – based on my wife’s multiple conversations with friends back home – is that this is really beginning to stir the hearts and minds of the Chinese people. Thoughts about Xi Xinping that would have been never thought to say out loud are being said now – and the whole country seems to be galvanizing around the fact that they have been seriously let down by the Communist Party. I am not sure what will come of that – but this could not have happened at a worse time for Xi – the Hong Kong fiasco – the pork virus disaster – and the trade war with the USA – and now this – the country will soon be at the breaking point.

[A commenter named Alec:] It’s ridiculous. I’m an American living in Shanghai who just traveled across China for the New Year (to Changsha, in Hunan) and have seen nothing like this man’s relatives are breathlessly reporting. I just got back from Starbucks here in Shanghai where I did some work, and though everyone is wearing masks shops are still open and no freedom of movement is curtailed. This article is highly irresponsible.

(Source)

1. I suspect one reason Shanghai and Beijing aren't as hard hit by the coronavirus is because they're farther away from central China where Wuhan is, in a country which has severely restricted travel. Also, I think it's due to the fact that the Communist Party of China (CPC) has involuntarily moved tons of doctors, nurses, and other health staff from various cities in China to Beijing and Shanghai which are their wealthiest cities. If these cities collapse, if things deteriorate enough, the CPC could collapse too.

2. Here's a dilemma. Should one hope China obtains relief from the coronavirus? Or should one hope the coronavirus overwhelms China so much that it ultimately leads to the collapse of the CPC and presumably usher in something better (it's hard to imagine much worse than the CPC)? Perhaps even some kind of representative democracy? I pray for those who are Christians in China and those who will become Christians in China.

Monday, February 10, 2020

Parasites

"Workers of the world, unite!"

Ironic to see Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels' The Communist Manifesto quoted by rich elitist celebrities who wouldn't be seated anywhere near the second-class bourgeoisie passengers let alone among the proletariats in steerage. No, they'd instead be in the stateroom enjoying the luxurious lifestyle of the 1%. And this is just the tip of the iceberg in the ridiculous progressive activism on display at the Oscars last night.

That said, it's interesting to see the Korean film Parasite receive four (of six) wins - Best Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, and Best International Feature Film. The film's writer-director-producer Bong Joon-Ho won all of them. Furthermore it's the first foreign film to win Best Picture. And Parasite is the third film to concurrently win the Oscar for Best Picture and the Palme d'Or (Best Picture at the Cannes film festival). The other two were 1945's The Lost Weekend and 1955's Marty. All in all, quite an accomplishment for S. Korean cinema.

Prior to this, I think the best Asian cinema had done was nearly two decades ago when Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon won four (out of ten) Oscars (Best Foreign Film, Best Original Score, Best Art Direction, and Best Cinematography).

Today there are plenty of other critically acclaimed Asian movies and shows. Take for instance The Farewell as another recent critically acclaimed film. There are lauded tv sitcoms like Fresh Off the Boat and Kim's Convenience too. I'm sure we could multiply examples.

There are many reasons for the ascendancy of Asian cinema in recent years. However I just want to note it looks to me most the best aspects of Asian cinema have arisen in democratic Asian nations like Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and S. Korea. It's not often one sees (say) communist China produce high quality films. Especially before it embraced a capitalist market economy, albeit state-controlled. Probably Zhang Yimou is one of the few standouts in mainland Chinese film, but even his films have been censored by the Chinese government.

Yet we have moralizing Western elites lecturing average people about the horrors of Trump and conservatives, and the greatness of progressivism and socialism, while they're likewise benefiting from the fruits of a nation where film and the arts have the ground soil in which to flourish. In other words, the same moralizing celebrities wouldn't likely enjoy the life they currently enjoy if they had worked in show business in Cuba, N. Korea, or communist China. Who are the real "parasites" again?

Too bad these progressive Hollywood celebrities didn't take to heart Ricky Gervais' monologue at the Golden Globes last month:

So if you do win an award tonight, don't use it as a platform to make a political speech. You're in no position to lecture the public about anything. You know nothing about the real world. Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg. So if you win, come up, accept your little award, thank your agent, and your God, and [bugger] off, okay?

Update: I finally watched the movie Parasite. I review the film here.

Saturday, August 31, 2019

Red New Deal

1. Good to see the Democrats are going with full-blown socialism. That'll definitely go over well for them in the crucial Midwest swing states. /s

2. Democrats alleged Trump has been in cahoots with Russia. Of course that turned out to be false. However, I wouldn't be surprised if communist China is truly funding our social progressives via various middlemen and avenues difficult to trace back to the CCP. At least that seems far more realistic than Putin and Trump.

3. Victor Davis Hanson has a good article: "Why are so many young people calling themselves socialists?".

Tuesday, August 06, 2019

We need the 2nd amendment

1. The photo is from a recent protest in Hong Kong.

  1. Sadly, it's too late for Hongkongers to have a 2nd amendment.

    Too late for Hongkongers to use firearms to resist their own toady government, which was effectively handpicked by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

    Too late for Hongkongers to use firearms to resist their own lackey police force.

    Too late for Hongkongers to use firearms to resist the triads and other hired guns (not to mention communist spies across Hong Kong) who are in collusion with the CCP.

  2. I'm not even necessarily suggesting Hongkongers should use firearms, though that's an option. Just possessing firearms may be a deterrence in and of itself. At least it'd make bullies think twice.

Sunday, July 21, 2019

The space race for equality

Thanks to Steve for pointing out this NYT article to me. My thoughts:

Wednesday, April 10, 2019

The Bible is a dangerous book

A stock objection to the Protestant faith is the rote claim that Scripture is a blueprint for anarchy without an infallible interpreter. It's dangerous to put the Bible in the hands of the laity. 

There's a gain of truth to that. There are readers who lack a responsible hermeneutic. Making the Bible as an open book is risky.

However, we can turn that around. It's dangerous when a particular class has a monopoly on the interpretation of Scripture. For instance, Southern slave masters wanted to keep slaves illiterate. Wanted to keep the Bible out of the hands of slaves. They wanted to retain hermeneutical hegemony. That ultimately failed because it was in direct conflict with nature of the Protestant faith. 

Slave masters were right to fear what would happen when slaves could read the Bible for themselves. When they suddenly had access to the entire Bible, and not just safe prooftexts spoonfed to them by their masters. The Bible was a threat to the status quo; a threat to the ruling class. 

Scripture is often attacked for failing to offer an explicit, blanket condemnation of slavery. Ironically, I always see this objection lodged by white atheists. By contrast, Southern slaves were quick to pick up on the countercultural message of Scripture. Quick to discern an analogy between the bondage of the Israelites in Egypt and Ole Massa as Pharaoh. The Bible in the hands of a slave was a loaded gun pointed at the head of the Antebellum establishment. 

The Bible is a dangerous book. That's why secular regimes outlaw the Bible. They know that putting a Bible in the hands of the proletariat is subversive to the totalitarian pretensions of the regime. That's a recipe for revolution.