Chinese General news resource thread

[Blitzo]

Strange that on the one hand he speaks of Samuel Huntington in a disparaging sense, and then later appears to borrow his framework of civilizations.

I also consider kissinger to be fairly astute on his assessment of China.

His book, "on china" is definitely one of the better, more balanced and frankest write ups I've read.

 

[antiterror13]

No worries, the Australia and South Korea can always join later. Because the World Bank and ADB can't offer low interests loans like AIIB of China.

so, what is the voting shares would be? I heard

China : 40%
India : 25%
the other 35% for others

 

[Equation]

so, what is the voting shares would be? I heard

China : 40%
India : 25%
the other 35% for others

Could be, IDK or is that the BRICS bank?

 

[Equation]

Funny, I've recently started to realize how similar those various china experts and dissidents are to online SJWs on the likes of tumblr.


The rising cult of China experts
By Thorsten Pattberg

Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing.

BEIJING - A couple of years ago I met a German man at Harvard who boasted about his political stipend, his up-coming talk in New York City, and how he worked hard on the liberalization of Tibet and the breaking-up of China. There are no human rights in China, he explained to me. I was impressed and reminded him that if he ever plotted this way against our German government he could be tried for treason. He left in contempt.

He isn't the only one. There is a cult of Western evangelists and self-righteous crusaders who are determined to dislodge non-Western nations and usurp their governments.

In China they act as if above the law. That's because they see the Chinese government as corrupt, non-elected, and communist, and thus illegitimate. So why care about what it says or stands for? Moreover, these evangelists believe Westerners can do whatever they want in China because America and the entire Western propaganda apparatus will bail them out should trouble arise.

These so-called China experts are now a political force in direct opposition to the Communist Party. They form clusters and networks, with a strong hierarchy and code of ethics: They reward their Twitter followers and lickspittles and praise each other's work, while policing social media and punishing "traitors" or "China apologists".

When Yang Rui, a CCTV news anchor, condemned the activities of foreigners in Beijing, his character was assassinated and internationally paraded by China experts as glaring example of what happens to any Chinese should he or she dare to look askance at them.

In the West, foreign extremist groups, left or right, are monitored and tightly controlled. But no-one controls these Western imperialists. Germans finance Xinjiang separatists, Americans finance Taiwan separatists, British finance Tibetan separatist. US journalism even dispatches tactical troops to Hong Kong determined on bringing down Xi Jinping, the president, and his family.

The hierarchy of China experts is this: At the top we find the philosophers and statesmen who set the stage and agenda for the universal ideology - exclusively serving Western interests. They always reside in the West, know little or nothing about China, and discuss China solely on Western terms. In the past there were the likes of Kant, Hegel, and Wilhelm II; today we have Henry "on China" Kissinger, Francis "End of History" Fukuyama, and Samuel "Clash of Civilizations" Huntington.

Next we have the journalists and editors, most of them white or accessory white, in key positions at the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Economist, and so on. Thanks to the Western planetary media monopoly, they have become the new global fascist elite. Their culture is narrowly interbred, and some personal relations border on the incestuous, so they float each other's boat and write almost identical muck-raking stories. Everyone in China knows who they are, and their China-bashing is green-lighting all of us to join the onslaught.

Most China experts are culturists down to the last fiber. They tolerate all races as long as they Westernize and speak English, but show utter disdain for all foreign words, concepts, and terminologies (language imperialism). They also prominently decide who - Chinese or foreigner- gets praised and who gets defamed, and - most importantly- what gets omitted in their China reports. Their own corrupt ways get omitted. Ask yourself, when was the last time you read a piece by a prominent Chinese (other than a dissident) in your nation's newspaper? You haven't. It is a tight Orwellian grip.

Last, we have legions of lesser, disposable China watchers. Few of them enjoy fat expat packages, bigwig relatives in the media, or peddling political influence. Unable to find proper jobs and secure a future in China - apart from becoming activists, bloggers, or English teachers- they are recruited easily and radicalize quickly. Everyone has met those frustrated Westerners who once believed in their entitlement, got disillusioned, and found a way to spend their days: to patronize and correct the Chinese.

China isn't the only victim. All other six non-Western civilizations are feeling the whip of Western imperialism. The West claims it is "universal" and that is does not (and cannot) take responsibility for any of its abusive individuals in foreign lands since they are all free agents. It's the same old excuse since the age of colonialism.

Taking part in the Western mission to civilize the East is highly spiritually rewarding. And what is political destabilization and social unrest but a sweet revenge for China's disregard for Western hegemony. Favorite targets are: corrupt officials, suppressed minorities, Han chauvinism and misogyny, demonstrations, currency manipulation, and censorship. It makes China experts feel good about themselves. They feel like social justice warriors. The problem: this is not their country, and their negativity is poisoning everything.

Thus, China experts are constantly on the look-out for Chinese stand-ins. Dissidents, pro-Western activists, any Wang who can waive the American flag. The collaborators are showered with media coverage, prizes, and stipends, visa, freedom awards, and even Nobel Peace prizes. This tactic didn't get unnoticed by the zhishi fenzi (intellectuals), a class who would do anything for Western media attention - like the artist who in May sliced himself and cut out his own rib for a "more open China".

If Beijing dares to protest, there will be ever harsher Western media campaigns: China is told it must not impede on Westerners' "freedom" to slowly destabilize the country from within: Censor them, and they will tattletale. Incarcerate them, and they will become martyrs. Ignore them at your own peril.

Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing. Articles submitted for this section allow our readers to express their opinions and do not necessarily meet the same editorial standards of Asia Times Online's regular contributors.

Thorsten J Pattberg is a German writer and cultural critic. He is the author of The East-West Dichotomy, Shengren, and Inside Peking University.

(Copyright 2014 Thorsten J Pattberg)

Source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Looks to me like the Western media has new enemy that they afraid to expose of. I'll take his words over Francis Fukuyama any day.

 

[balance]

I think his choice of words are a bit over zealous but it effectively conveys the deeper subliminal feelings and suspicion of many Chinese towards many western experts and human rights activists regarding China. Division of the country, sponsoring separatism, and a sense of superiority just because they have "democracy/human rights" (TM), are all irritants felt by quite a few Chinese, and definitely more than a few posters on this forum. (Not to mention blatant media bias of course -- I think this particular point has just been accepted that it almost isn't even worth mentioning anymore)

And I do agree with the suggestion that many democracy activists are pushing it as much as they would a religion -- i.e.: democracy or bust, and hell to the consequences of anything else. I've always held the position that there is never one correct political system and that they should change depending on the situation, and I cannot take anyone seriously who blindly promotes one system as correct for everyone, and I do equate it with evangelists that cry out "but my god is the real god!"


If I wrote the article I definitely wouldn't have phrased it in that way but I think there are jewels of insight between his abrasive paragraphs. The fight for perception is an ugly one.
The other side doesn't pull any punches, so I think it's hypocritical to criticize it when the opposing group uses similarly charged words.

I agree with you, Blitzo. It's the expression, not the content that missed the mark. There are valid and strong points in his writing. I am surprised as the analysis comes from a non-Chinese.

 

[Brumby]

In other words, you have nothing concrete to point out. Reality is a lot more messy than ideology. Corrupt officials are not necessarily incompetent, and honest officials are not always competent.

There is nothing specific to point out because anything that is released to the public is already window dressed for the occasion and anything contrary to the official position would not be public knowledge.

I have already provided perspective from transparency international that measures judicial independence, transparency and accountability but conveniently ignored.

I am happy to have an honest discussion but not at perpetual moving targets that has no end and purpose. First it was social harmony, and then every conceivable social issues, and now competency (that I have not referenced to). How is this actually connected to Xi's anti corruption drive?

 

[Brumby]

I'd rather prefer a China that has a powerful military and economy overall and some degree of corruption, rather than a completely non corrupt but powerless nation subservient to other nation's whims. Again, I want to stress that this is not meant to illustrate that those elements are not reconcilable, but rather that there are arguably bigger issues to assess the government on other than only corruption (as important as it is).

Bltizo,

I think you offer balanced view and are not blinded by nationalistic passion regardless of what is staring in the face and so I respect your opinion and your comments even if I may disagree.

Whilst I note the non mutually exclusive notion and priorities that you have outlined, I do not agree with the weight of the reasoning. Economic and military growth has a strong correlation but conversely corruption is a strong impediment to sustained economic growth and will degrade military capability over time. It is actually in China's interest to deal with the issue. Prioritization in my view is a weak excuse in the absence of some form of robust defence. At the most basic level, the assumption somehow is it cannot be concurrently instituted.

 

[Blitzo]

There is nothing specific to point out because anything that is released to the public is already window dressed for the occasion and anything contrary to the official position would not be public knowledge.

I have already provided perspective from transparency international that measures judicial independence, transparency and accountability but conveniently ignored.

I am happy to have an honest discussion but not at perpetual moving targets that has no end and purpose. First it was social harmony, and then every conceivable social issues, and now competency (that I have not referenced to). How is this actually connected to Xi's anti corruption drive?

I think this discussion was about social cohesion and harmony. Solarz in post 402 was saying it included many facets, so while corruption is important, other measures are invaluable as well.
Transparency comparisons later grew out from that.

Of course, this originally stemmed from your reply to me at post 388. I never replied to that, and I should say that while I agree with you on on principle, we should wonder if what you suggested is a realistic short term goal.

What is left unsaid is whether transparency, justice, etc is worth changing the system to a degree which may hinder other areas such as economic reform, military development, unity, etc (this all depends on the degree of injustice present and the extremes of political and legal reform that are suggested).

My opinion regarding drastic political and legal reform has always been that it should only be pursued once china is the worlds biggest economy, has a meaningful nuclear deterrent and the most capable conventional military forces in westpac, and where western media and cultural influence is less substantial to the Chinese populace. Basically, any reform should be done on China's own terms.

 

[Blitzo]

Bltizo,

I think you offer balanced view and are not blinded by nationalistic passion regardless of what is staring in the face and so I respect your opinion and your comments even if I may disagree.

Whilst I note the non mutually exclusive notion and priorities that you have outlined, I do not agree with the weight of the reasoning. Economic and military growth has a strong correlation but conversely corruption is a strong impediment to sustained economic growth and will degrade military capability over time. It is actually in China's interest to deal with the issue. Prioritization in my view is a weak excuse in the absence of some form of robust defence. At the most basic level, the assumption somehow is it cannot be concurrently instituted.

Neither corruption, economic power, or military power are absolutes, they all lie on a continuum.
I think it has been long overdue to deal with corruption, and even if it comes with a small dent in economic and military growth then it is acceptable if it will deliver further longer term benefits.

I also agree that transparency and greater justice are all positive things, however I also believe the state needs to have authoritarian power in many regards going into the next few decades to handle growth and development.

What I caution on is when we think a response to corruption is valid and also on the scale and severity of that response (e.g. a campaign like what we see now or complete change of the entire political system).
There is no reason why elements of corruption cannot be taken down while not dramatically hindering economic and military growth (and other things like national unity). But at this stage of China's development I will oppose any plan that only focuses on a single issue while leaving the others to rot. I'm not saying this is what you are suggesting, only that this is my general position regarding balancing the various political, social, military, economic, and national needs and demands on china

 

[solarz]

Corruption is not an enabler of economics. Corruption is the very bane of a competent military.

I have three words for you: Military Industrial Complex.