Gary Miles – Where Are You?

Dear Gary

I last saw you in Hereford probably about 1987 – at the college there.  You wrote me a letter not long after – but did not include a return address!  If you find this note, remember that we spent time in education together in Reigate exploring life.

Best Wishes

Adrian

Sue-Ling Chan-Wyles Gongfu Award (17.10.2005)

sl17-20-05

Although this certificate was awarded to my eldest daughter in Sutton, London, it turned-up in a file of important documents in Torquay, Devon, at the home of my parents!

Chinese Ambassador Meets Prime Minister Domingos Simões Parreira of Guinea-Bissau (2015)

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Original Chinese Language Article By: http://www.bjfao.gov.cn

(Translated by Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD)

On August 11th, 2015, China’s Ambassador to Guinea-Bissau – Mr Wang Hua – met with Domingos Pereira, the incumbent Prime Minister of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau (and the current President of the Independence Party of Guinea-Bissau), and presented a Portuguese translation of the Chinese text entitled ‘Xi Jinping’s Theory of Ruling the Country’.

Prime Minister Pereira stated that the governing Independence Party values very high, its good relations with the Communist Party of China, and that the country of Guinea-Bissau Government cherishes the friendly and cooperative relations with the Chinese Government in such fields as agriculture, fishery, health, education and human resources development, and is ready to develop further, the positive progression of these relations. Prime Minister Pereira further stated that he intended to study the Collected Works of the General Secretary in greater details, so that the governing Independence Party can engage in a positive exchange with the Communist Party of China regarding the theory and practice of the good governance of a country. Also present was a member of the politburo and a senior adviser of high political office.

Original Chinese Language Source Text:

http://www.bjfao.gov.cn/wsdt/wjdt/82322.htm

驻几内亚比绍大使王华会见几比总理佩雷拉 [图]

2015年8月11日,驻几内亚比绍大使王华会见几内亚比绍共和国总理、几佛独立党主席多明戈斯·佩雷拉,赠予对方葡文版《习近平谈治国理政》一书。

佩表示,几佛独立党高度重视与中国共产党的传统友谊,几比政府珍惜与中国政府在农业、渔业、卫生、教育、人才资源开发等领域的友好合作关系,并愿全力推动上述关系的健康发展。佩允将认真研读习总书记文选,努力促进几佛独立党与中国共产党在治国理政方面的经验交流。几佛独立党第一副主席科雷亚及政治局委员、总理政治与外交事务顾问席尔瓦在座。

The USSR and Homosexuality Part I (Article 121)

000000000000000000000000000000

Author’s Note:  As a Marxist-Leninist who supports Joseph Stalin as a good and great leader of the Soviet Union, I must declare from the start, that I view the Soviet Union as one of the most progressive regimes humanity has ever produced, and considering the objective facts of history, I understand that the West (through the Cold War) has deliberately distorted not only the history of the Soviet Union, but has deliberately attacked the otherwise good reputation of Joseph Stalin – the man who defeated Hitlerism, and the Communist leader the West most feared due to its own greed-orientated paranoia. The Trotskyite (and government-led lies) perpetuated by Western academia (and its State media) can produce no authentic academic references in the Russian language, to support its bizarre notions against the USSR – simply because no such academic references exist in the Soviet Archives.  Of course, as with any leftwing progressive, I fully support LGBTQ Rights, and am probably one of a handful of Communists who has taken the trouble to march in London’s Gay Pride Parade. I originally published this article on the 19.3,2015 (see full text below – Appendix I), but since that time, more reliable academic evidence has come to light, that has allowed me to historically contextualise this issue far more thoroughly (with the reconstituted article appearing below).  Initially, my research began with Article 121 of the RSFSR Criminal Code, and its apparent association between male homosexuality and the odious crime of paedophilia (a logical assumption made from an analysis of the wording – albeit in English translation).  I mistakenly felt at the time that the entirety of the thinking of the USSR was dialectically deficient in this area, and that this notion served as the basis of my initial investigation (although, of course, it is clear that old Czarist notions and Christian derived prejudices were present in early Soviet modes of thought as expressed by certain soviet ideologues).  I then read, (after the first draft of this essay was published), a very interesting biography of Lenin compiled by Tamas Krausz, within which he asserts that Lenin deliberately ‘decriminalised’ homosexuality, and that Stalin later ‘criminalised’ it.  I must say that after reading the Collected Works of both men, I have never encountered any written texts (by either of these leaders) that specifically addressed or considered the subject of ‘homosexuality’.  This fact alone sheds doubt on the assumption of Krausz (which he presents an unquestioned ‘fact’). Krausz seems to be perpetuating a Trotskyite demonisation of Stalin, by protecting an equally Trotskyite distortion of history upon Lenin (i.e. Lenin must be ‘good’ for Stalin to be ‘evil’ etc).  I was able to come to this conclusion, when I recently read the excellent article entitled ‘Homosexuality in the USSR’ (linked below) written by Alfonso Casal (and published on the Stalin Society of North America – SSNA – in April, 2015).  This article is logical, historically accurate, and dialectically correct.  Homosexuality is a complex affair, not only within Soviet history, but also throughout the world.  Lenin freed the working class (including gay people, but not exclusively so) from Czarist oppression, and Stalin furthered this freedom through the legal reforms that were initiated during his leadership of the USSR.  ACW 28.12.2016

The USSR and Homosexuality Part II (Czarist Article 995)

The USSR and Homosexuality Part III (RSFSR Article 154a)

The Soviet law text entitled ‘Criminal Code of the RSFSR’, (see Chapter Four – Crimes Against the Life, Health, Freedom, and Dignity of the Person’), contains Article 121, which reads (in full) as follows:

‘Pederasty

Sexual relations of a man with a man (pederasty),

Shall be punished by deprivation of freedom for a term of up to five years.

Pederasty committed with the application of physical force, or threats, or with respect to a minor, or with taking advantage of the dependent position of the victim,

Shall be punished by deprivation of freedom for a term of up to eight years.’

(Butler, WE, Translator & Editor, Basic Documents on the Soviet Legal System, Oceana Publications, 1983, Page 344)

The choice of the term ‘pederasty’ is curious, as it derives from the origin Greek ‘paederasty’, which literally translates as ‘love of boys’, and refers to the ancient Greek cultural practice of sexual relations between mature men and adolescent males. However, it also carries the implied connotation that the practice of ‘homosexuality’, is in fact the practice of ‘child abuse’, with the former being clearly conflated with the latter, despite the fact that Article 121 appears to define ‘pederasty’ as the performance of a sexual act between one man and another. In reality, Pederasty is generally defined as the committing of a homosexual act by an older man, upon a much younger male.  When I was researching this article, I came across the following quote which purports to set what it implies is the historicity of Lenin’s apparent ‘pro-gay’ and Stalin’s alleged ‘anti-gay’ stance:

‘At the same time Lenin stood up for freedom of lifestyle, apparent from the fact that a decree signed by him in Soviet Russia was the first in the world to end the criminality of homosexuality.  Chicherin, the commissar for foreign affairs, did not make a secret of the fact that he loved men, and many others did not hide their sexual orientation either.  It is another matter that under Stalin, as of March 1934, homosexuality came to be considered a medical disorder and an offense.’

(Krausz, Tamas, Reconstructing Lenin, an Intellectual Biography, Chapter 1 – Who Was Lenin – Page 71)

The footnote (numbered 199) accompanying this paragraph reads in part:

‘Soviet law proclaims the absolute non-interference of the state in any matters relating to the sexes, until no one suffers damages, and no one’s rights are infringed.’ Grigory Batkis 1925.

Tamas Krausz creates a hard-hitting paragraph with only the scantiest of references, and appears to be following an anti-Stalinist Cold War agenda (formulated within the Western imagination).  He does not provide any relevant academically sound reference for this quote, and therefore fails to adequately define his terms, and legitimately make his point.  Where is the evidence that Lenin ‘decriminalised’ homosexuality?  Where is the evidence that Lenin was interested in the subject of homosexuality at all?  Where is this ‘decree’ that Lenin signed ending discrimination against homosexuals?  What happened in March 1934?  Where is the evidence that Stalin took an interest in the subject of homosexuality?  Where is the proof that Stalin considered homosexuality to be an abhorrent medical condition?  The narrative Krausz creates suggests that Lenin allowed for homosexuality, whilst Stalin rejected it – both of these stances appear historically and academically incorrect.  Lenin did abolish the old Czarist regime and its entire body of law, that is true.  The Czarist feudalistic law did contain openly hostile laws outlawing homosexuality (possibly influenced by the Russian Orthodox Church), and when these laws were abolished, the anti-homosexual laws were also abolished.  This does not mean, however, that Lenin deliberately ‘decriminalised’ homosexuality, but rather that the decriminalisation of homosexuality was entirely incidental to the abolition of the old order.  Furthermore, as Alfonso Casal points-out in his excellent article entitled:

Homosexuality in the USSR – By Alfonso Casal

The old anti-homosexual laws were retained in the Islamic Republics, and Christian Georgia, even after 1917, apparently as a means not to offend religious sensibilities in the area, at a time of otherwise great social upheaval. Although Lenin was for the freedom of the proletariat, he did not, as Krausz suggest, deliberately legitimise homosexuality.  Other than abolishing the Czarist code, Lenin did not sign any decree specifically dealing with homosexuality.  This is an important historical point, as it exposes the further assertion alleged by Krausz that Stalin later effectively ‘abolished’ Lenin’s earlier good work.  Stalin did not abolish any homosexual-friendly law ‘decreed’ by Lenin simply because Lenin never issued any such law.  What Stalin did do was officiate over the impressive and much discussed 1936 Constitution of the USSR, seen by many as ground-breaking legal work, within which Article 121 is to be found.  Article 121, despite its curious reading, appears to have been designed to protect Soviet society from the menace of child abuse and paedophilia, although it is recorded that Soviet academia was interested in the practice of homosexuality from a medical perspective, and attempting to ascertain its root cause (with a number of early Soviet researchers following the Czarist assumption of aberration). This did not mean that homosexuals were persecuted – far from it – the general underlying trend in the USSR was to end all oppression, and facilitate the integration of the individual into the collective.

The Czarist regime, by and large was heavily influenced by the bourgeois mind-set of ‘moral conservatism’ found within the Judeo-Christian paradigm, which manifested in areas considered moral issues – vocally asserting that one mode of sexual expression was more ‘god-like’ than another. What usually accompanies this religiously inspired indignation is the practice of the highest hypocrisy which sees advocates of moral conservatism condemn others on the one hand for their sexual preferences, whilst secretly engaging in the very same sexual activity on the other. This treatment is usually decided by class in the bourgeois system, whereby middle class sex offenders are ignored or protected by the State their class controls, whilst working class ‘sexual offenders’ experience the full weight of the bourgeois law. As usual, the bourgeois lives in a secular world of duality inspired by the dichotomy of good and evil found in Judeo-Christian theology. The bourgeois wants to be ‘good’, and please his ‘god’, whilst always running the risk of giving-in to what might be correctly described as ‘natural impulses’ of desire – which he sees as ‘evil’. The underlying paradox for the bourgeois is that ‘pleasure’ equates to ‘evil’, and this serves as the basis for self-loathing and bizarre laws that only ever punish the lower strata of society. The bourgeois sleeps soundly in his bed at night knowing that the working class is being punished by a legal system that reflects his backward, religiously inspired viewpoints, even if those viewpoints manifest in a secular world. For the Christian monastic, celibacy is the highest form of worshipping his god. The bourgeois layman is confused – procreation is required to perpetuate the species (and he desires to participate in it), but his religion historically informs him that what is good for the man is not good for god. This inverted thinking deprives humanity of the means to perpetuate itself.

These attitudes, built up and sustained over many hundreds of years, are difficult to uproot over-night, even in a regime as progressive as the USSR, which did not pursue deliberately anti-gay agendas, but looked to ‘include’ rather than ‘exclude’.  The Soviet Union was a Socialist State seeking to evolve society beyond its feudal and capitalist limitations, and into an advanced Communist System where class, religion and State would no longer be required for the maintenance of an optimum human society. In regard to this objective, the Soviet legal system over-turned the rotten feudal and bourgeois system it inherited from the Czar. The Soviet legal system was progressive in every single manner, and made life better for virtually every single one of its citizens. The Soviet legal system was superior in every way to the bourgeois legal codes (even at its inception). Men and women were given absolute equality and protection under Soviet law, and the wording of the extensive anti-rape legislation appears to recognise that both a man and a woman can be raped. Another area that exhibits advanced consideration in the Soviet legal code is the rules concerning the prevention of rape and sexual exploitation of young children and minors. However, in the important area of homosexuality, its progressive nature was not fully developed at the time, not because of any ‘imagined’ anti-gay agendas, but because Socialist dialectical development simply takes time to unfold in a scientific and logical manner.

——————————————————-

Appendix I – Original Article: Homosexuality in the USSR (19.3,2015)

Author’s Note (added 30.5.2016):  Since I wrote this article, a new and crucial piece of evidence has come to light that suggests that the USSR under Lenin (in its early days) was in fact the first nation in history to legalise homosexuality:

‘At the same time Lenin stood up for freedom of lifestyle, apparent from the fact that a decree signed by him in Soviet Russia was the first in the world to end the criminality of homosexuality.  Chicherin, the commissar for foreign affairs, did not make a secret of the fact that he loved men, and many others did not hide their sexual orientation either.  It is another matter that under Stalin, as of March 1934, homosexuality came to be considered a medical disorder and an offense.’

(Krausz, Tamas, Reconstructing Lenin, an Intellectual Biography, Chapter 1 – Who Was Lenin – Page 71)

The footnote (numbered 199) accompanying this paragraph reads in part:

‘Soviet law proclaims the absolute non-interference of the state in any matters relating to the sexes, until no one suffers damages, and no one’s rights are infringed.’ Grigory Batkis 1925.

As a matter of clarification, my essay in essence deals with the post-1934 change in Soviet Law which effectively demonised homosexuality and in so doing turned the progressive clock of Lenin back.  This shift from enlightened liberalism to bigoted narrow-mindedness played straight into the hands of the rightwing moral conservatives – the natural enemies of the USSR.  ACW 30.5.15

It is an interesting point to observe that both the USSR (and the post-Soviet-Russian Federation), retain a hostile and negative attitude toward both the theory and practice of homosexuality – if homosexuality is defined as a sexual relationship between two consenting adults of the same gender; i.e. a man with a man, or a woman with a woman. This category of sexual relationship can also include bisexuality – whereby a man or a woman voluntarily engages in sexual relationships of a heterosexual and homosexual nature. Transgender is also an issue of sexuality, as a man may feel ‘trapped’ in a female ‘birth’ body, and a woman ‘trapped’ in a male ‘birth’ body, etc., thus affecting their apparent or real sexual orientation. Generally speaking, the bourgeois mind-set of ‘moral conservatism’ tends to apply a presumed Judeo-Christian paradigm to areas considered moral issues – vocally asserting that one mode of sexual expression is more ‘god-like’ than another. What usually accompanies this religiously inspired indignation is the practice of the highest hypocrisy which sees advocates of moral conservatism condemn others on the one hand for their sexual preferences, whilst secretly engaging in the very same sexual activity on the other. This treatment is usually decided by class in the bourgeois system, whereby middle class sex offenders are ignored or protected by the State their class controls, whilst working class ‘sexual offenders’ experience the full weight of the bourgeois law. As usual, the bourgeois lives in a secular world of duality inspired by the dichotomy of good and evil found in Judeo-Christian theology. The bourgeois wants to be ‘good’, and please his ‘god’, whilst always running the risk of giving-in to what might be correctly described as ‘natural impulses’ of desire – which he sees as ‘evil’. The underlying paradox for the bourgeois is that ‘pleasure’ equates to ‘evil’, and this serves as the basis for self-loathing and bizarre laws that only ever punish the lower strata of society. The bourgeois sleeps soundly in his bed at night knowing that the working class is being punished by a legal system that reflects his backward, religiously inspired viewpoints, even if those viewpoints manifest in a secular world. For the Christian monastic, celibacy is the highest form of worshipping his god. The bourgeois layman is confused – procreation is required to perpetuate the species (and he desires to participate in it), but his religion historically informs him that what is good for the man is not good for god. This inverted thinking deprives humanity of the means to perpetuate itself.

The Soviet Union was a Socialist State seeking to evolve society beyond its feudal and capitalist limitations, and into an advanced Communist System where class, religion and State would no longer be required for the maintenance of an optimum human society. In regard to this objective, the Soviet legal system over-turned the rotten feudal and bourgeois system it inherited from the Czar. The Soviet legal system was progressive in every single manner, and made life better for virtually every single one of its citizens. The Soviet legal system was superior in every way to the bourgeois legal codes. Men and women were given absolute equality and protection under Soviet law, and the wording of the extensive anti-rape legislation appears to recognise that both a man and a woman can be raped. Another area that exhibits advanced consideration in the Soviet legal code is the rules concerning the prevention of rape and sexual exploitation of young children and minors. However, in the important area of homosexuality, its progressive nature was not fully developed.

The concept of the possibility of a sexual relationship happening between a woman and a woman was not recognised as physically possible, and so no law was enacted either for or against its practice. However, the practice of sexual relations between a man and man was recognised within Soviet law, and firmly legislated against. The Soviet law text entitled ‘Criminal Code of the RSFSR’, in Chapter Four – Crimes Against the Life, Health, Freedom, and Dignity of the Person’, contains Article 121, which states in full the following, which forbids male homosexual relationships:

Pederasty

Sexual relations of a man with a man (pederasty),

Shall be punished by deprivation of freedom for a term of up to five years.

Pederasty committed with the application of physical force, or threats, or with respect to a minor, or with taking advantage of the dependent position of the victim,

Shall be punished by deprivation of freedom for a term of up to eight years.

(Butler, WE, Translator & Editor, Basic Documents on the Soviet Legal System, Oceana Publications, 1983, Page 344)

The choice of the term ‘pederasty’ is curious, as it derives from the origin Greek ‘paederasty’, which literally translates as ‘love of boys’, and refers to the ancient Greek cultural practice of sexual relations between mature men and adolescent males. However, it also carries the implied connotation that the practice of ‘homosexuality’, is in fact the practice of ‘child abuse’, with the former being clearly conflated with the latter, despite the fact that the actual anti-homosexual legislation in question, defines ‘pederasty’ as the performance of a sexual act between one man and another. Pederasty is generally defined as the committing of a homosexual act by an older man, upon a much younger male. The idea that two mature adults of a consenting age could enter a loving relationship is not considered possible in the Soviet legal code – much of which stemmed from the time period of 1917 onwards, and encapsulates many attitudes common to that time. Most bourgeois legal systems at that time did not protect their ordinary citizens to the extent that the Soviet legal code did, and none acknowledged the existence (or validity) of loving, homosexual relationships. Where homosexuality was mentioned by the bourgeois legal codes, it was usually viewed as an expression of sexual deviancy, and it is interesting to note that the legal system of the Soviet Union took this line, when in virtually all other areas, the USSR thoroughly departed away from established bourgeois thinking. For instance, its strictures protected the individual as well as the family, giving ample consideration to the rights of women and young children. In fact the emancipation of women from patriarchal control was a major feature of Soviet Law, and yet this did not apparently extend to the consideration of the emancipation of homosexual women from the equally ‘patriarchal’ bias of male legal domination. Instead, homosexuality was outlawed with a legal attack aimed solely at men – turning legitimate homosexual interaction between consenting adults into a dark act of violent and morally debased criminality.

The Soviet legislation against homosexuality must be viewed as a dialectical error. This judgement is correct even if a stringent and strictly ‘biological’ view is taken toward the physical mechanics of reproduction of the species, in relation to the practice of homosexuality. This stance suggests that as living off-spring are produced through the successful sexual interaction of a male and female – then logic dictates that this must be the ‘normal’ or ‘preferred’ mode of sexual orientation, and that any other form of sexual expression is by definition a diversion away from ‘normality’. However, all is not what it seems. Within the Judeo-Christian bible, it states that Adam and Eve (and others) procreated to give rise to the human race. This is imagined nonsense, of course, but it does explain the Christian Church’s bigotry when it comes to the matter of homosexuality – despite the fact that many modern-day Christian priests have been revealed to be both child-molesters and rapists, etc. The bourgeois system – even in its secular mode – carries on much of the religious bigotry bequeathed to it by the medieval church. This inverted attitude manifests through moral determinism which inflexibly judges things along theological lines as either ‘good’ (heterosexuality), or ‘bad’ (homosexuality). This has nothing to do with modern science, but is merely an outdated mode of religious thinking projected over empirical findings. Males and females do interact sexually to produce off-spring – this is not a moral fact but rather an impartial scientific observation – but it is not the only way that life is produced in the modern age. Off-spring can be produced through the skilful combining of a male sperm and a female egg under laboratory conditions. This shows the morally ‘blind’ nature of biological evolution and function. It does not matter where the healthy sperm or egg has originated, just as the gender or sexual orientation of the medical technicians involved is of no importance whatsoever. What is of paramount importance is that the mechanisms of biological processes are properly understood and correctly manipulated. Therefore the idea that procreation only happens during heterosexual activity is no longer correct or valid. Furthermore, although heterosexual activity does produce off-springs, it biological mechanism has been shown through scientific scrutiny, to be highly inefficient. However, despite this innate inefficiency, the fact that consenting sexual activity of any kind is inherently ‘pleasurable’ ensures that human beings participate in it throughout their lives. What the Soviet legal code should have considered is that the Bourgeois Judeo-Christian bias toward heterosexual relationships was dialectically redundant in the Socialist State, and it should have been radically abandoned along with capitalism and ownership of private property.  The Soviet legal code should have adopted a priori an anti-bourgeois dialectical position that swept away religiously inspired, feudalistic and bourgeois inverted views of the world with regards to the theory and practice of homosexuality. A Socialist State – by definition – is a dialectical progression ‘beyond’ the bourgeois system and its religious tendencies. Anti-homosexual views are a product of historical religious views that have been superimposed onto secular bourgeois society – simply through force of habit from one generation to the next – that has nothing to do with science, but which has been morally assumed to be ‘scientific’ in nature. Nature has evolved freely and outside of the moral (and religious) constraints of the human imagination. A Socialist State cannot, and should not preserve any bourgeois or religionists tendencies. Homosexuality does not only refer to human behaviour, but has been observed in other species. Homosexuality is a product of ‘blind’ evolution and is ‘natural’ in origination. From an evolutionary perspective, it exists because it efficiently and positively fulfils a biological function linked to human emotion and psychology. A Socialist State is not necessarily ‘pro’ homosexual, but neither should it be ‘anti’ homosexual – as these either-or categories are products of a bourgeois system premised upon the ‘good’ and ‘evil’ dichotomy of the Judeo-Christian religion. The practice of Socialist dialectics bursts open the constraints of bigoted bourgeois sentimentalism and inverted thinking, and ushers in a new era of psychological and physical freedom. A Socialist State serves to ‘progress’ homosexuality and should not oppress or criminalise it.

Gongfu: Stretching the Legs

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Everyone should stretch and loosen the ligaments, tendons and muscles in a manner suitable to their particular style of martial arts, and in accordance with the current needs of their body (and mind).  There are multitudinous variations of stretching that differ in shape, form and execution.  For instance, many Daoist arts stretch with the mind – unfurling waves of awareness and relaxation through the entire body – that loosen the joints (and surrounding tissue) in the body through an act of will, originating in the mind.  Often these Daoist exercise are performed whilst in seated meditation, or whilst holding various static positions or stances – but tend to avoid the literal stretching of the limbs as found within certain aspects of Indian yoga (as preserved within the Chinese Shaolin tradition described). In fact, simply by standing in a relaxed manner, the entire musculature (and supportive tissue) can be profoundly relaxed. The other – much more common method of stretching – is that of mechanically stretching the limbs and torso through the holding of various exercises that relax unnecessary tension in the muscle fibre (and psychic fabric), and which generate a recuperative ‘torque’ in the muscle structures.  These exercises warm, loosen and strengthen the muscle fibre – which eventually allows a greater mobility in the joints.  A particular area that requires loosening are the legs, pelvic-girdle and lower back muscle-mass.  The method for loosening the legs lies not in the legs themselves, but rather in the muscle-mass of the lower back.  If the muscle-mass of the lower back retains unnecessary (or habitual) muscle tension, this tension spreads down through the pelvic-girdle and runs through the back of the legs.  This tension ‘stiffens’ the leg muscles and makes them very difficult to stretch or loosen.  To remedy this situation, spend time loosening the lower back muscles.  As soon as this tension is released, the leg muscles will relax and be rendered much more pliable.  Before doing this, however, focus the mind’s attention on the lower-back, and generate the idea of a definite course of action, that culminates in a clear objective.

Taiwanese Communist Party Flag (台湾4个共产党)

taicon-01

The Communist Party is banned on the Island of Taiwan (which is basically a colony of the US) – despite Taiwan being an integral part of Mainland ‘Communist’ China.  This travesty stems from the time of the despotic rule of Chiang Kai-Shek (aka ‘Cash My Check’), following his invasion of that island after the defeat of his corrupt ‘Nationalist’ Movement on the Mainland of China, in 1948.  Backed by the capitalist West, Chiang’s regime had initiated the so-called anti-Communist ‘White Terror’ on the Mainland, just prior to exporting this terrorism to Taiwan.  Over the decades the Nationalist regime in China and Taiwan murdered thousands of ‘Communist’ Chinese – or those suspected of harbouring Communist sympathies.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

The irony is that Taiwan had been under Japanese colonial occupation for 50 years prior to Japan’s crushing defeat in 1945, and this despotism and oppression had led to the generation of a healthy Taiwanese Communist Movement.  The general idea was to free Mainland China from Japanese (and Western) colonial occupation, whilst simultaneously freeing Taiwan – and uniting China under one Communist Government (led by Mao Zedong). By the time of the Nationalist invasion of Taiwan, Taiwan was rampant with anti-imperialist, Communist activists.  Encouraged by Winston Churchill and Harry Truman – Chiang Kai-Shek not only invaded Taiwan and brutally subjugated its Hakka and indigenous population to a rightwing regime these people did not want, but he set about killing anyone he suspected of being a leftist.  This policy endured into the 1980’s, when Taiwan reluctantly transitioned to a Western-style democracy.  Today, many Taiwanese have secretly joined the Communist Party of China, and Taiwan operates a more subtle anti-Communist policy – although it is true that individuals are still imprisoned without trial, whilst others are mysteriously ‘disappeared’. As far as Mainland China is concerned, the Taiwanese Communist Party still exists, and the people of Taiwan are encouraged to group together and form study groups, whilst preparing to liberate this part of China from foreign, capitalist domination.

The Paradox of Putin

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

President Putin lives in a bizarre world of capitalist paradox and inconsistency.  On the one hand, he is the product of the Soviet (Communist) System (culminating in his service in the KGB), whilst on the other, he is the repeated elected ‘President’ of capitalist Russia.  He is on record as criticising the Soviet System (that that gave him every ‘free’ educational and cultural advantage), whilst simultaneously eulogising the ‘freedom’ that capitalism has given a minority of people in Russia to be obscenely rich (whilst the majority have been plunged into various degrees of impoverishment). He has agreed to allow the Russian military to carry the old Soviet Flag, and to continue to respectfully remember the Soviet victory (and terrible sacrifice) over Nazi Germany during the Great Patriotic war (1941-45), and to keep the Russian ‘eternal flame’ burning at the grave of the Soviet ‘unknown soldier’.  Lenin’s tomb remains sacrosanct (and continuously guarded), whilst being occasionally ‘opened’ for the general public to peer inside.  The Russian Communist Party has around 70 to 80 seats in the elected Stare Duma (out of around 220), and Communism and Soviet nostalgia remains very strong amongst the Russian people. Russia Today (RT) – the Russian multimedia news service – continues to broadcast around the world, usually supplying a counter-narrative to the Western anti-Russian racism, and deliberate misreporting of events global-wide.  This reality of an intense anti-Russia offensive (led by the USA and the EU) has seen the Nazification of Eastern Europe, and a ‘Cold-War-like’ rhetoric emanating from the White House of President Barack Obama.  RT works to expose these lies, whilst still pursuing a ‘pro-capitalist’ agenda that sees a steady stream of anti-Soviet propaganda, and a reduction of all the great achievements of the Soviet era to mere stats. RT has also openly criticised Lenin and Stalin, and has hosted the likes of George Galloway and Ken Livingston, both recently criticising the memory of the Soviet Union – particularly of Joseph Stalin – when the British Labour Party got into hot water over allegations of anti-Semitism.  At the moment, capitalist Russia has been forced to re-assess its Soviet past in the light of Western anti-Russian racism, but Russia remains ‘capitalist’ nonetheless.  If the West had not embarked on this recent anti-Russian drive, one gets the distinct impression that ‘capitalist’ Russia would have firmly left all the Red Flags in the past, and expunged Soviet history from the school texts books – as indeed the immediate post-Soviet era period of the middle to late 1990’s saw. However, since that time, the Russian State has moved back to a position of fully recognising the relevancy of the Soviet-era, whilst actively encouraging its now impoverished citizens to view their disempowerment as ‘freedom’.  It is interesting to note that the breakaway republics of eastern Ukraine have invariably declared themselves ‘Soviet’ or ‘People’s’ Republics, and have embraced the old Soviet Red Flag, and been financially and militarily supported by Russia in their fight against Western-backed neo-Nazism in western Ukraine.

Ch’an Dialectics

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

‘The illusion of form which includes the body and mind made of the five aggregates and the visible world is tackled first by returning each of its aspects to where it arises to prove its unreality.  Then the illusion of perception is wiped out by revealing its essence, or alaya, which like a second moon is also an illusionary creation.’

(Charles Luk: Preface – Surangama Sutra – Munshiram, (2001), Page xvii)

The Ch’an masters of ancient China are often judged as speaking nonsense, or even being ‘crazy’ in some Western-quarters, when the ‘enlightened’ dialogues with their disciples are analysed – supposedly in the cold light of day.  The problem with this type of analysis is that it is premised upon a major category error of interpretation that ignores or avoids the psychological and physical process the Ch’an masters are employing. This means that the ‘essence’ or ‘underlying’ aspect of the enlightened Ch’an dialogue is ‘missing’ from this limited interpretation.  It is like the presence of a wooden table being explained, without including the reality that it was once a living and growing ‘tree’ in the world, and that this tree was cut-down, and its trunk chopped into smaller pieces, which were then ‘processed’ into the applicable parts that are used to construct a standard table.  Everything in the world follows a logically discernible set of causes and effects, with a specific ‘cause’ eliciting a specific ‘effect’, and so on.  Far from being ‘illogical’, the Ch’an method is in fact highly logical, and a product of a sophisticated interpretation of depth psychology and behaviour.  The basis of the Ch’an dialogue is that of the interaction of ‘form’ and ‘void’ in the perception of the unenlightened disciple, as he or she is led to profound understanding by an already enlightened Ch’an master.  The Ch’an master either emphasises the ‘void’, or emphasises the ‘form’, depending upon the particular psychology (and understanding) of the disciple at hand.  This often rapid interchange of dialectical reality creates a ‘tension’ in the enquiring mind that assists in ‘loosening’ the bonds of ingrained attachment, and klesic obscuration.  This is the ancient Ch’an method at its root, which has nothing to do with being ‘crazy’, or ‘missing’ parts of one’s anatomy.  Dialectics, of course, can be traced not only back to the Buddha, but probably much earlier in ancient India, and of course in ancient and classical Greece, but the Buddha is unique in the ancient world in his use of ‘form’ and ‘void’ as a definite means to interpret and define reality.  It can be further stated that the early Confucian texts of ancient China utilised the dialectical method by juxtaposing ‘good’ and ‘bad’ behaviour, as did the various early Daoist or proto-Daoist texts (which defined reality as ‘correct’ or incorrect’ paths of endeavour).  If the Ch’an method is understood properly, then the casual observer is not ‘limited’ to the surface level of interpretation, (as this mistakes the ‘surface’ for the ‘essence’), but instead understands that profound system of stimulus – response is unfolding in real-time.  As the disciple mistakenly presents a surface obscuration in the mind (accompanied by a corresponding physical behaviour), the Ch’an master automatically ‘dismisses’ this ‘limited’ interpretation of reality, and immediately returns to its ‘empty’ essence – whether the disciple is instantly enlightened or not, depends entirely upon that disciple’s historical conditioning – and the Ch’an master’s direct perception of that history as it existentially manifests.  If the disciple mistakes a state of one-sided ‘nothingness’ as ‘emptiness’, the Ch’an master might well suddenly present ‘form’ as an antidote (as true emptiness contains all form, and vice versa).  In reality, the Ch’an method does not go beyond the Buddha’s realisation of ‘perception’ and ‘non-perception – the so-called ‘Tathagata Ch’an’ – but differs in that the realisation of the empty essence of ‘perception’ and ‘non-perception’ is directly emphasised from the moment Ch’an training commences – the so-called Patriarch’s Ch’an’.

People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals – History

PDSA has been a lifeline for sick and injured pets since 1917. In that time we’ve provided a staggering 100 million free treatments to more than 20 million pets.

Our veterinary expertise, UK-wide coverage and comprehensive education programme means that we touch the lives of more pets and owners than any other animal welfare organisation. And we owe it all to one truly inspirational woman: PDSA’s founder, Maria Dickin.

Maria Dickin was born in London in 1870. The daughter of a Free Church Minister, she was an independent-minded young woman, never afraid to voice her beliefs.

When she went to visit the the poor in the East End of London, she was horrified by the terrible poverty she witnessed – especially the sight of their sick and injured pets who were in desperate need of veterinary care. Dogs and cats had no choice but to scavenge from the gutters, many in pain and suffering – raw with mange and often dragging their broken limbs. All because their owners simply couldn’t afford to pay for treatment.

So on Saturday 17 November 1917, during the First World War, Maria opened The People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals of the Poor, providing a free service for pets in need, in a Whitechapel basement.

There was so much demand that she soon needed larger premises and established a fleet of mobile dispensaries to travel around the country.

Maria devoted her life to improving the welfare of the pets she loved. Her determination, enthusiasm and pioneering spirit define PDSA to this day.

We’re proud to continue her work, ensuring that today, and in the years to come, people who, through no fault of their own, can’t afford to pay for veterinary care for their beloved pets still have somewhere to go for help and free treatment.

Xmas with Chinese Characteristics (中国特色的圣诞节总)

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Xmas has been historically linked in China, with European imperialism and colonialism, from a past destructive era that saw the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches of the West, seek to destroy indigenous Chinese religion and culture. This process of ‘conversion’ invariably involved the very worst aspects of gun-boat diplomacy, and the forced signing of ‘unequal’ treaties.  At a time that saw the power of the Chinese government weakened or removed from whole swathes of the Chinese population, with those people being left unprotected by the Chinese imperial State, and subjected to brutal Western subjugation and control. The Western Christian authorities used to buy-up all the local supplies of rice, and then only give-out food to those Chinese that ‘converted’ to the Christian faith – hence the term ‘rice Christians’.  Today, Communist China is ‘free’ of Western, imperialist control, and interacts through conditions of its own choosing.  The US has been trying to destroy Communist China for decades, using closer trade links and encouraging the Chinese diaspora to ‘Westernise’ through embracing capitalism and Christianity.  This policy has also been applied to Mainland China – but its impact has been very slight, as the Chinese people that rule themselves, want neither capitalism nor Christianity.  This attitude of self-determination is directed by the Communist Party of China, that is well aware of the US attempt to sway the Chinese populace through bourgeois propaganda. As a result, in some parts of China (but by no means all), the outward manifestations of a secular Xmas might be celebrated in a limited manner, but firmly within the non-Christian context of Chinese culture. Xmas (like Christianity) is not popular in China, despite Western propaganda to the contrary.  Wherever Father Christmas manifests within China, it must be in a secular manner relevant to Chinese culture, and in no way serve as a platform for the penetration of bourgeois cultural norms into Mainland China. This is because Western religion has historically always aligned itself with predatory capitalism, and its presence in any non-Western country has served as a prelude to the importation of capitalism and the destruction of culture and self-determination.  The placing Santa beards, for instance, on national treasures, is considered the height of bourgeois decadence and racism.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

 

%d bloggers like this: