India’s Embrace of (Eurocentric) Anti-China Racism and the Dalai Lama

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Friends: 14th Dalai Lama (left) and Fascist Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi

China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) invaded North-East India in late 1962 and successfully annexed a disputed geographical border area (set under the British imperialist rule of India), but which had been historically considered part of China. This was a consequence of India’s government siding with European racism and US imperialism in the Tibetan area of China. Following the CIA’s infiltration of the Tibetan area of Communist China – the 14th Dalai Lama – a man who had been personal friends with a number of Nazi German fugitives hiding-out in Tibet during WWII – took the side of Eurocentric racism and US imperialism, and despite being given every freedom and aspect of material support for the Tibet people – he allowed the CIA to mislead a large number of Buddhist monks (who had taken vows of non-violence) – and train these monastics in the use of fire-arms with the intention of murdering Tibetan governmental officials, any Tibetans who supported China, any Tibetans married to Chinese people (together with their ‘mixed race’ families), any and all Chinese officials, anyone with any association with China, or who held any leftwing political views. This CIA infiltration broke-out into overt violence in 1959 and was immediately put-down by the local Tibetan Authorities (who did not view the 14th Dalai Lama as the ‘leader’ of Tibet), and elements of the PLA (requested by the local Tibetan Authorities). By and large, ordinary Tibetans were not involved, and there was no popular support for the 14th Dalai Lama or his small group of dissident lamas. In fact, so unpopular was his antics that he had to leave the country (assisted by the CIA), being granted refugee status in a pro-Western India – that with US backing started agitating on the India-China border – trying to take land with the probable intention of invading China on behalf of the US (and re-establishing capitalist oppression in that country). Although India had gained its Independence from Britain in 1947 (where it became a highly oppressive ‘capitalist’ liberal democracy in its own right – riddle with crime, religious bigotry, caste discrimination and abject poverty) – its military structure (and its command and control system) remained distinctly ‘British’ for decades and was considered at the time to be a force to be recommend with. This is why the CIA made the mistake of entrusting the Indian Army with the objective of de-stabilising China and bringing-down its Communist System. As matters transpired, China’s PLA swept aside the Indian Army with a relative ease – attaining all its military objectives in around one month of military activity. The PLA suffered only 722 casualties – whilst the Indian Army suffered around 10,000 casualties (including those listed as ‘missing’). This humiliating defeat put an end to the CIA considering the use of the Indian Army as being a viable option for attacking Communist China. In the 1990’s, India signed a number of agreements with China ‘stabilising’ the disputed border region.

Generally speaking, Mao Zedong was against any war with India on the grounds that the ordinary Indian people (just like the ordinary Chinese people) had been the victims of Eurocentric racism and imperialism for centuries prior to Independence. The 1962 Sino-Indian War had to be fought not between the ordinary Chinese people and the ordinary Indian people (which collectively form substantial sections of the International Working Class) – but between the Chinese section of the proletariat (which had successfully ceased control of the means of production) and the Indian bourgeoisie which had took-over control of the governance of the Indian masses from the British – and had continued to pursue purely capitalist and regressive social, cultural, economic, religious, military and political objectives in the region. This still remains the situation today (with the exception of the successful Communist government in the Kerala area of South India, and leftist influences in one or two other areas), with millions of ordinary Indian people living in abject poverty. This situation went from dire to disastrous in 2016, when the rightwing and fascistic ‘Bharatiya Janata Party’ (BJP) was elected to power in India. Like any liberal democracy, many working class people feel alienated from the bourgeois political system and therefore do not participate in it as a means of ‘resistance’ to it. This often results in the better educated bourgeoisie (who understand the power of the ‘vote’) continuously electing governments that represent their own – greed-orientated – class interests. The BJP added to all this bourgeois hypocrisy with their own particular brand of religious (i.e. ‘Brahmanic’) bigotry and caste discrimination. The BJP considers the wealth of the higher castes to be ‘god given’, and the poverty of the masses to also be ‘god give’ – so from the BJP perspective, India’s massive disparity in wealth (and grinding poverty) is perfectly natural and there is no need to alter it. Furthermore, the BJP very much associates itself with the Western ‘capitalist’ system and social inequality – which includes the embracing of racial hierarchies. This is why the BJP is a staunch ally of the US and has initiated a ‘new’ epoch of anti-China racism and pro-Tibetan antagonism. The official media of India is full of ‘fake’ anti-China stories that have taken-on a life of their own within Indian social media. I have been astonished (on more than one occasion). to witness intelligent Indian people that I know on social media – trumpeting BJP anti-China racism – and repeating news stories that are obviously ‘false’! Much of the anti-China film footage from these fake news stories is filmed in the US colony of Taiwan – where the Chinese language dialogue is different to that expected on the Mainland, the uniforms of the military are inaccurate, and the behaviour of the officials (or soldiers shown) is distinctly ‘non-Chinese’! Of course, lurking in the background to this nonsense is the duplicitous 14th Dalai Lama and his billionaire Hollywood chums – but I expected more from the ordinary Indian people.

Chinese Language References:

http://www.sohu.com/a/159173714_693763?qq-pf-to=pcqq.c2c

http://www.akxw.cn/news/war/304931.html

 

 

The Rightwing Limitations of Ken O’Keefe

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

I was recently asked what I thought of the rhetoric of the former US Marine (and First Gulf War Veteran) Ken O’Keefe. I must confess that I had not heard of him, and so headed to YouTube to spend a few days listening to his public lectures, speeches and media interviews, coupled with reading articles about him. On the surface, and at the first point of contact, Ken O’keefe appears to be truly ‘revolutionary’, but anyone of the left must show caution here. Ken O’keefe is certainly not leftwing, and quite often espouses an open admiration and association with the far-right neo-Nazi cause, once stating that the only thing Adolf Hitler did wrong was to withdraw Nazi Germany from the world banking system. Ken O’Keefe says this because he believes the Jewish holocaust never happened during WWII – and that Adolf Hitler was a victim of a world Jewish conspiracy. Ken O’Keefe claims to support the Palestinian cause (mimicking the attitude of the political left), but in so doing, he mistakenly equates Zionism (i.e. Jewish White Supremacy racism) with all Jewish people, and the Jewish religion. This is completely wrong. Many Jewish people in Israel ‘reject’ Zionism, as do thousands of Jews around the world. Zionism has nothing to do with the religion of Judaism, but was invented by a small number of White (secular) European Jews in the 19th century, and when combined with terrorism, was used as the justifying ideology underpinning the formation of the modern State of Israel and the subsequent (and ongoing) prosecution of the Palestinian people. In fact, so racist has been many of Ken O’keefe’s outbursts, that even Palestinian groups have stated publically that they reject his ‘anti-Semitism’, because they reject all forms of racism. Furthermore, for a man who makes an ample living by lecturing about how he has purportedly ‘seen through’ the conditionality of society and social programming through the US media, he nevertheless has stated that he believed as ‘true’ the supposed events of ‘Tiananmen Square’ in 1989 (reported by the same US media), apparently unaware that Wikileaks has made public the Reagan government’s diplomatic records (to and from the US Embassy in Beijing) stating that ‘nothing happened’ in Tiananmen Square – but that President Reagan ordered that the US and UK media networks were to (falsely) create a narrative that a ‘massacre’ had occurred (a deception supported by British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher). Of course, Ken O’Keefe is not alone in believing this nonsense (see Billy Bragg), but the fact that a man who presents himself as a revolutionary maverick fully supports the US establishment’s policy of anti-Chinese racism, is indicative of the limitations of his own perception, and exposes the true rightwing (anarchist) nature of his rhetoric. In reality he does not really support Palestine, but uses this situation to justify and support his anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish attitudes – pretending that he is somehow opposing ‘Zionism’. In reality, Ken O’Keefe is as racist as the Zionism he claims to be fighting. Jewish people are not, and have never been the problem – the problem is Zionist racism! Many groups and associations that invite Ken O’keefe to talk are rightwing and a priori anti-Socialist – again mistakenly associating world Judaism with Marxism – as if the two are the same – or that both are somehow deficient! This is pure neo-Nazi rhetoric which must be clearly discerned when listening to the range of Ken O’Keefe’s otherwise anti-establishment outbursts!

Wikileaks: no bloodshed inside Tiananmen Square, cables claim

Anti-Zionist Jewish Network

China: Yulin Dog Meat Festival Not ‘Officially’ Sanctioned by Government (10.6.2014)

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Original Chinese Language Text By: http://news.sina.com.cn

(Translated by Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD)

See Also: China: Anti-Eating Dogs & Cats Law – 5000 Yuan Fine & 15 Days Imprisonment

Translator’s Note: Here, the Local Government responsible for managing the Yulin City area, issues an official communique rejecting any and all allegations that it is responsible for the ‘Yulin Dog Festival’, or that it facilitates such an activity through any of its departments or social services. The Yulin Local Government, of course, part of the regional representation of the Communist Party of China (CPC), would have only issued such a statement of ‘legal’ denial, if it had been sanctioned by the Central Government in Beijing. Therefore, this local statement may be responsibly taken to reflect the viewpoint of the CPC National Government. Chinese language texts state that dog meat is eaten in ‘North Korea, South Korea, Vietnam and some European countries’, and that the opposition to it in China stems from the influence of foreign religions – or other politically motivated Eurocentric organisations, that attack China’s political system indirectly through various aspects of established Chinese culture. Dog meat is generally considered ‘yang’ or of ‘hot energy’, which is considered ‘bad’ for consumption at any other time of the year – as it is believed to create ‘anger’ in the blood of the eater. However, it is also believed that on the evening of the Summer Solstice (at 6pm), the heat is so strong in the area that it cancels-out the ‘heat’ in the dog meat – thus revealing its healing properties to humans. This is more a superstition than Chinese science, and is an idea that today has been seized upon by one or two profit-minded individuals. The bigger picture in China is that many Chinese people pursue an Animal Rights agenda that is internally effective, and has no direct contact with its Western counter-parts, primarily due to the inherent racist attitudes in certain strands of it. Lastly, Buddhism in China demands that its followers are completely vegetarian, and this means many Chinese people routinely eat no meat at all. ACW 19.5.2017

News from Southern China: The Municipal Government of the Yulin City area of Guangxi province, recently issued a statement through the Yulin News Network, stating that the so-called ‘Summer Solstice Lychee Dog Meat Festival’ is not ‘officially’ sanctioned or ‘recognised’ by any of its departments, and is not a (legally) sanctioned national holiday. Therefore, this activity is a spontaneous ‘folk’ activity perpetuated by certain local people in the area, that was once just a local tradition, but which has now become distorted and motivated only by monetary ‘profit’. In fact, neither the Yulin City Government, nor any of its civil organisations, encourages or facilitates this behaviour, and certainly does not ‘officially’ support any form of ‘Summer Solstice Lychee Dog Meat Festival’.

Historically, this is a local tradition which states that if dog meat and lychee fruit are eaten together at the same time on the Summer Solstice, the meal can cure and prevent disease. These ideas developed out of poverty in the old days, where once a year local people would eat dog meat during the time lychee fruit ripened. For many, this was the only time any meat was available (with dog meat being considered medically bad for consumption at any other time of the year) – but today – due to the greed of a few misled people, this activity has grown into a money-making business.

©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2017.

Original Chinese Language Text:

http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2014-06-10/055030327083.shtml

广西玉林否认官办狗肉节 称只是民间的说法

南都讯 广西玉林市政府日前在玉林新闻网发布声明,称所谓“夏至荔枝狗肉节”只是个别商家和民间的一种说法,其实并不存在这个节日。玉林市政府或任何社会组织都没有举办过任何形式的所谓“夏至荔枝狗肉节”活动。

所谓的“夏至荔枝狗肉节”,是在广西玉林当地,民间有“吃了夏至狗,西风绕道走”的说法,意思是在夏至食用狗肉,能抵抗疾病入侵。夏至期间正值鲜荔枝上市,当地还有“荔枝就狗,越吃越有”的说法,逐渐就被叫成了“夏至荔枝狗肉节”。

(原标题:广西玉林否认官办“狗肉节”)

(编辑:SN086)

Black African History Restored

Portrait of Gertrude Caton Thompson

Gertrude Caton Thompson

This documentary describes the power of racism – a very dangerous but addictive myth – that together with ‘literalist’ religion, has conspired to usurp, hide, obscure and even destroy the facts of material history. When modern (White) Europeans arrived in Africa prior to, during and after the Industrial Revolution, they ascribed their technological advantage to a god-concept ‘blessing’ the White race (rather than acknowledging human intellect and human labour, the real driving forces of the Industrial Revolution). Africa was (falsely) depicted as being ’empty’ of history, and a continent peopled by backward primitives. Any archaeology that contradicted this racist view (and there are many), were either suppressed, or interpreted as the product of ancient White settlers who had travelled to Africa hundreds or thousands of years ago. This quite frankly ‘weird’ take on African culture was further compounded by the stupidity of assuming that ancient Africa was somehow physically linked to Old Testament stories – again more imagination.  Apparently, Europe had traded with Africa prior to the Industrial Revolution (often with Arab merchants as middlemen), and much of the gold and ivory that fuelled the European Renaissance is now thought to have originated in and around Zimbabwe. Europeans have been lied to by their ancestors, and modern Europeans must throw-off these out-dated and out-moded (racist) interpretations of history, and psychologically and physically start studies anew. Early White colonialists even created the lie that Blacks and Whites had arrived in Southern Africa ‘together’, and that prior to this, there was no Black-African presence. The residing Black-Africans must have thought the violent and ignorant White settlers to be truly insane. On the other hand, the British Feminist – Gertrude Caton Thompson (1888-1985) – one of the first female archaeologists in the UK, led an all-woman team on behalf of the British Academy in 1928, on a quest to objectively study the ‘true’ or ‘real’ origins of Zimbabwe. Thompson rejected the racist ‘White’ interpretation, and the Old Testament gloss, and proceeded from the study of objective facts. Thompson uncovered vast (and ‘new’) archaeological finds in and around ancient Zimbabwe, proving that there were many and numerous different types of ancient African cultures – all apparently feudal in nature – but able to build large rock buildings and structures of religious and political significance. This was augmented by stratified social strictures, military formations, voluntary labour (people work 7 days a month free of charge to honour the king), and there was much sophisticated metal work, jewellery making, and stone-caving. Of course, African people already knew this, and did not require a European woman to tell then their own history, but for ‘White’ Europeans, the work of Thompson has been essential as a ‘corrective’ to otherwise highly ridiculous and racist interpretations. All African gold was owned by the African kings, and only used (together with ivory) strictly in trading with civilisations outside of Africa (which included Europe, the Middle East and China). The internal currency appears to have been the exchange of cattle – with those owning the most cattle being considered the most influential and successful. At one-time (during the 15th century CE), the Africans (Swahili) also sent a giraffe to China – causing great surprise and admiration at the imperial court. As Africa boomed, impressive town and cities developed all-over the continent – including East Africa (prior to Arab domination of the area).  Following African people converting to Islam, it was assumed that ‘Arabs’ had built the beautiful and ornate mosques (and other structures), but recent archaeological discoveries (made by the British academic Mark Horton) suggests this is wrong and just as ‘racist’ in nature as the ‘White’ imaginings. According to Mark Horton, it was Swahili Africans that conceived, built, maintained and prayed in the great mosques of East Africa – that only much later were taken over by Arabs. Eventually, of course, despite the greatness of African culture, a time came when this culture started to decline. This decline was almost complete by the 15th century CE – just prior to the arrival of the first Europeans.

Elliot Rodger: Bourgeois Excess, Racism, Mental Illness & Self-Hating Gayness

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

‘Full Asian men are disgustingly ugly and white girls would never go for you. You’re just butthurt that you were born as an Asian piece of shit, so you lash out by linking these fake pictures. You even admit that you wish you were half white. You’ll never be half-white and you’ll never fulfil your dream of marrying a white woman. I suggest you jump off a bridge.’

‘How could an inferior, ugly black boy be able to get a white girl and not me? I am beautiful, and I am half white myself. I am descended from British aristocracy. He is descended from slaves.’

My Twisted World: The Story of Elliot Rodger

Elliot Rodger (B. 1991) is an example of a mixed-ethnicity person brought-up exclusively within the dominant culture of the White parent. This reality is invariably a recipe for disaster defined through a varying scale of dysfunctionality (possessing poles of ‘socially acceptable’ eccentricity, to ‘socially destructive’ insanity). Elliot Rodger’s British father – Peter Rodger – is a successful and very wealthy film director who has worked on the Hunger Games, as well as other features. His mother is recorded as ‘Li-Chen’ – a woman of Chinese-Malaysian descent – who first came to the UK to work as a nurse in the movie industry. Before marrying Peter Rodger, Li-Chen had a relationship with George Lucas. Despite being looked after by his Chinese mother and grandmother as a young child, Elliot Rodger was nevertheless brought-up within the middle class world of White privilege. He had a stream of ‘nannies’, went on regular and expensive holidays around the world, lived in exclusive and large houses, and attended British public school before his family emigrated to live in the US when he was around 6 years old. Once settled in the US, his life of bourgeois privilege continued unabated – attending elitist educational establishments and having his every whim catered for. During that time he subconsciously ingested the implicit tenants of White racism which were to blight his life and contribute toward his mental illness. As a non-White person living in a White world, he experienced White bourgeois culture in a ruptured and contradictory manner. Whereas White people implicitly accept the myth of their own racial superiority without question – premised upon the pseudo-science that all other races are inferior – those of mixed-ethnicity live in the contradictory world of being ‘White’ on the one-hand (and ‘included’), and ‘non-White’ on the other-hand (and ‘excluded’).

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

This is the exact opposite to the ‘internationalist’ or ‘multicultural’ principle which seeks an ‘equal interaction’ between different ethnicities in a neutral and mutually re-enforcing political, economic, social and cultural space. As a consequence of his monochrome upbringing (with only a nodding acquaintance with Chinese culture), Elliot Rodger experienced his White and bourgeois privileged existence as an eternally ‘rejected’ outsider. His Chinese ethnicity became not something to be proud of, but rather something immensely ‘negative’ in his mind, that constantly reminded him of the fact that he was not ‘fully’ White. This was his perceived and fundamental ‘first’ failure that he never possessed the insight to understand. As his father lived the life of a jet-setting film maker, Peter Rodger was never at home, meaning that son was continuously in the presence of women. Just as his father (who was absent) managed to successfully secure an ‘exotic’ bride, Elliot Rodger became obsessed with women to the point of delinquent narcissism and misogyny. As a Chinese outsider viewing his own White life, he was able to clearly ‘objectify’ his privileged upbringing, mistaking material possessions and wealth with biological and emotional ‘attractiveness’. His ‘self-hatred’ (for being ‘Chinese’) was palpable, and resulted in him giving vent to White (Eurocentric) racial prejudice – the very same prejudice that had made his life a misery through excluding him psychologically from full inclusion within his own privileged class. Having read his words and watched his videos, I am of the opinion that Elliot Rodger was a self-hating ‘gay’ within a community that followed a strict heterosexual narrative. Rather bizarrely, he hated women for not being amorously attracted to his ‘gayness’. Ironically, his gayness, which was designed to attract men, was clearly designed to repel all female interest. He also ‘hated’ being culturally ‘attracted’ to Chinese people, as it reminded him of his ‘Whiteness’, even though he thought that Whiteness was superior to Chineseness. Neither Elliot Rodger, his father or his mother possessed any obvious class consciousness or progressive political ideas. Elliot Rodger was brought-up in a Eurocentric and monochrome cultural environment that excluded the possibility of any other way of viewing the world. Where he should have been ordering his thoughts and distinguishing the correct path for himself, he decided to externalise his inner feelings of alienation and ‘kill’ people that he thought were responsible for the emotional turmoil he felt. Watching the videos, Elliot Rodger is obnoxious and self-absorbed – but so is the bourgeois class that spawned him. He did nothing positive with his privileged life other than moan and complain about every issue that contradicted how he felt the world should be. He is responsible for his murderous action, that is not in doubt, but he is also the product of a highly exploitative White culture of privilege premised upon wealth, which his Chinese mother accessed through marriage. Within this marriage there was no ‘equality’ of cultural worth, only institutional greed and self-indulgence. Elliot Rodger turned-out to be a mass murderer and a useless human being, but these facts should not distract us from an objective assessment of the socio-economic conditions that created him. On May 23rd, 2014, in Isla Vista, California, Elliot Rodger (22) killed six people (three stabbed and three shot) and injured fourteen others, near the campus of University of California, Santa Barbara. Three of the murdered victims were of Chinese ethnicity, as were around four of the injured. When police officers approached his care, he shot himself in the head (taking his own life).

References:

My Twisted World Pt 1 – Elliot Rodger – BasedShaman

http://murderpedia.org/male.R/r/rodger-elliot.htm

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Elliot_Rodger

http://dailyentertainmentnews.com/breaking-news/elliot-rodger-day-retribution-shooter-santa-barbara/

http://dailyentertainmentnews.com/breaking-news/lichin-chin-rodger-santa-barbara-killer-elliot-rodgers-mother/

Jennifer Pan (2010)

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Jennifer and brother Felix follow a Buddhist monk during the funeral of their mother (2010)

On the Chinese language search engine ‘Baidu’ there are a handful of articles discussing the case of Canadian-born Chinese woman Jennifer Pan (born in 1986) – who was sentenced to life imprisonment in late 2014, for her part in hiring hit-men to murder her parents in late 2010. Also imprisoned for their part in the crime were Jennifer’s on-off boyfriend Daniel Wong, and the three hired assassins. Initially, Jennifer presented the murder of her mother and the attempted murder of her father, as an armed robbery gone wrong – painting herself as a ‘lucky’ victim, but as intelligent as the western media painted this young woman to be, the plans she made for the murders, and all the people involved in it, were stored in the records of the group’s text messages to one another. The articles in the Chinese language about this case are not from Mainland China, but appear to be straight translations of the typical English narratives prevalent in the West, and arise from the Chinese diaspora. What is interesting is the complete lack of ‘Chinese’ criticism of the Eurocentric reporting of this tragic case. Much, if not all of this Western narrative arises from the book written by Canadian journalist Jeremy Grimaldi who attended the trial, but such is the lack of genuine (and ‘ethnic’) Chinese input into the analysis of this case, that Jennifer’s Chinese family name of ‘Pan’ (潘) never appears in any English language text, as of course, it has to within Chinese language texts. In fact, ‘Pan’ (潘) is an ancient Chinese clan name that carries much historical import within Chinese culture. However, even where diasporic Chinese people do attempt an article (in English) about Jennifer Pan, they tend to stay within the confines of the Eurocentric narrative and offer nothing particularly insightful except for platitudes and stereotypical anecdotes.

The Eurocentric view of Chinese people living in the West is a priori racist, and this establishes the priority of Western culture over that of Chinese culture, and the European ethnicity over that of the Chinese ethnicity. Chinese people living in the West face the paradox of having their ethnicity disparaged whilst being institutionally ‘forced’ to conform to European standards of behaviour. The ‘rupture’ around which this process takes place is that of ‘White’ society subsuming all other cultures into itself (in a domineering fashion) whilst simultaneously ‘excluding’ all other ethnicities from being ‘equal’ members of that ‘White’ society. Therefore, Chinese people living in the West, regardless of their poverty or richness, or their low or high status, are never fully ‘accepted’ into Western culture, and live on its periphery whilst abiding within its very heart. For Western Chinese people, diasporic existence (I will not call it ‘living’), is one of permanent exclusion and alienation, whilst pursuing a policy of survival that sees a continuous attempting at appeasing the very Eurocentric culture that rejects them. This might be termed a ‘schizophrenic’ existence which often sees diasporic Chinese people internalise the Western racism of ‘hating’ all things associated with Mainland China. This is why Western narratives written by diasporic Chinese people about Jennifer Pan, do not ‘challenge’, but rather ‘re-enforce’ the Eurocentric interpretation of the case.

Whereas Mainland China has thoroughly rejected the old feudal models of strict Confucianism that used to dominate Chinese society, the diasporic Chinese communities by and large retain various versions of this redundant lifestyle whilst living in the modern world, and Jennifer Pan’s parents were no exception to this. Together they inflicted a ruthless and oppressive lifestyle upon their children that would be considered ‘abuse’ if it were found within a ‘White’ family – and yet Western and Chinese diasporic narratives tend to ‘eulogise’ this barbarity as if it where something good! This is typical of a particular form of bourgeois racism which sentimentalises visions of the ‘other’, and projects an imagined ‘nobility’ upon terrible cultural practises that have no inherent worth in the modern world, and which cause extreme suffering to those subjected to them. Since 1949, modern China has ‘rejected’ all these antiquated methods that designed to mentally and physically ‘force’ children to remember facts they do not understand, and pass tests that have no meaning to them. This parrot-fashion accumulation of facts is not learning, but the forced ingestion of data. Such a process is both backward and highly damaging to the ‘normal’ psychological and physical development of the individual, and does not benefit society as a whole. Education within modern China is a collective effort that benefits society, and which does not regress into the quagmire of selfish individualism.

Whilst the Western and diasporic narrative sentimentalises child abuse, the fact remains that such a redundant method of ancient Chinese culture does not work in the modern world, and this can be seen through the sheer tragic stupidity of Jennifer Pan and her associates. What was she thinking – and why on earth did four men assist in her plan without questioning it? Of course, the Western media paints Jennifer Pan in a racist light, but one which is subtle and not obvious to all but the highly observant. The immorality of her actions are not in dispute (despite the fact that she never pulled the trigger), but when this story hit the news stands, Jennifer Pan became the new face of the racist ‘yellow peril’ phenomenon in the West, that painted all Chinese people as being ethnically and culturally deficient and decadent in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. This Western attitude simply assumes that as all Chinese people are ‘weird’, what else could you expect? What is shocking is how the Chinese diasporic community falls in-line with this Eurocentric racism and never questions it. Such an infantile attitude surely lays the long-term foundation for the next appalling crime committed by a Chinese person living in the West. Only the strict application of logic and reason will extract the Chinese diaspora from this quagmire of racism, and this process requires a ruthless deconstruction of ALL racist narratives.

English Language Reference:

http://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/books/article/2043688/murder-toronto-and-dark-side-asian-immigrant-dream

http://torontolife.com/city/crime/jennifer-pan-revenge/

Chinese Language references:

http://edu.sina.com.cn/a/2015-07-31/1708262067.shtml

http://news.sohu.com/20161204/n474904562.shtml

 

 

 

 

 

 

NASA’s Racist Pioneer 10 Probe (1972)

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000005

As the Soviet Union was leading the Space Race, the US had been ideologically forced to begrudgingly spend millions of dollars (for no discernible return of financial profit), in attempting to prove that ‘capitalism’ was better than ‘Communism’. This type of particular US childishness was defeated at every single-step by Soviet science – and when the US landed men on the Moon – the Soviets immediately switched their resources into building a permanent space station in earth’s orbit, a technological advance they eventually achieved in 1972. (The Soviets had developed a sophisticated Moon Landing programme, but were too concerned about the safety of the Cosmonauts involved, to rush the mission). So worried were the US that the Soviets might send a probe into deep space carrying a hammer and sickle emblem explaining that ‘Communism’ was the most advanced ideology upon planet earth, that they immediately co-opted the bourgeois (capitalist supporting) scientific community in the West, to assist in the design and development of what became known as the ‘Pioneer 10’ deep-space probe, and which was launched on March 2nd, 1972. Its mission was to be the first spacecraft to pass through the asteroid-belt between Mars and Jupiter, and the first to pass close to Jupiter. It would also become the first humanity-derived technology to leave the solar system and travel into deep space. This being the case, Carl Sagan (and others) designed a 6 inch by 9 inch gold-anodised (aluminium) plaque bearing the sun and planets of earth’s solar system, together with pulsar and hydrogen information presented in such a manner so as to assist an alien species (possibly millions of years in the future), to understand the time of launch of the probe, and where it was launched from.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Sagan also included two (naked) human figures both of ‘White’ European (i.e. ‘Caucasian’) physiognomy. NASA’s unbelievable explanation of this depiction was that it ‘represents’ the type of person that developed the technology that made Pioneer 10 possible. In reality, what NASA, Carl Sagan, his wife Linda, (and astrophysicist Frank Drake) had sent into deep space, was proof of the US ‘White’ racism that was dominant during the 20th century. Can it seriously be true that there was no Black, Chinese or Asian input into this project at any level of its development? Even so, why should a multicultural society – such as the USA – portray itself as ‘White’ when this is blatantly untrue? Moreover, there are many different ethnic groups on the planet that are not represented by two obviously ‘White’ Americans. Finally, the USSR was not interested in this type of venture, as it was viewed as being a product of a religiously motivated and ‘inverted’ mind-set always seeking the ‘mysterious’ (god-like) other. Such an endeavour was useless for the progression of proletariat science and the collective uplifting of society as a whole. In short, the Soviets viewed Pioneer 10 as a bourgeois fetish.

Hegel and the Yijing (I Ching)

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

I was researching the Yijing on the Chinese language internet recently, and I came across this fascinating quote attributed to the 19th century German philosopher GW Hegel:

‘黑格尔曾经说过:“《易经》代表了中国人的智慧,就人类心灵所创造的图形和形象来找出人之所以为人的道理,这是一种崇高的事业。’

Presumably, this is a Chinese translation from the original German language text attributed to Hegel – possibly an extract from his ‘Philosophy of History – where he discusses the ‘I Ching’.  This extract can be translated as:

‘Hegel once said: “The Book of Changes represents the wisdom of the Chinese people, and it is a lofty undertaking to find out the reasoning of man as human beings (acting within a physical world), through the construction of graphs and images created by the human mind.”‘

Although I have not accessed a contemporary English translation of this extract, on the face of it, Hegel’s opinion of this ancient Chinese ‘wisdom’ text, seems to be both succinct and precise. Not only this, but Hegel appears to be highly respectful of Chinese culture, but further research on my part reveals quite a different picture. I have encountered Hegel primarily through the work of Karl Marx (a former Young Hegelian), who ruthlessly ‘critiqued’ Hegel as being a redundant ‘idealist’, who embodied the very essence of the bourgeois ‘inverted’ mind-set (which has its origin in the theology of the Judeo-Christian religion, and which specifies the material world miraculously emerged out of spirit).  Marx favoured the use of dialectics to establish reality, but stated that Hegel’s view of that reality was ‘distorted’ due to his historical Judeo-Christian conditioning (which he had failed to ‘breakout’ from). This judgement held true – Marx said – even if Hegel thought himself a ‘secularist’.

It transpires that Hegel was analysing the I Ching briefly, as part of his general policy of lecturing on the ‘supremacy’ of Eurocentric thought over that of other cultures, including India and China.  Obviously, this form of rhetorical racism, served as a philosophical underpinning of European imperialism and colonialism.  The fact that both Indian and Chinese culture is far-older in its sophistication and achievements than anything in Europe, has to be ignored for racism to be the defining aspect of interpretation. The Buddha’s use of a ‘pristine’ logic’, for instance, probably pre-dates its Greek equivalent, and may well have influenced the Greek development. If this is correct, then it was the Buddha’s ‘logic’ that spread to Greece and into Europe proper, eventually arriving at Hegel himself.  Even if this isn’t the case, alternative Asian and Chinese forms of ‘logic’ (like that found in ancient Egypt and other parts of Africa), must be judged within its own historical context, including the often stunning achievements such systems of thought encouraged and sustained.  In this regard, Hegel is wrong to label Chinese culture ‘superficial’ in its philosophical thinking, as it bears no association with the proper academic assessment of history, cultural development, politics, sociology or economics.  Despite explaining exactly what the Yijing is (quite ingeniously), Hegel, nevertheless, is uttering an ‘ahistorical’ statement which is deliberately ‘cut-off’ from the rest of world history.  Ironically, this example serves to expose the ‘irrational’ nature of Eurocentric racism (which is ‘illogical’ in the extreme).

The Eurocentric Racism Aimed at Miss Helsinki (2017)

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

MISS HELSINKI -VOITTAJA SEPHORA IKALABA: PARISUHTEENI KESTÄÄ LÄPI MISSIVUODEN!

00-miss-helsinki

Not long after the 1917 Communist Revolution in Russia, Finland was given its independence from Russia, by Lenin.  The capitalist West then used Finland as a spring-board for all kinds of counter-revolutionary activity during the Russian Civil War and after.  In the early 1930’s, Finland entered into an alliance with Hitler’s Nazi Germany and assisted that despicable regime’s invasion of the USSR in the 1940’s.  Finland has always been a hot-bed of rightwing racism and xenophobia. With the collapse of Soviet Communism in 1991, and the mass importation of capitalism and neo-Nazism, a number of Russians now share Finnish racist attitudes (despite Russia losing 27 to 40 million people fighting fascism during WWII). This normalising of racism in Eastern Europe with the racism of Western Europe, has been most evident in the reception of the result of a beauty pageant held in Helsinki – Finland.  The internet in Russia and the West has been abuzz with the most vicious and hate-filled racism imaginable, following victory of  Sephora Ikalaba (a 19 year old African migrant), who was voted ‘Miss Helsinki’ 2017. White racists from across Europe have gone online to ‘protest’ the decision, and although writing in many languages, the racism expressed is always the same.  Sephora, so the racists state, is ‘ugly’, and was voted the winner because of ‘political correctness’, and not because of any merit she might possess.  The racists are of the opinion that all the ‘White’ contestants were far better ‘looking’, and that Sephora should not have won the competition.  Other racists raise the false issue of ‘White victim-hood’, and state that soon the White race will nolonger exist, or that White people will lose control of their countries, if such ‘multicultural’ results continue to occur.  Of course, none of these racists discuss that beauty pageants are demeaning to the women that participate in them, or that the women participating are being physically exploited.  With the collapse of Communist ‘Internationalism’, the racism of capitalism has become rampant throughout the former Soviet Union.  Although I am not interested in women being treated like slabs of meat (as if ‘looking’ a certain way constitutes an achievement in the real world), I support Sephora’s right to live in Finland and to participate ‘equally’ in all Finnish cultural activities.

Trumpism: The New Neo-Liberal Mythology

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

The first and primary rule of the capitalist system is that as a vicious, one-dimensional economic ideology, it will always protect itself, and present itself in the best expedient light. Although justifying capitalist ideology runs through endless cycles of ‘re-invention’ and ‘new’ perspective, the underlying reality of the pathological search for monetary profit and the political power it attracts, remains exactly the same, even if its surface nature twists and turns in its attempt to appear contemporary and relevant.  The simple fact of the matter is that those (as a distinct class) who possess control of the greater part of profit, also possess the decisive balance of political power. This is why, within liberal (capitalist) societies, capitalism can never be ‘voted’ out of power as part of a democratic process, but merely permits the electorate to ‘choose’ (every four or five years) who is to represent and administer the capitalist system in their name. This supposedly ‘democratic’ system ‘ropes’ everybody into the lie that ‘capitalism’ is the ideology of choice for the majority of voters.  In reality, capitalism is the ideology of choice of those in a society that already own the means of production and possess the greater part of the profit, and the corresponding majority of the political power. In other words, regardless of what politicians say to gain your vote, capitalism always wins.  The concept of ‘choice’ within the capitalist system is nothing other than a bourgeois sham.

What does this mean for the recent election of the billionaire Donald Trump to the Presidency of the United States of America?  It means that those who possess the most money within the capitalist system, have access to the greatest amount of political power.  The ‘new’ mythology developing throughout the political spectrum is that Donald Trump’s election is ‘unusual’, or marks some-kind of substantial ‘shift’ in the balance of capitalist power, or ideological emphasis amongst the electorate.  This idea of ‘specialness’ has infiltrated not only the political rightwing (which is to be expected, as Trump for this group, represents something akin to the second-coming of ‘White’, racist Christ), but has also permeated the (Marxist-Leninist) Communist and Socialist left.  This demonstrates the moribund nature of those who refer to themselves as ‘Revolutionaries’, or ‘Marxist-Leninists’, when in fact they are nothing but ‘fetish’ capitalists that use a form of leftist nostalgia to co-operate with the forces of capital, operating under the false flag narrative that the victory of capitalism is inevitable.  Of course, outside of this distorted interpretation of Marxist-Leninism, the Trotskyites have always adhered to this of co-operating with the forces of capitalism..  True Marxist-Leninist critique does not ascribe ‘specialness’ to any capitalist leader, regardless of that leader’s political views.  Capitalism as an ideology, is the enemy of the people it exploits, and all capitalist leaders are, by definition, exploiters of the people.

Capitalism was invented by rich, White Europeans, and has always favoured that class and ethnicity.  Non-Whites are tolerated providing they align themselves with Eurocentric ideology and ‘know’ their subordinate place within it (take the example of President Barak Obama – a Black man – who along with Hilary Clinton, presided over the Nazification of Eastern Europe, and allowed US police to embark upon an epidemic of the murder of unarmed Black men during his term in office).  The election of Donald Trump is not the ‘end’ of the neo-liberal, capitalist system, but rather its dramatic confirmation.  The USA is an institutionally racist country that routinely votes in White racists, or in the case of Barak Obama – an African-American who fully aligns himself with the Eurocentric project.  Why has there been so much ‘mock’ surprise and horror at the election of Donald Trump, when the same country has in the past elected the rightwing (and senile) Ronald Reagan (who reduced life in the real world to films he had once starred in), as well as the father and son Bush team, and of course the corrupt Bill Clinton?  Going back further, there was Harry Truman – a rightwing Christian bigot and architect of the Cold War.  US election history is strewn with examples of White, racist bigots elected to political office.  Making Donald Trump out to be something ‘special’ is the misreading of history, and the misuse of historical materialism.

Such a flawed analysis attempts to elevate Donald Trump to the status of religious martyr – nothing less than a White man standing up for the White race.  This ‘new’mythology suggests that the White race, after centuries of vicious imperialist expansion and colonisation, is ‘re-invented’ as some-how being the victim of its own success.  All of a sudden, the non-White victims of White imperialism are forced to ‘change places’ with their White oppressors without question.  Those whose hands firmly held the whip in the past, re-interpret their own history as being victims of the very whip they once held.  Donald Trump is not special in any historical manner.  He is symptomatic of the ‘inverted’ bourgeois mentality that turns reality upon its head.  White people are not the victims of imperialism, because as a class and an ethnicity, they are the perpetuaters of imperialism.  White people, as a class and an ethnicity, invented and applied ‘racism’ to all non-White peoples.  In the world that Donald Trump inhabits, it is the White race that is ‘beleaguered’ by its own political power and economic success.  The only distinguishing feature about Donald Trump is that he has been open and honest about his racism from start to finish.  This honesty is merely a matter of political expediency, and does not make Donald Trump ‘special’.  Nor does his election mean the end of the neo-liberal establishment – on the contrary – a White racist nation  has elected a White racist billionaire.  The excesses of capitalism cannot be ‘reformed’ out of existence, and the natural division of labour it practises (and the logical development of racism that division entails), cannot be legislated out of existence.  The election of Donald Trump is not an aberration, but rather a confirmation of the racist American system.

%d bloggers like this: