Kim Sung-il Praises the Soviet Red Army!


“If the Soviet Army had not liberated Korea – Kim Il Sung said, – there could not have been a free North Korea. Therefore, the Soviet Union’s victory in World War II opened a new page in the history of the Korean people. “

In the report of the meeting of representatives of democratic political parties, social organizations and administrative departments of the People’s Committees of North Korea – held on February 8, 1946 -Kim Il Sung said:

“After the heroic Soviet Army defeated the Japanese imperialists and liberated Korea, the situation in our country has changed radically forever. For the Korean people have gained their liberation and freedom, and have a bright future, and a powerful momentum on the path of building a democratic independent state.”

At the solemn meeting in honour of the 10th anniversary of the founding of the DPRK on September 8, 1958, Kim Il Sung said:

“With the liberation of Korea, the great Soviet Army freed us from the colonial yoke of Japanese imperialism, and consequently, our people have opened a wide road to national independence and democratic development of the country.”

At the Liberation Monument, built in the DPRK, in the Russian and Korean languages is written:

“Eternal glory to the great Soviet Army that liberated the Korean people from the yoke of Japanese militarists, and opened the way to freedom and independence.”

Russian Language Reference:


Taiwanese Communist Party Flag (台湾4个共产党)


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.


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.

Interpreting Ch’an – Basic Errors in Western Discourse


When a body of knowledge leaves its mother-culture and permeates into unfamiliar and very different cultures, errors of interpretation and understanding are bound to happen, and should be expected.  Of course, such errors do not exist only within Western discourse, which has tended to filter all new and incoming information not only through a Judeo-Christian rubric, (supplemented by a capitalist, political bias from around the middle of the 20th century onwards), but is also observable within various aspects of Japanese Buddhist discourse, particularly in relation to the ‘Japanese’ interpretation of ‘Chinese’ Buddhist history.  Whereas the erroneous Western discourse may be attributed in-part to cultural and historical differences, the Japanese erroneous discourse is primarily one of the deliberate ‘distortion’ of Chinese culture and identity, particularly since the Meiji Restoration of 1868, which saw a resurgent ‘nationalist’ Japan attempt to distance itself from its obvious Chinese cultural influences and origination.  This situation has been compounded by the fact that Western scholarship has chosen to follow the apparently ‘modern’ scholarship of Japan, with regard to interpreting and understanding Chinese history and culture, whilst refusing to ‘engage’ with Chinese scholarship, either ‘traditional’ (pre-1949), or ‘contemporary’ (post-1949).  This has created a situation whereby ‘Chinese’ history and culture has been inadequately interpreted by one culture (i.e. the ‘West’), through the erroneous scholarship of another (i.e. ‘Japan’), which is compounded by the fact that neither the West nor Japan are willing to admit the errors they have made (and continue to make) with regard to interpreting and understanding Chinese history and culture, and fully engage with Chinese academia to rectify these errors.

It goes without saying that every distinct cultural grouping possesses the right for self-determination, and, of course, self-interpretation, but with regard to China’s own distinct historical and cultural identity, the West and Japan appear unwilling to apply this most ‘liberal’ and common-sense attribute.  Prior to WWII, China appeared ‘distant’ even to those colonial Europeans who lived there.  The Confucian-based education system was designed to exclude most Chinese people, and it certainly was not open to those non-Chinese who did not understand its ethos and functionality. Although a small number of Western scholars did attempt to engage this old style Chinese academia, for the majority of Europeans It appeared opaque and impenetrable.  Japan, by way of contrast, whilst pursuing a racist nationalist policy throughout Asia, was willing to modernise its institutions along Western lines, and that included reforming its academia away from that of Chinese dominated Confucianism.  Part of this drive for cultural independence from China was the whole-sale rejection of Chinese history and culture.  Japan quite literally ‘invented’ a new identity for itself, whilst mimicking the West culturally and militarily (a policy that would ironically lead it into a direct and disastrous confrontation with the West).  After Japan’s defeat in 1945 (caused in part by the dropping of two atomic bombs by the US), and the success of Chinese Communism in 1949, the US quickly reactivated Japanese nationalism, albeit operating in a new framework of enforced liberal democracy and rampant, US-style capitalism.  The US pursued this policy to create a Japanese buffer-zone between Communist China and the rest of Asia.  From that ‘Cold War’ point onward, the US would not allow any correction of either its own, or Japanese scholarship relating to China, and actively encouraged further misrepresentation and distortion.  The idea of this policy was to ‘conflate’ everything ‘Chinese’ with everything ‘Japanese’, so that the ordinary Westerner could not tell them apart, and had no independent access to Chinese academia to check the claims.  Although the internet has allowed for theoretical access to Chinese history from China, the obvious language barrier prevents the average Westerner from being able to engage directly with authentic Chinese culture without the aid of reliable translation.  However, more and more good quality translation is slowly becoming available about China in the West, and this is breaking-up the US-Japan monopoly upon interpreting Chinese history and culture.

%d bloggers like this: