American 'partners' of the slave state China
Friday, December 4, 2009 E-Mail this story Free Headline Alerts
By Lev Navrozov
My Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (Tenth Edition, 1993) defines a "slave state" as a "nation, subjected to a totalitarian rule."
But I have never read or heard the expression "slave state" used today in this sense. Even the word "totalitarian," which originated in 1926, has been vanishing.
Common in the free West is the belief in social progress, according to which first, in antiquity, there existed slavery, then, in the Middle Ages, more progressive feudalism, then, in our time. . . . Here the "Communists," whose founder was Marx (1818-1883), have been saying that feudalism was followed by "capitalism," to be followed by "socialism," and then by "communism" (a paradise on earth all over the world). Anyway, non-Communists will also be likely to say that slavery does not exist today.
Oh, yes, it does! In WW2, the slave state of Germany defeated the free and modern France within six weeks, while the slave state of Stalin's Russia defeated the conqueror of France, and he committed suicide.
It is also often imagined in the West that a country begins a war because it is insulted, mistreated, offended. Hence to establish or keep peace, such a country must be treated politely, nicely, kindly.
But please note that the growth of China's military power became phenomenal after the Tiananmen movement of unarmed Chinese, calling for constitutionalism. What if dozens of millions of Chinese had joined the Tiananmen Constitutionalists as dozens of millions of Chinese withdrew from the "Communist Party of China"? What if the constitutional countries had helped them all to establish Constitutionalism?
The dilemma of the owners of China is simple: either they will occupy the entire world (that is, establish their world empire) or their power will be taken away from them. They own all the wealth in the country (including all inhabitants) and whatever the precious metals and stones stored in China can buy in other countries.
The "U.S.-China partnership" is not just Obama's personal insanity (or personal treason). Many American "top experts on China" have been expressing such views long ago, and probably the best known of them, Michael D. Swaine, printed an article on the subject in the "Washington Post" of May 18, 1997. At the time Swaine was the "Director of the RAND Center for Asia-Pacific Policy." In 2009, Yahoo! Reprinted his 1997 article under the title "Don't Demonize China."
Swaine does not even say whether China is, socially, a slave state or a free country. Any criticism of China makes it appear demonic Ñ like Hitler's Germany after its invasions.
Thus, according to Swaine, "purveyors of the China threat employ distortions, half-truths and in some cases, complete falsehood." Swaine considers 5 clusters of such demonic lies as five myths.
Myth No. 1 was created out of China's "attempt to intimidate Taiwan." Myth No.2: China is pursuing a crash program of military modernizationÉ" Myth No.3: China has already acquired advanced military systemsÉ" Myth No.4: Perhaps "China does not have patient offensive capabilities as yet," but will have them "within a decade." And Myth No.5: "China's modernization effort is primarily intended to challenge US capabilities across Asia."
Nowhere in the article there is even a hint that the social nature of the United States and that of the post-1949 China is as different as were those of the democracy of France and of the slave state of Germany when Germany routed France within six weeks. Any suspicion that the post-1949 China differs fundamentally from the United States or any other democracy demonizes China.
When it became publicly known in the United States that the U.S. 44th president would make a three-day visit to China, it was often forgotten that this would be a response of China to Obama's two-day reception in Washington of top Chinese officials and his declaration of the importance of the U.S.-China "partnership." The sensational event of Obama's visit was his talk with Shanghai students, namely, his "gentle critique of their country's approach to human rights," as the "Los Angeles Times" put it.
What? He demonized China?
Well, Obama's half-brother lives and wishes to live in China, though he has not a drop of Chinese blood. How many inhabitants of China are like he is? To them "human rights" are of no interest or are just a disorder, and the absence of those rights is the order.
Then the U.S. President Obama met with Hu, one of the owners of the slave state of China. Nothing became known about their meeting. No need to explain how dangerous for the United States is such an association of the U.S. presidents, visiting China on their own and meeting there on their own with whomever they want Ñ for example, (a? the?) chief of the gang ruling a slave state like a herd of domestic animals without any restrictions. Today no one is afraid to say that U.S. President Clinton was a traitor. But imagine U.S. President Clinton roving Ñ as a private person during his holiday Ñ in a country which is the most dangerous country to the survival of the United States and the other free countries. The post-1949 slave state of China cannot be demonized, but the free countries can be turned to dust by the slave state of China.
The social development from slavery, as in post-1949 China, to personal freedom, as in the United States and several other countries, has been neither simple nor easy. Thinkers of genius have been working on the subject of personal freedom or liberty. But here comes Obama, and those who have never read a sentence of those books of genius elect him as a genius in all fields of human endeavor, and he announces that the country of slavery and that of liberty are partners! The owners of a country of slavery (slave state) and the leaders (like Obama) elected in a country of personal freedom or liberty are partners!
Partners in what? In slavery or in freedom? Or in slavery and freedom? Those who are slave-owners, and those who are slaves and those who have elected in freedom their leaders or have been elected as such in freedom . . . they are all partners! In slavery Ñ freedom?