The psychological difference between the British and the Chinese empires
Thursday, June 25, 2009 E-Mail this story Free Headline Alerts
More and more Americans have been asserting more and more confidently that "China's drive for world domination" is a sheer invention. Some of them suggest taking England as an example. It is true that the territory of England accounted for a small percentage of that of the British Empire (1901-1939), into which England had expanded. But then the British Empire disappeared, as did the word "colony" itself. Why, China has not yet even expanded itself into the colonial Chinese Empire!
What is crucial in this case is the sociopolitical chasm between the post-1949 China and England. The territorial expansion of England was not a life-or-death matter for the government of England. Hence the British Empire disappeared.
The trouble is that many Americans who were never inhabitants of a country like post-1949 China do not perceive the width and depth of a sociopolitical chasm between societies as is China today and those like England.
Part of this fundamental difference is that those who govern England-the Parliament, the King or Queen, the Prime Minister-are not threatened by Tiananmen-like or other uprisings, and in a global British Empire they would be no safer than they are now in England.
Those who govern England are safe because the population that they govern is protected against any victimization by those who govern. Now, in China, those who are in power can kill or torture to death anyone who is not in power. Practitioners of Falun Gong, a gesture language of good will, were initially shown to foreigners as Chinese exotica and later were tortured to death.
Owing to the contemporary means of transmission of information, many inhabitants of China are aware that outside China there are countries whose inhabitants are not slaves owned by those in power and destroyed by them like flies.
Or consider the fact that there are no general elections in China. Today few inhabitants of any country believe in Marxism-Leninism, which is the only justification of the advent to power of those in power in China today or their predecessors. Besides, why do they, and not some others, personify Marxism-Leninism? Even from this point of view, they are pure impostors.
Many Chinese conclude, due to the mass communications of information of today, that some foreign countries, condemned by the official propaganda of China, are good, while China is illegal, criminal, thrown back into slavery.
Unprecedented is the fact that in the past few years, over 54 million Chinese Communists quit the Chinese Communist Party. In "Soviet" Russia, not a single Communist ever dared challenge the dictator(s) so fearlessly, which warrants a side note about the strength of the Chinese love of freedom, contrary to stereotypes outside China.
When the present owners of China came to power, they could have offered a program of self-restraint (like the English Great Charter of 1215) and be elected. But now their cruelty has lasted for so long and has been so ruthless that the population will never believe them.
Many Chinese "state slaves" realize that they are living in a "slave state," while outside China there are magnificent free societies. The only way for those in power in China to be safe is to annihilate those enviable societies. Hence the "phenomenal growth of China's military might" to make the owner(s) of China the owner(s) of the world.
As the military power of China grows, those Americans who regard China's drive for world domination as an invention spread by China-haters, receive in the United States a more and more sympathetic attention, for what is more reassuring to the free countries than China as a second United States, complete with the "President of China" (no, not its top slave owner!)?
As for the owners of China, Marxism-Leninism teaches that all countries will be liberated and will constitute a single Communist Republic of the World. As of 2009, the slave soldiers of the Communist Republic of China are called "The People's Liberation Army." Their sacred goal is to liberate the world. The Marxist-Leninist basis of the present ideology of China has not been abolished-but it has not been conspicuous enough to be noticed in the free countries.
The word "appeasement" was applied to the appeasement of National-Socialist Germany, but it has never been applied to the appeasement of the "People's Republic of China." The population of Germany was too small compared with that of China to hope that any further industrial development would make it a military giant. In his Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote that Germany's westward thrust during the past war (WWI) was wrong and should be replaced by the eastward thrust. Indeed, he invaded (instead of developing his atom bombs) Stalin's Russia, was routed, and committed suicide. The owners of China, with its population of 1.3 billion, used as an army in both peace and war, have an enormous potential to develop China into the world's most militarily powerful country, complete with post-nuclear superweapons. The owners of China enjoy excellent relations with the governments of many free countries, which bless, even if silently, their capitalists to sell free countries for Chinese money.
While the free countries enjoy peace or are at war, the post-1949 China is always mobilized as at war, developing its military potential for the establishment of the Communist Republic of the World.
The drive of the owners of China to own the world is not a matter of their ideology, but a matter of their psychology, created by their justified fear that in the world today they might be overthrown by their slaves. For today, no country can be isolated from the outside world as it could be a thousand or five thousand years ago. Let us do everything in our power for the world not to become the world slave state of China Ñ let China become part of a world, in which countries are either free or semi-free and fighting for a fair general election or other components of freedom.