There are general national levels of the understanding of social problems. German men of genius could be outstanding philosophers. But to many Englishmen, for example, “National Socialism” in Germany, with Hitler and all, would have been impossible without the sociological illiteracy of most Germans. Marx was such an average German illiterate.
While browsing the Internet the other day, the following grabbed my attention: Lee Teng-hui’s visit to the United States in January of 2006, as reported by The Epoch Times and Taipei Times.
During his two-week tour of the United States, Lee Teng-hui, former president of the Republic of China (commonly known as Taiwan), “accused China of running a ‘slave state’ that uses the false promise of its booming economy to dupe the free world into appeasing its tyranny” (Taipei Times, Oct 23, 2005). And further: “…Lee called for capitalist nations to shun investment in China, which he likened to the 1930 appeasement policy towards German dictator Adolf Hitler and later Soviet leader Joseph Stalin.”
“Lee stated emphatically that ‘the battle between Slavery and Democracy has shifted to Asia … China uses slave labor to attract, like a powerful magnet, business investments from countries from all over the world … we are witnessing the abrupt rise of China, the last major bastion of communist dictatorship and so this region (Asia) takes center stage in the final confrontation between freedom and tyranny… If China continues to exploit and suppress its people at home and expand its military threats against the democratic neighbors … we will continue to witness the rise of a militarist hegemony.”
Lee called for “a quick rise of cooperation among free democracies against the communist military hegemony of China.” (The Epoch Times, Jan. 30, 2006.)
Lee’s speech at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion in downtown Los Angeles received a standing ovation from academics, business leaders, and the Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher, a longtime critic of China’s human rights record. (Referring to Hu Jintao’s recent visit to the U.S.A., he called Hu an “oppressor” and a “murderer,” and questioned why Obama was giving a respectful welcome to a “monstrous regime.”)
Congressman Dana Rohrabacher said that “it was time for Washington to stop pussy-footing around Beijing, adding that human rights were more important than business dollars” (Epoch Times Los Angeles Staff, Jan. 30, 2006).
Quite recently (May) congressman Rohrabacher introduced a bill to prevent the U.S. technology from getting its way “into the hands of the Communist Chinese military that is buying, building, and stealing the necessary military technology to challenge the United States.”
To go with the general world trend of devaluation of communism, the PRC made communism a kind of its secret faith, at the time when the world at large had already given up communism. What is real is that the PRC has 1 billion people more than does the United States, and another 1 billion people can well be expected ere long, judging by the time within which the first extra billion of people appeared in the PRC.
What lies ahead is the struggle of the United States against being converted into a slave society as an ally or part of the PRC if Obama, a loyal friend of the PRC, is elected for a second term.
The goal of the PRC is to convert all free countries into its slave states, which, at the very least, will be allied with the PRC or become part of it in its struggle for world domination, possibly as a Marxist (communist) society it was to be when Mao created it in 1949.
The United States, to say nothing of smaller and less powerful countries, will not be able to preserve its freedom and independence with President Obama as actually, if not formally or officially, a friend of the PRC.
Such are the possibilities of the future – not a wishful thinking, but a possible outcome of the contemporary realities.
The question is, in case PRC succeeds, will legally protected freedom preserve itself or will it evolve again as it has in some countries of today or will it disappear forever, never to come back?
Let us remember that the outcome of history largely depends on us, that part of humanity which created freedom in quite a few countries, with greater protections than ever before.
No, the freedom is not dead, and the question is whether it will survive or perish – possibly forever.