Why does China fear and detest democracy?

Why does China love emperors and (presently) dictators?

Dear Mishmael: " There will always be those who confuse their opinions for their morality."
This is gooooood.

East Versus West:

Confucius Vs Socrates.
High Power distance Vs Low Power distance.
Collectivism Vs Individualism.
Direct Communication Vs Indirect Communication

etc...

A great book, that maybe Pr iamsoconcernedaboutthehappinessoftheothers should read: "the Geography of Thoughts" by Nisbett.

" What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure... that just ain't so." (Mark Twain)

Democracy? China? East DOING West? Wei Shen me?

Can you actually answer my question, or do you think that Democracy is so obvious that it requires no justification whatsoever? Where is the fallacy in questioning it, or is it that you are afraid of what you might discover if you compared democracy with one-party rule? Instead of a defense of democracy, you resorted to sarcasm. I would love to be convinced of the merits of The ideas of Liu Xiaobo, but no one has yet shown me why it is preferable to be a follower of other nations' ideas rather than developing one's own narrative.

Mishmael, freedom is not "one nation's idea" but the right of everyone. Do you think the people of South Korea, Chile, or the Philippines want a return to the days of one-party (or one person) rule? And are they following "one nation's ideas" by today having multi-party democracy? The Chinese people deserve no less than Koreans, Chileans and Filipinos, and they will eventually fight (once again) for their rights as these others did. Some, such as Liu, are already engaged in that fight.

Incidentally, you have answered your own question: You yourself believe democracy is preferable to dictatorship since you live in a democratic country and are exercising your right to free speech by posting your opinions on this website. If you are truly unaware of the benefits of democracy, leave the democratic country you live in and go to... oh, say China... and try to carry on this debate there.

Ultimately, you do the Chinese people a disservice by claiming to speak for them yet denying them their right to be democratically represented.

@Parvos

You said that he should leave his democratic country -- but it certainly sounds to me that he _is_ Chinese and that he wrote his thoughts in China ... like I'm doing now. Democracy has nothing to do with being able to read and respond to anything you want on the web here in China -- "The Great Wall" is 90% fictional in my experience.

I hear many who share very similar hesitations to depart from the status quo in China. About the United States' system (I am a USer), there's not that much difference between the them. Uh, yes, the Tea Partiers get to dress funny. While the US enjoys greater freedom, the Chinese have much greater independence. And the level of freedom is changing rapidly.

Now you might be thinking that I am a Commie loving Socialist Anti-American pig, but hey, that's what freedom is for.

JJ

There is a difference between American values of individuality and Chinese values of collective well being. Chinese people, for instance, would never let the rights of some individual be brought up in their homicide trial. This is one value shared by some non-Western nations, as well as Japan. America's self-aggrandizing and declaring itself the arbiter of "universal values" is, to me and to people who think like me, a disguised form of hegemony. The nations you mentioned, like Chile and South Korea, have incidentally been the victims of American foreign intervention. Pinochet and Syngman Rhee are not exactly cuddly democrats, but ruthless supporters of American foreign policy.

The Chinese people deserve a competent government that is respective of their interests, not the populist, demagogic, rabble-rousing, ignorance-celebrating politics of America. As I have hinted before, I do not think there is anything inherently wrong with one-party rule so long as it delivers. I do not understand the fetishistic obsession with ineffective, showy democracy as displayed on C-SPAN.To be democratically represented is not a simple matter of picking the most popular ass-kisser, but of giving power to people you have confidence in.

You are evading the issue, Mishmael. The questions is whether you think that South Korea, Chile and the Philippines are *now* following "one country's ideas" because they have fought for and obtained democracy. You insist on describing democracy as something exclusively American, but that is a racist approach in light of the fact that many people throughout the world have struggled for it and today enjoy it.

Everyone agrees that cultural differences will always exist, who would be so foolish as to deny that? The problem is that you confuse American culture with democracy. Taiwan is a democracy, does that mean its people are not Chinese or don't have a Chinese system? Are Brazilians not authentically Brazilian because they have a democracy? Would Brazilians want to go back to dictatorship because it's a more "Brazilian system"?

It's the Chinese people who should decide their political system. And for that to happen they need to be able to express their political preferences, something which the CPC currently denies them through its one-party rule. To claim to speak for the Chinese people or defend Chinese culture by justifying the CPC's dictatorship and abuses of human rights is absurd.

Taipei Times

Editorials

Fri, Mar 12, 2010 - Page 8?

China shows signs of neo-fascism
By J. Michael Cole ???

With its strong emphasis on technology, the military, strong single-party leadership and a collective national identity that refuses to recognize pluralism, China is displaying increasing — and worrying — symptoms of fascism.

From the military parade surrounding the 60th anniversary of the birth of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) on Oct. 1 to forced relocation and assimilation programs targeting ethnic minority groups such as the Uighurs, China is in many ways reminding us of the fascist states that reared their ugly heads in the first half of the previous century.

In some ways, it is difficult to apply that term to the rising dragon, primarily because of some marked differences from its predecessors. For one, fascist states tended to be short-lived and led by strong — and often charismatic — rulers. China, even if we take 1949 as its starting point, has a long history and its leaders, with the possible exception of former premier Zhou Enlai (???), are not known for their charisma.

The PRC's embrace of capitalism in the early 1990s has also masked its fascistic tendencies, because “unrestrained capitalism” was one of the principal targets of fascism. The fact that the PRC finds its roots in communism and class conflict — both of which fascism traditionally opposed — can also mislead the observer.

Still, today’s PRC arguably represents fascism 2.0, neo-­fascism or “fascism with Chinese characteristics.”

One of the most peremptory signs of fascism is the state’s negation of individualism and the idea that citizens draw their identity and raison d’etre from the state. Evidence of this emerged earlier this week when Chinese Vice Sports Minister Yu ­Zaiqing (???) chided 18-year-old Olympic champion short track speedskater Zhou Yang (??) for thanking her parents — but not her country — after winning gold at the Vancouver Winter Games last month.

“It’s OK to thank your parents, but first you should thank the motherland. You should put the motherland first, not only thank your parents,” Yu told the Southern Metropolis Daily.

In his book "Anatomy of Fascism," American historian Robert Paxton defines fascism as “a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites abandons democratic liberties,” traits that are apparent in China today.

Traits.

In his essay "Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt," published in the New York Review of Books in 1995, Italian intellectual Umberto Eco highlights aspects of fascism that have disturbing reverberations in the contemporary PRC. Features of Ur-Fascism, or “eternal fascism,” Eco writes, “cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.”

Let us explore the features unearthed by Eco that apply to the PRC today.

For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.

In the contemporary PRC, this translates into the state’s intolerance of dissent. Reporters (foreign and local), rights activists and ordinary citizens face censure, arrest and loss of employment if they dare criticize the state. Critical coverage of everything from lagging reconstruction in quake-hit Sichuan to calls, recently published in 13 daily newspapers, for an end to the unjust hukou passport — a system introduced during the Maoist era that prevents most Chinese, especially residents in rural areas, from moving to other parts of the country — is seen as treason.

Even when motivated by love of country, anyone who criticizes the authorities over such matters as environmental catastrophes, social inequity, corruption, forced relocation, outbreaks of disease (such as SARS) and censorship can be assured of negative repercussions for himself and his relatives. [Nobel Peace Laureate] Liu Xiaobo (???) and Gao Zhisheng (???) are two recent examples.

This phenomenon is behind Beijing’s oft-used reference to the “feelings of the Chinese people” being hurt by negative news coverage or other counties’ policies that run counter to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) national policies.

Disagreement is a sign of diversity.

Eco writes: “Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”

In his book "When China Rules the World," British author Martin Jacques, whose views on the PRC are hardly critical, argues that the greatest problem likely to accompany the PRC's rise will not be political, but rather “Han Chinese” racism. Beijing’s attempts to portray its citizens, regardless of ethnic background, as “Han Chinese,” is part of that feature. Its refusal to regard Taiwanese or Aborigines as ethnic groups in their own right is also a symptom of its enmity toward diversity.

To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-­Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country.

This, of course, is the very core of nationalism.

“At the root of the Ur-­Fascist psychology,” Eco writes, “there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia.”

Yu’s berating of Zhou for thanking her parents but “neglecting” the nation — her “only privilege” — stems from this phenomenon. The obsession with plots, both domestic and international, is also prevalent in CCP rhetoric, from fears of US “encirclement” and “containment” to “splittism” in Tibet, Xinjiang and Taiwan.

The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.

“However,” Eco writes, “the followers of Ur-Fascism must also be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy.”

This obviously applies to perceptions of the US and, to a lesser extent, Japan and India. It also explains fears, mostly expressed by political scientists, that China could “miscalculate” by expecting that it could prevail in a conflict in the Taiwan Strait despite US participation. As the Chinese military modernizes, reinforced by notions of victimhood and nationalism, the likelihood that it will embark on military adventurism — either against Taiwan or elsewhere, such as a border conflict with India — will increase.

Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology … [and] it cruelly implies contempt for the weak.

“The members of the party are the best among the citizens [and] every citizen can [or ought to] become a member of the party,” Eco writes. However, “knowing that his power was not delegated to him democratically, but was conquered by force, [the leadership] also knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler.”

The CCP’s claims that Chinese are “not ready” for democracy also derive from this aspect of fascism.

Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism.

“For Ur-Fascism ... individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter,” Eco writes.

Not only do PRC citizens have no “common will,” but the “interpreter” — the CCP — endeavors to ensure that no large group can achieve common will, which would threaten its hold on power. Religious groups like the Falun Gong and the Roman Catholic Church, opposition parties, ethnic groups and protesters — all are closely monitored, forced underground or dispersed when the “threat” of organized opposition to central rule begins to form.

This fear is also inspired by memories of warlordism, which for decades compelled the CPP to impose restrictions on each region’s control over the armed forces, even at the cost of loss of effectiveness.

“There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People,” Eco writes.

The PRC control of information, its use of Internet Police to monitor Web and SMS activity, and a strong emphasis on Chinese symbolism and culture that is prevalent in the film industry are Eco’s future, and it has arrived.

Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak.

“Elements of Ur-Fascism are common to different forms of dictatorship. All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning,” Eco writes.

The CCP’s imposition of simplified Chinese, which deprives Chinese citizens access to ancient texts and, in many ways, created an intellectual Year Zero in 1949, is such an instrument, as is censorship of the media and control of the material allowed to enter the country.

“Ur-Fascism is still around us, sometimes in plainclothes … [It] can come back under the most innocent of disguises,” Eco writes.

It is rising next door.

(J. Michael Cole is a journalist at the ‘Taipei Times.’)

First Advisor your case is not one of apples and apples, as you try to make it to be. The actual situation you fail to describe is one of apples and oranges.

For example, under the clear and present danger doctrine articulated a hundred years ago by the US Supreme Court, in interpreting the First Amendment freedom of speech provision, one can advocate the overthrow of the US Government. That's protected speech - red, white and blue constitutional speech through and through.

The clear and present danger doctrine established that there is a threshold between free speech and violent action to overthrow the government. That is, one is free to publicly speak in favor of the overthrow of the government of the United States.

The clear and present danger doctrine stipulates that one cannot begin passing out arms and weapons of violence to lead a charge up Capitol Hill (for instance) to overthrow the government of the United States. Under the doctrine, neither can armed insurrectionists surround the White House, open fire and attack to seize it and the president. Establishing and stipulating this threshold is rational and reasonable, it is a doctrine that is consistent with the right of a state to protect itself against violent overthrow.

You, however, instead of recognizing (or knowing) this vital distinction of constitutional law in the United States, try to say - erroneously - that one in the United States cannot openly advocate the overthrow of the government. Yes we can. And yes we do. It happens every day, it just doesn't get "Breaking News" attention by CNN or a headline in the NYT.

In the CPC/PRC, advocating gradual, peaceful democratic change to a representative democracy got Liu Xiaobo 11 years in some isolated prison in the frigid northeast of China. Liu's peaceful speech and advocacy of democratic change resulted in his imprisonment before, and more than one house arrest.

We're talking apples and oranges, not apples and apples as you try to do.

Yes, shame on China - shame at the least.

(No one anyway pays any attention to the Communist Party of the United States - it's irrelevant, immaterial, passe' and decrepit. A dinosaur of history.)

To PUBLICUS !

We, most of us human been from the rest of this planet that you belong to, do not have plan to destroy your beloved country of USA. That job we have left to yourself, or better to say to your megalomaniac leaders that have lost touch with reality. You are destroying your own country sir. Just keep going around fighting wars that are only in YOURS eyes just, and soon you will start begging rest of us for food and basic necessities. It is already that at least 1/3 of your USA looks more like third world African country, then some dissent one.

If your leaders chouse the other way of engaging the world’s community, you would not have found yourself at the bankruptcy as country. There are other ways of gaining other countries resources, but stealing them. But I guess they can not yet swallow the fact that their country, USA and EU countries, are not meant to rule the world in the future, nor to be the richest ones. Those first places are firmly reserved for Chine, Russia, India and Brazil. They are the future rulers of this planet, and you better start getting used to that.

Tell us more about your "rule the world" mentality and how the BRICK countries will rule the world in the future. I'd like to know more about your video game masters of the universe fascination.

Your 'rule the world gang - the PRC, India, Russia, Brazil - certainly would make the world a different place for them to rule. From the PRC we would get a censoring fascist dictatorship, from Russia a corrupt oligarchy (also from the PRC), from India we'd get spirits superstitions and incompetence, and from Brazil we'd get a demolished rain forest.

Do you propose the four together would rule over the world by acting in harmonious mutual agreement and unity, regarding one another as equals? Or would the four slice and dice the world among them, each having dominance over areas of the world, each being contented to have a rough equilibrium of power, influence, control? More specifically, for instance, would Brazil have the US and Canada under its new world order sphere of influence?

You need a reality check, pal.

The old saying, "Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me" is a child's chant. The fact is "names" can and do hurt.

Take the word "Dictator" for example. The Boyz in Beijing are dictators.

Take the word "Tyrants" as another example. The Boyz in Beijing are tyrants.

Taken the world "Censor" (as a noun as well as a verb). The Boyz in Beijing are censors - global satellite cable tv to the few in the CPC/PRC who can get it (at price gouging) are still seeing news about Nobel Peace Laureate Liu Xiaobo being censored, to include the house arrest of his wife in Beijing and the malicious destruction of her cell phone.

Moreover, you make vague and accusatory statements that that are rank piffle and which leave us with the focus on your vacuous and meaningless suggestions, for example:

"Afterall US had NO problem embracing China when Mao's cultural revolution was in full bloom killing millions of innocent Chinese."

and

"Afterall US had NO problem sending its national security advisor to Beijing within two months after China's crack down on democratic activists in June, 1989 in Tianaman Square."

You fail utterly to discuss and specifics of either vacuous statement, leaving only your vague and self serving sinister suggestions. However, you are not chanting to children here, Joe McC, er, Marty Martell.

Could this possibly be serious?

To be honest, I do not fully believe that the CCP apologist commenting here are not under some kind of government payroll. I will address my statements in the case that your are not.

First of all, and this should be absurdly obvious, be the Nobel prize is not selected by America. Sorry, it's just not. All your USA bashing, and conspiracy theories about democracy being an American ploy for neo-collonialism are so unbelievably uninformed only a people crippled by decades of misinformation could so passionatly espouse it. First, democracy was not invented by the USA. Ever hear of Greek civilization? Second, the enlightenment and classical liberal writers were also not American. John Locke, David Hume, Edmund Burke, Adam Smith were all not American. So please, if you are going spew dribble, point it in the right direction.

Second, claiming the current system of political oppression as distinctly Chinese is absurd. The Chinese did not invent communism. Thomas Moore, Karl Marx, Freidrich Engels were not born in Beijing. Not that that's very relevant since China's system today can't be called communism. China did not invent political repression or censorship, though they do seem to have excelled at it. Mexico had a dictatorship of one party rule for decades. As far back as Machiavelli we have examples of how dissidents should be censored for a tyrant to hold on to power. So what, prey tell, is so Chinese about oppression?

The guy who claimed a third of America looks like Africa, I'm guessing you've neither seen America nor Africa. Your head is so inflated about the growth of China that you forget that beneath the big GDP lies a tiny GDP per capital. Barely over 3k to the American 47k. Behind the rich cities, port towns, and industrial centers lie huge swaths of third world squalor. Why do your children beg our tourists for pocket change? Get your head out of the clouds.

To the ones who claim that America steals resources, yes we have done many terrible things in the name of gaining resources, but look at China's trading partners in Africa and you will see how ruthless the Chinese can also be. Shamelessly propping up all of the world's pariah states for commodities is a pretty poor example to be setting. China is every tyrants dream, they pay in cash and don't ask questions. Just look into Darfur.

And beyond all this, your policies are really only hurting you! Really, so Hmong people get tortured in marginalized in China, that doesn't hurt anyone in Sweden, it hurts YOU and your world standing. So you devalue your currency and ignore the importance for creating an internal consumer market. That does hurt us, but it could and probably will hurt you a whole lot more. Just ask the Japanese!

If the Chinese do ever become the global hegemon, I bet people will look back with nostalgia at the time when democracy and liberty were championed by the Nobel committee.

You did not tell why democracy is better? I think democracy is not good for developing country like Chine or any other country - a farmer does not know how to run a country, why should he get vote on running the country? Communist Party chief has study all his life to run country, he is good for running the country, that is why Chine is rising so fast.

Democracy is a stick which America uses to beat developing countries and keep them down. Norway, Sweden, Greece all slave to America and do what America tell them. Greece invented democracy to please America and Norway give Nobel Prize because America told them.

You should do a little research on who Kwame Anthony Appiah is. He does not typify any inter-cultural or inter-national "envy"; in fact he has written numerous works on inter-cultural dialogue and understanding. His tractatus "Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers" was once available in PRC bookstores right aside of Chomsky's volumes, though I doubt it will be found there now. He is in every sense a moderate, reasonable individual; and I can only imagine that what drove this article above is his disgust at how China rejects any form of moderate view, of non-violent protest, when the absolute power of the politburo to determine the future of all Mainland Chinese is even questioned.

You make yourself look more than a little preposterous by claiming Liu XiaoBo is a criminal because he wrote a petition. It precisely that, and nothing else, which he is being held for. You make yourself look even more preposterous by speaking of your "rulers". Do the Chinese people know how utterly ridiculous it looks for individuals in the 21st century to talk about their "rulers" and not even reflect upon the appropriateness of that term?

And naturally you degrade yourself even further when you claim that countries like Japan, South Korea, Norway, and I suppose most of Europe are the "slaves" of the US and its form of democracy. Only the most severely deluded of Chinese nationalists still hold the view that these countries do not determine their own future. If you determine to "save them and get them under [your] influence and get rid of their democracy", you can be sure your country will suffer a complete defeat.

I hope you are just trolling. However, it is my experience that your voice is all too common in the PRC.

The founders of the radically new concept in the modern world of republican democracy, namely the the United States of America, were "gentlemen" farmers. Yes, at the least, half the founders of the republican democracy of the United States of America were farmers.

George Washington was a 'gentleman' farmer, as were successor presidents Thos Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Tyler, Andrew Jackson and a long succession of presidents during the pre industrial 19th century (i.e., its first half). These earliest presidents inter alia were educated in the classic Western tradition of Liberalism, originating in ancient Greece, and in the evolution of democracy in the UK especially and in particular. Their education was in the classic Western Liberal tradition strongly influenced by the education philosophy of Great Britain. The thinking and actions of the founders of the United States were rooted in the European Enlightenment, its thinkers and advocates of a New World order of rationality and reason, of individual development and the rights and development of the individual citizen in the larger democratic society.

So what's wrong with farmers becoming the leaders of China? I'd very much like to see the day farmers in China can succeed to become the leaders of China. However, because of the 5000 year old dictatorial culture of the Jung Gwo (the Chinese, i.e., the central country) there aren't any "gentleman" farmers in China. There aren't any educated and enlightened farmers in China to have the vision and the knowhow, the where with all, to take the bold step of creating a peaceful revolutionary new order of their own society.

Why is this the case? The 5000 year old history of China shows its mainlanders have no capacity to create and cultivate individual citizens who are capable of self thinking, critical thinking, self examination, self reflection, self assessment, self evaluation. For 5000 years the Jung Gwo are and have been the, well, Jung Gwo. China is China and that's all there is to it. Because China is China, its natural right and inheritance is to be the central country, the rulers of the world. This of course is the obvious disconnect the Jung Gwo have from the modern, contemporary and future world.

China is a reactionary force in the modern and contemporary world and of our inexorable future. The future of the world is not fascist censoring China. The future of the world lies with the empowerment of individual citizens and of the society as a whole - impossible to the Jung Gwo previously for 5000 years and presently in the CPC/PRC.

I do not wish upon the China I appreciate and for which I can have affection that ignorant Chinese farmers should take control of the government of China. This is because China would collapse and implode in short order. This is not a desirable or beneficial outcome to human civilization.

Why would this be so?

It would be because for 5000 years the Jung Gwo elites and the sheeple of China have had a symbiotic interaction and relationship. That is, the Jung Gwo have elites and the mass of peasant followers then and now, even in the developing cities. The view in China is that the Jung Gwo are the Jung Gwo and that's all there is to it. The Jung Gwo in their own minds don't need to stand for or represent anything progressive in the linear development of human society and history. The view among the Jung Gwo is that the Jung Gwo need only to be the Jung Gwo, i.e., the inherent masters of the universe.

Well, the fact is the present leadership in Beijing are nothing more than the 5000 year old farmers who have the 5000 year old farmer mentality, peasant diet and familiar behaviours of the Jung Gwo. The mentality is that the Jung Gwo don't need to stand for anything progressive or developmental whether it's society or government. The Jung Gwo are the Jung Gwo, the Jung Gwo are predetermined to rule the world and that's all that anyone anywhere needs to know.

This is a recipe for disaster in the contemporary nuclear world.

Indeed, congratulations to the PM of Japan Nato Kan for today in parliament calling for the release of the imprisoned 2010 and into the future Nobel Peace Laureate and advocate of gradual peaceful transition in China to democracy, Liu Xiaobo. As I've stated previously, the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize of 2010 isn't going to change China. But it will affect and change the perceptions of the fascist dictatorship that the CPC/PRC is and, in its delusional grand design, would impose on the world were it, in its grandest of delusions to become the 21st century imperial power of the world - an impossibility to be sure.

The Jung Gwo seriously need a serious reality check, in the present and expanding nuclear world especially.

Seriously.

California an autonomous region of the United States?!? You're out of your mind.

New Mexico an autonomous region of the United States?!? Get real.

Then what, Texas as an autonomous region of the United States?!? That would be your logic (syllogism).

Thank you for your post in this respect for we see in it (but one component of) Beijing's grand designs to try to dismember the Union of the States. Your post reveals further the designs of a new Jung Gwo empire, an empire of dictators, censors, big brother mind control experts, rote 'learning' in the schools, a numb and obedient population of sheeple.

Beijing and its mouthpieces at global forums are most welcome to continue to reveal the Beijing mentality and mad strategy of reestablishing a Jung Gwo (central country, China) global empire in the 21st century.

In one respect, Beijing's being out of contact with reality is telling. Conversely in the nuclear world, it can be mortifying.

Well put Brasil. ::round of applause::