AuthorPeter Man Archives
March 2022
Categories |
Back to Blog
Read 'em and weep. "I laugh to keep myself from weeping." -- Big Zhang Wei (Chinese comedian) Repost from Journal of a grumpy old man “Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?” Nate White, an articulate and witty writer from England wrote the following response: A few things spring to mind. Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem. For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace – all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed. So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief. Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing – not once, ever. I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility – for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman. But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is – his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty. Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers. And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults – he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness. There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface. Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront. Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul. And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist. Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that. He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat. He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege. And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully. That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead. There are unspoken rules to this stuff – the Queensberry rules of basic decency – and he breaks them all. He punches downwards – which a gentleman should, would, could never do – and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless – and he kicks them when they are down.
So the fact that a significant minority – perhaps a third – of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think ‘Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that: • Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are. • You don’t need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man. This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss. After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum. God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid. He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart. In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws – he would make a Trump. And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish: ‘My God… what… have… I… created?' If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set. MY Comment: "... he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing – not once, ever. " I disagree. When Trump explained to the press that he was being sarcastic when he told people to inject themselves with bleach, I laughed so hard.
0 Comments
Read More
Back to Blog
Mystery of the Chinese Fan6/5/2020 The following is a true story. My in-law Patricia Dunn nee Millar has a framed Chinese fan, seen below. She bought it from a mysterious Chinese art dealer of course. But she has no idea about the fan’s background or what the words mean. I therefore take it upon myself to uncover the mystery.
The writing on the fan is a well-known poem from a famous poet of the Tang dynasty (618−907 CE). His name is Li Shangyin (李商隐; 813−858 CE). The poem is translated with commentary below: Note: Traditionally, Chinese is read vertically in columns from right to left. Each character corresponds to a single syllable. The characters used for the fan are Traditional Chinese, which is typically used in calligraphy even in areas where Simplified Chinese is the official writing. The pronunciation is provided in Pinyin (Chinese Romanization) together with the literal translation. The whole line is then translated according to meaning with commentary provided where necessary. Stanza 1: 昨夜星辰昨夜风,画楼西畔桂堂东 Zuo-ye (last night) xing-chen (starlight) zuo-ye (last night) feng (breeze), hua-lou (ornate tower, a multi-storey building with extensive carvings) xi-pan (west side) gui-tang (Osmanthus hall) dong (east). Translation: Last night’s starlight and last night’s breeze, we met at the ornate tower’s west and the fragrant hall’s east. Stanza 2: 身无彩凤双飞翼,心有灵犀一点通 Shen-wu (body hasn’t) cai-feng (colourful phoenix) shuang-fei (double flying) yi (wings), xin-you (heart has) ling-xi (spiritual rhinoceros) yi-dian (one hint) tong (understand). Translation: My body had not the colourful phoenix’s soaring wings, but our hearts had the unicorn spirit and we understood each other by a wink. Comment: The poet used the term “ling-xi” that literally means “spiritual rhinoceros.” Not only can we not locate an earlier allusion to such a mythical beast, but the rhinoceros being referred to in ancient texts was never a poetic or mythical animal. On the other hand, the Chinese unicorn known as Qilin—Anglicized Kirin, such as Kirin beer and Huawei’s Kirin chipset—was said to be able to read minds and discern lies. That is why Qilin is China’s mythical beast of the law. This Qilin myth has its origins from the Shang. The Bronze script for the word “method” which also means “law” (法; Pinyin: fa) shows the combined ideogram of “go” and pictogram of “water.” There is another pictogram of a mythical beast known as “Zhi.” This “Zhi” (廌) is the unicorn of Shang myth. The “Zhi” was said to be used in the ancient law courts to hear cases. It would touch the culprit with its horn. The name “Zhi” however went out of use and was replaced by either Xiezhi (獬豸) or Qilin (麒麟). The poet Li Shangyin created a poetic name to describe the one-horned animal and its spiritual property which also fits the rhyme and rhythm of the poem. Later interpreters have made up some strange village rumour that people believed that the rhinoceros had a white streak in its horn that was connected to its brain. It is based on nothing and totally unconvincing. “Yi-dian-tong—one hint understood” also has many possible interpretations, but the idea is the same. “Yi-dian” is literally “one jot.” It can also mean “one nod of the head,” “a touch,” or in this case, “a hint.” “Tong” literally means “through.” If two minds are connected by a channel and thoughts readily go through this channel, it is “tong.” Through traffic is “tong.” If someone understands something thoroughly, his mind is unblocked and it is also “tong.” Xin-you-ling-xi-yi-dian-tong is a popular Chinese idiom which means that two people, usually lovers, are connected by their hearts. Stanza 3: 隔座送钩春酒暖,分曹射覆蜡灯红 Ge-zuo (separate seats) song-gou (passing hook) chun-jiu (spring wine) nuan (warm), fen-cao (separate groups) she-fu (guessing cover) la-deng (wax lamp) hong (red). Translation: Seated separately we passed hook tokens (drinking game) for the warm spring wine; under the bright red candle light we guessed the tokens inside the inverted bowls (drinking game). Stanza 4: 嗟余听鼓应官去,走马兰台类转蓬 Jie-yu (alas, I) ting-gu (hear drums) ying-guan (answer officials) qu (go), zou-ma (run horse) lan-tai (orchid platform) lei (akin to) zhuan-peng (spinning weeds). Translation: Alas, I heard the official’s drums requiring me to respond and leave you; rushing on my horse to the “Orchid Platform” (name of the Imperial Court secretary’s office and the building that housed it) like a weed spinning in the wind. 唐李商隐七律 Tang (Tang dynasty 618−907 A.D.) Li Shang Yin (name of the poet) qi (seven) lü (regulated) Translation: Tang dynasty Li Shangyin’s seven-word regulated verse. 【无题】 Wu-ti (no title); this poem’s title is “Untitled.” 时在丙子孟夏印室居士 Shi-zai (time at) bing-zi (name of the year) meng-xia (early summer) yin-shi (seal room) ju-shi (householder) Comment: Bing-zi is the name of the year in China’s sexagenarian cycle. Bing (丙; pictogram of a bronze bell) is the third position on the Celestial Stem, and Zi (子; meaning son and also the name of the Shang royal house) is the first position of the Earthly Branches. The Shang tribe invented this system; it is natural for the family name of the royal house to occupy the first position of the Earthly Branches. The word Zi (son) also reflects the importance the Shang placed on the duty of the son to worship his ancestors. It is almost synonymous to the Shang word Si (祀) which means ritual worship, and which occupies the sixth position of the Earthly Branches. Some forms of Si (ritual worship) are identical to the word for Zi (son). Zi is the year of the Rat and Bing-zi can be either 1936 or 1996. If the fan was purchased before 1996, then it could be a bit of an antique. The calligrapher uses a demotic script not very easy to understand. The word suggested as “room” is uncertain. The title “householder” has a self-deprecatory undertone. But it can also mean an ordinary person who practises Buddhism or someone who lives like a hermit. 为天(?)下(?)情侣心心相印 Wei (for) tian (?) xia (?) (heaven and underneath, means the whole world) qing-lü (lovers, literally feeling-partners) xin-xin (heart-to-heart) xiang-yin (each other sealed) Translation: For lovers all over the world let their hearts be sealed upon each other (here is the connection between xin-you ling-xi yi-dian-tong and lovers) 画于珠山 Hua-yu (painted or drawn at) Zhu Shan (pearl-mountain) Painted at Pearl Mountain (located near Qingdao, the old German colony at Shandong Province) Comment: The poet Li Shangyin (李商隐 813−858 A.D.) is from the late Tang period. He is one of the most important Tang poets. Many of his verses are popular idioms in the modern Chinese language. Even Pink Floyd has borrowed from him. He has a secret background. First the family name Li is the name of the Tang royal house. The Tang ruling house however may have been wholly Xianbei (as explained in The Unconquered) but adopted the Li name to rule as Chinese. Li is a popular name meaning “plum.” During Tang and afterwards, many foreigners were gifted the name Li by royal edict. Others simply adopted the name to claim kinship. The Li royal house of Tang dynasty having conquered China linked their lineage to that of Laozi (or Lao Tzu of Tao), whose name is Li Er (李耳). It is said that Laozi went west and left China in his old age. Tang dynasty’s founding family came from China’s north-west. We suggest however that the name Li (李) itself hides a secret. The pictogram is a “tree” (木) with a “son” (子) underneath. It is not the pictogram of a tree with a fruit. From The Unconquered, we learn that a “tree” or “wood” under a roof is the word Song (宋). It is the name of the vassal state ruled by the royal house of Shang. The word represents a form of ancestral worship. The Oracle Bone word for Li (李) shows a “son” (子) bearing a “tree” (木) or “wood.” As explained earlier, not only is the word “son” the name of the Shang royal house, it is almost synonymous with and indistinguishable from the word for “ritual worship” (祀). In a sense the “sons” of the Shang is responsible for the worship of their ancestors. The family name Li could very well be a branch closely related to the Shang royal house. Coming back to the poet Li Shangyin, we learn that his ancestral clan came from the area of Zhengzhou, the capital of Henan (river south) province. We also know that the Shang has a very long history of living in this area. In fact, a walled city of early Shang was discovered near Zhengzhou in 1950. By Tang dynasty in the ninth century, the Shang had become a myth. There was no physical evidence that the Shang ever existed. Some people however secretly knew that they were descendants of the Shang and they hid in plain sight. For example, the father of Song dynasty’s founder has a name that means “exalt Yin,” Yin being the name historians used to refer to Shang. Li Shangyin is even more blatant. His name means Shang-hidden, a hidden Shang. He obviously knew about the Shang unicorn Zhi, which he poetically renamed Ling-xi. There are no accidents. So how is Li Shangyin related to our tale? In short, Li had written other poems directly related to one of China’s four classics, Dream of the Red Chamber (published about a thousand years later and soon to figure in our story). The redactor of the classical masterpiece, Cao Xueqin, descended from a secret Shang, the famous warlord Cao Cao. Dream of the Red Chamber was also named Tale of the Stone. It is about Cao Xueqin’s family in Nanjing (a.k.a. City of Stone), and the storyteller is supposed to be a heavenly stone. The book originally had 110 chapters (11 is the mystery number). One of the main mystery characters of The Unconquered is the Stone Man with One Eye. Can all these be accidental?
Back to Blog
My Review of another author's book17/1/2020 This blog is also available at Quora
After having written and published my first book “The Unconquered,” I have decided to read and review other authors’ books hoping of course that others will do the same, sort of paying forward. My first review is a four-star (out of four) book selected from Onlinebookclub, a website that specializes in self-published books. I was surprised however at the rather less than stellar quality of a book rated by their official reviewer as of the highest quality. You may compare the official review and my review posted below of the same book. This is a proper review that includes a first part (about one-third of the review) that summarizes the story without giving away the plot, a second part that comments on the various elements that make the book good or bad, and the last part is the rating and the reason behind that rating. The following is an example of a proper book review. My review of “The girl that cheated death” Alexandra, a nerdy young woman of eighteen, meets Jeremy the attractive new boy in town with her best friend Kate. She learns an important life lesson at Jeremy’s party. Her experience causes a chain of events that leads to a car accident in which she loses her parents and her six year old sister in the blink of an eye. Immediately after the crash, Alex, which is what others call her, has a vision of a hideous man in pinstripe suit coming to collect the souls of the dead. Alex miraculously survives, but she keeps seeing the man in pinstripe suit, whom she later identifies as Azrael, the angel of death. During her recovery, Alex discovers a friend who truly and selflessly loves her. She eventually falls in love with him. Alex is however plagued by the return of the demonic Azrael. She is determined to conquer her fear and tries to deal with this vision which is considered by others as post-traumatic hallucination. She discovers inadvertently that by saving a soul from the snare of Azrael, she travels to an alternate past in which the saved person lives a normal life. In this alternate reality, however, her life changes as well, and she is the only person who remembers the other reality. To Alex’s dismay, in this world, her boyfriend and her best friend Kate are lovers. After a discussion with her science teacher Mr. Polderman, Alex realizes how she can get rid of Azrael and save her family at the same time. But is Azrael who Alex thinks he is? Is she willing to risk everything to save her family? What if her theory is wrong? Can she afford to pay the price if she is wrong? To enjoy this book, the reader must never peek at the last page. In terms of criticism, I would like to first clarify that I hold a rather high standard. I would also like to provide specific constructive criticisms which hopefully contribute to the improvement of authorship and readership. Whatever my honest opinion maybe, it is only one person’s perception. I find that the story The Girl Who Cheated Death holds much promise but it has been poorly developed. The end result gives one the unhappy feeling of having tasted corked wine. Most readers get their first impression from the first chapter, if not the first paragraph; sometimes, the first line gives a strong clue as to the quality of the book. I’ll have to say The Girl Who Cheated Death has failed to capture my imagination in this regard. In fact, the story gives no hint that it is worth my attention until almost half way into the book. I would assume that less patient readers would have given up by then. The storytelling progresses in a straight line which lacks the surprise element and makes events predictable. The idea of telling a story with inverted timelines and flash backs has been with us for three thousand years starting with Homer’s Odyssey. I still can’t forget the shock I got when I first read “Slaughterhouse Five” in high school, with its erratic juxtaposition of timelines. I can imagine that Alex’s story would be much more interesting if it starts with her waking up in the hospital after having saved Isabelle Nelson’s grandson, and describing how she slowly remembers the other reality. How rich the story could have been with the description of Alex’s emotions in discovering each surprising memory of the alternate past! I’m also dissatisfied with the book’s literary quality. There are many grammatical errors and poor usage of the language. For example, “As I’d think about it … I’d felt so safe … I’d felt as though …” making use of contractions to hide the poor grammar. “(To see) an imaginary figure I had manifested at a time …” is an erroneous usage of “manifested.” To “formulate a memory” is a poor way to evoke one. I was at a loss for words when I saw “a flutter of pain” and “a flutter of jealousy.” “I feared and hated him in equal measures” Is simply wrong because “in equal measure” is not plural. There are clichés such as “stuff my face” and “inhale the pancakes,” as well as many uninspiring metaphors such as “his face was tomato red” and “I was shaking as if I was wearing a bathing suit in February.” There are also too many unflattering descriptions based on anatomy such as “linger on my retinas,” “fill my nostrils,” and “ball in my stomach.” While the dialogue is generally fluid and easy to follow, it is interspersed with ill-advised adverbs such as “I asked quizzically” or “I said hoarsely.” Finally, Dr. Khan becomes Dr. Kahn only a paragraph apart and no one has caught the glaring error. Alex, having fallen in love, has her first intimate experience with the opposite sex. This could have been a beautiful description of Alex’s emotions and her discovery of selfless love. Unfortunately, I got the feeling that the event was rather banal and embarrassing. Alex also must have the qualities of great love, great wisdom, and great courage to save her family. This would have been a fantastic opportunity to contemplate her internal struggle such as Hamlet’s “to be or not to be.” The book has nothing of the sort. Azrael, the angel of death, is another missed opportunity. His outward appearance as a man akin to Mephistopheles of Goethe’s Faust has much potential but ends up in the story with a lot of demonic hissing. Alex’s musings of hell bestows upon us the following tortured description: “eternal marathon of torment.” One can almost feel Homer, Virgil, Dante, and Milton turning in their graves. Other than various far-fetched situations manipulated to tell the story of Alexandra in a coherent manner, a glaring gap in credibility is the complete failure of everyone in the know to consult religious experts after realizing Alex has been frequented by the angel of death named Azrael. This angel is well known in all the Judaic religions (described as Abrahamic in the book). Where is the wise priest, or sage rabbi, or pious imam? Alex’s uncle Rick who has taken her under his roof after the car accident is in fact a religious person. It’s painful to read such a promising story with all these squandered opportunities. The telling of Alex’s story in The Girl Who Cheated Death can only be described as pedestrian at best. Reading the book is much like watching a slow motion screening of an Ingmar Bergman film except without the beauty and the substance of a Bergman film. The pace does however pick up past the mid-point, and the finale does merit a star in the rating. Furthermore, I recognize that most readers are not as critical as I am. The Girl Who Cheated Death is a fairly readable tale that can be finished in one easy sitting, and the book as a whole is perfectly accessible to the average reader, which is not an unreasonable goal for modern fiction authors. I therefore give the book 3 stars out of 5.
Back to Blog
Continue from Part 3 ...
Part 1 Part 2 On Dec. 24, Patrice posted “Peter’s debut—On Failed Revolutions” [This is actually a verbatim copy of a comment I posted on Dec. 15 regarding an article written by the Saker https://thesaker.is/can-russia-or-iran-survive-without-china/] [This Saker article was written in response to an article by Jeff J. Brown, senior associate editor for the Greanville Post and the person who introduced me into the CWG: http://thesaker.is/china-bolivia-and-venezuela-are-proof-that-social-democracy-cannot-thrive-in-the-global-capitalist-order/] Member J comments: “Great choice, Patrice, and congratulations, Peter. An excellent essay, looking forward to more. On Dec. 25, I thanked Patrice for his introductory note. Patrice replied (Christmas notwithstanding): “The introduction was absolutely well deserved, dear Peter. As we might expect, your writing style reflects your persona. I only wish The Greanville Post had The New Yorker’s reach. That said, since publication, more than 34,567 people (as of this morning’s 8:49 am reading) have visited the article. BTW, most impressed with your book. (the bold is by the writer) Here is the link to the article: https://www.greanvillepost.com/2019/12/24/punto-final-on-failed-revolutions/ You can also read it here: Editor’s Note: Through the good offices of my friend and comrade (and TGP’s senior associate editor) Jeff Brown, who participates actively in a China-themed “writers group,” I came to notice and appreciate the mind and work of Peter Man, who has now graciously accepted our invitation to join TGP’s stable of affiliated writers. It is with him in mind that we created this new section, PUNTO FINAL—Revolutionary Insight. The aim of this section is to accommodate mature tactical and strategic thought and free-flowing reflections on a variety of topics of great interest to those engaged in social change, along with pertinent historical backgrounders. We all know that fate has put us at a unique juncture in time when systemic change is not just an optional task for humanity but an urgent imperative, if this long suffering world is to make it to a happier shore or to make it at all. I presume most essays and quotes will not be long, benefiting from Baltasar Gracián‘s famous dictum about concision being the natural ally of clarity: “the good, if brief, is twice as good.” —PG The problem of failed revolution is a lesson that must be learned by people who want real change, not the Obama change. You can't always blame your enemy for doing everything they can to destroy you. That's what enemies do. If you have been in power for so many years and you still can be put in jail on a trumped up charge, or kicked out of the country by the military, or have some impostor declare to be the president, or have a whole city paralyzed by Molotov cocktail parties, you'll have to ask yourself do you deserve to fail. Know that your enemy is out to get you, and he has many weapons. Revolution is not a garden party. Never take a knife to a gunfight. Your revolution will fail. Dying is easy; revolution is hard. I believe one of the biggest reasons for so many failures is despite their initial successes, the revolutionaries continue to survive under the thumb of the US Dollar hegemony and the false narrative of democracy. Very small and "poor" countries have survived the many attacks by the hegemon for 70 years, so we know it's possible. Since they're small, they cannot defeat their enemy, but when the Dollar hegemony goes down, and it will, these countries will be fine. These countries are not Western democracies and do not depend on the USD. In order to survive longer than the hegemony, they must however manage the succession issue properly. The Western capitalist elites who hold most of the capital based on the USD do not want to lose their hegemony. This capital is what gives them the means to terrorize the world with death dealing weapons, hire the cruelest killers and attack dogs, and enslave the rest of humanity with mainstream media bullshit, spreading lies and fear to every nook and cranny. This capital is itself mostly an illusion. It's just bullshit built upon bullshit. It is what I call the Big Lie. Capitalism itself is the Big Lie. If we think in US dollars, and talk about social issues in US dollars, or solve economic problems with US dollars, you will never get a concrete answer, because the whole damn infrastructure is built on a cesspool of bullshit. Everyone that swims in the cesspool is helping to keep the house of cards afloat for a little bit longer, but it will come tumbling down eventually. China and Russia are actively trying to extricate themselves from the cesspool. There'll be two less players to keep the house afloat. Thanks to America's trade wars and sanctions. Others can see the writing on the wall and will try to leave the pool as well. The house collapses slowly at first; and then all at once. Apart from the Dollar hegemony and overwhelming military dominance, the enemy of the revolution has many other weapons of extermination. They can destabilize you, they can cause you to suffer financial ruin, they can put you under siege, they can incite rebellions, they can arm and train terrorists, they can create 5th columns, they can corrupt your government and political systems, they can bribe your military, they can set attack dogs on you, they can smear you with their mainstream media, they can use the false narratives on you, they can disrupt the normal running of your whole society, etc. Their means are inexhaustible and they never rest. This is not a game for the faint of heart. The revolution is subject to all these attacks as long as it survives in the Dollar hegemony and the democracy false narrative. If you try to be independent, your enemy will suffocate you with an all-encompassing embargo. Dying is easy; revolution is hard. The CIA corruption of the news media is not new. Google ... no, DuckDuckGo (that's the more secure search engine I use) “Operation Mockingbird” and learn about the cesspool. When CIA director/USA president George HW Bush said no more corrupting the media, we know exactly the opposite is happening, probably redoubling the effort. This is like having a habitual liar start a sentence saying "this is no lie." It's almost guaranteed to be a lie. I have been reading the Saker for a long time as well. I find him to be very well informed on all things Russian. I like that part about Liberast and Shitocracy. I love word play. I'm going to put them in my sequels somewhere. I'm going to comment a bit on his response. Succession is a big problem for perpetuating a good government. Chinese dynasties always started with a few good emperors, and then it went downhill from the third or fourth generation on. F*ckups are guaranteed. Humans must one day acknowledge that we are flawed. We need to evolve smarter progeny to perpetuate good governance. Actually, we do have such a progeny, which is vastly smarter than us, and they don't have any human weaknesses--self-learning Artificial Intelligence. I have seen a self-learning chess player AlphaZero make a move that I would never make in a million years. No amount of analysis would prompt me to make that move, and yet it's a winning move. Astounding! It also developed a positional play that took masters over a hundred years to come up with, and it took AlphaZero just one day playing with itself. At some point humans will have to ask ourselves, do we want utopia on earth or do we want humans to run governments? As for the China-Russia-US relationship, China has a very good strategy to go by. It is from the Chinese classic that Chairman Mao knew very well and probably used for many situations. It's Romance of the Three Kingdoms, which tells of the three-way relationship between Wei in the north, Wu in the south, and Shu in the west. The strongest kingdom was Wei in the north. The most famous strategist at the time was Zhuge Liang of Shu in the west. It's very simple. Everyone was supposed to follow it. "Ally with Wu to oppose Wei." Sounds simple but it's hard to keep. Eventually, the king of Shu went to war with Wu over a disputed province, and caused the demise of Shu and Wu to the delight of Wei. As for talk of China getting involved in Russian politics, I doubt that China will want to do that. They already have a tried and true method, which is to sign long term contracts that tie together the countries' benefits. They have probably learned by now how to insert some poison pill clauses in the contracts that will make it hard for future governments to swallow if they cancel projects. We can see how Malaysia and Sri Lanka change governments but continue doing business. The Saker is probably right about symbiosis. China wants to have peace, especially with a big neighbor such as Russia. Historically, Chinese people have ambivalent feelings towards Russia. Russia was one of the colonial powers that took advantage of a weak Qing dynasty. Some Chinese people still call Vladivostok by its Chinese name, Haishenwei, which was the romping grounds of the Jurchen tribe, the ancestor of the Manchu. Mao also did not want to follow every order from Stalin and the Comintern. When he set up the successful soviet at Jinggangshan, he was ousted by the clique of the 28 Bolsheviks (students from the USSR and favored by the Comintern), who advocated fighting the Nationalists by conventional warfare. It was a disaster and culminated in the Long March. After the Second World War, Stalin signed a treaty with Chiang Kai-shek, forcing the PLA to vacate Manchurian cities that they had occupied. When the PLA took Nanjing, capital of the Nationalists, Chiang Kai-shek moved his government to Guangzhou in the south. Even the American embassy didn't follow Chiang because they knew it was all over for him, but the Soviets went. On the other hand, Mao had sent secret messages to the Americans seeking to establish relations. USSR was still an ally of America. It's hard to believe that Stalin would not have known. Finally, in 1950, the USSR could've vetoed the American's UN vote to intervene in Korea, but they boycotted UN for not recognizing the PRC, forcing China into the Korean War, creating real bad blood with the US, and suffering thirty years of Western embargo. All these are past, but I'm sure not forgotten. Aside from the trading of natural resources and manufactured goods, cultural exchange between China and Russia is very strong. With American universities openly discriminating against students from China and calling everyone spies, more students are going to Russia. Every Russian university has a sister institute in China. Russians can enter Chinese border cities such as Manzhouli visa free. Russians with scholarships are studying in China. They are working in China as well, where the salaries are three to four times higher. China already has set up auto manufacturers in Russia. Goodbye to GM. The two countries have a JV to build a wide body commercial airplane. Tough luck for Boeing. Both countries are also working on an Arctic Silk road. Chinese companies are building Russian infrastructure under BRI. Many Chinese investors and businessmen are visiting Russia wanting to do business. Maybe Russia should get China involved in laying pipelines. China can easily build bigger vessels than Allseas and do it much faster and cheaper. Build Nordstream 3 and Turkstream 2 at half the time and half the cost. Say goodbye to American sanctions. Let the Euro vassals get their scraps from their master. In all, things look very positive for the China-Russia strategic relationship. It is interesting that China has a very strong relationship with Ukraine. Maybe one day China can act as a mutual friend and get the brothers talking again. I seem to remember that Kiev was the center of Russia before the center of power moved to Moscow. As I said before, nuclear powers are not going to get into hot war unless it is an existential struggle. Even without the Dollar hegemony, America will still be a great country with a lot of wealth. Pressing the button means everything will be gone in a flash. No one will be so stupid, especially not people with the wealth. America is a paper tiger. They already had a taste of Chinese peasants in the Korean War. Despite having half a million GIs in Vietnam and enjoying uncontested air superiority, they lost the war to tiny North Vietnam. They can't even get a clear win against the goat-herders of Afghanistan after 19 years of making bugsplats out of wedding celebrants. They suddenly want to go mano-a-mano against China? Haven't they learned a lesson starting the trade war with China? In terms of deterrent, China never declares how many nuclear warheads it has. That's a good policy. China has a lot of solid fuel quick turnaround mobile missiles which they can fit with all kinds of warheads. Don't think anyone want to f*ck with that. In terms of defending itself in conventional war, I'm fairly certain that in a Taiwan Strait conflict, if American carrier groups show up with hostile intent, they will be rendered toothless. It's a cat and mouse game and real capabilities are not discussed or shown. Taiwan should start talking seriously with Beijing, not hoping their master thousands of miles away would or could protect them. So what to do for revolutions to succeed? We need new thinking, new paradigm, new methodology, not old ideology, certainly not dogma. We need to stop using the language of the Big Lie. We also need to control the narrative, so that people will not be confused by the bullshit and try to understand what they're supporting, what they're fighting for. And then like the Saker says, the people will have to do it themselves; or as I say, "to walk out of the mountains on our own." That's what Mao and his Chinese Communist Party did. This Chinese revolution is the last one standing, and it is still going strong. Maybe there's a lesson to learn here. Dying is easy; revolution is hard.
Back to Blog
How I became a political pundit (3)2/1/2020 Continue from Part 2...
Part 1 Part 4 On Dec. 22, Patrice posted a link under the title “Commentary on John Wight’s ‘coroner’s piece’ on Corbyn’s defeat” https://www.greanvillepost.com/2019/12/22/john-wight-on-corbyns-cynically-engineered-defeat/ On Dec. 23, a comment arrived from a well-known journalist. Member F comments: “I don't take issue with anything he says here but John Wight has seriously gone astray lately. He's a Scottish remainer who perpetuates the myth that all 17 million Brits that voted to leave the EU are motivated purely by racism and that Brexit is ‘not a class issue.’" I also posted a response to Patrice. Peter Man: “It is a wonder with all these failed revolutions that no serious revolutionary has made an effort to understand the only one that is still standing and in fact still striving. Notice how America and its vassals are attacking China on all fronts except by direct military confrontation. I know a lot of revolutionaries on the left think that the current China is capitalist but that is only because they do not understand the nature of the Chinese revolution and that it is still in progress. While Wight never mentions China, he says, ‘... there is no final defeat or final victory. There is only struggle, sometimes open sometimes hidden.’ and ‘... attacks on Corbyn and his allies could only have been defeated if fire had been fought with fire.’ Indeed, China under the leadership of the CCP has been trying to beat the devil at its own game. People can say what they want, but I lived in China for the past twenty years. My wife is from China. I know what I experienced. I like to repeat a few mantras for people who think that they're revolutionaries and want to make a difference for their fellow human beings. ‘Never take a knife to gunfight.’ ‘Dying is easy; revolution is hard.’ We need to learn why revolutions fail. We need to learn how to win. We need people to understand and support the revolution. Then we need to walk out of the mountains on our own. We need to never give up. Easier said than done, but the CCP has done it all. I had written a long mail earlier about the failure of revolutions. My book, if you're reading it, tells the whole story of the Chinese revolution. The fact that there is one still alive and kicking means there's hope." Member G [indefatigable activist] comments: “Not only China, but successful socialist revolutions are standing up to withering global capitalist subterfuge in Russia, Iran, DPRK, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Eritrea, Cuba ….” Member H responds [another well-known journalist]: “I fully share your views on China. Have not lived in China for 20 years like you, but on and off visiting China. Last month, invited by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences for the Conference of Building a Community with a shared Future... in Shanghai; also met with several university people in Beijing... China is celebrating the 70th Birthday of her revolution - and what an achievement, no where in the world in recent history, or in our times, a country has achieved what China has achieved in 70 years - and is going strong... “China’s Revolution – ‘Socialism with Chinese Characteristics’ – as they call it, is a revolution that has crossed the threshold from revolution to evolution. Today and most likely in the foreseeable future, it is a revolution in evolution. Maybe that's what many people do not understand – the dynamics of revolution. “Plus, China follows the Tao philosophy of non-aggression – which is visible everywhere and most strikingly in her foreign policy. It’s an enshrined line of thinking … of lifestyle. “You wouldn't believe it reading the MSM, but that's precisely what the West cannot stomach, that there is a country that swallows all aggression against it and does not respond with counter-aggression." Continue to Part 4
Back to Blog
How I became a political Pundit (2)2/1/2020 Continue from Part 1... Part 3 Part 4 Member D promptly responded: [I was new to the group and did not know personally any of the members except Member A] Member D: "Thanks to everyone in this group for their perspicacity and sanity-restoring analyses on topics of vital importance. After my obligatory immersion in the filthy cesspool of lies and massive ignorance that passes for journalism in America—because we need to keep tabs on what the empire’s professional liars are saying—reading your commentary is cathartic and re-energising. Just watching honesty and wisdom on display is a thing of beauty. "The various takes on Trump are most interesting and I would like to convert that part of the discussion into a self-contained piece for our readers. Of Godfree or Jeff, or Peter Man (or combination thereof) would do the honors, that would be wonderful. (The Bold is by the writer of the message) “By the way I feel exactly as Peter (Man) does regarding Tyler Durden and ZeroHedge, libertarians, etc. I used to include Zero in my daily reading patrols but I stopped several years ago and now use it sporadically.” [Member D turns out to be Patrice Greanville, chief editor of the Greanville Post, an independent and dissident voice far from the beaten path of the mainstream. His website over the years has gained a loyal following. Patrice is a lifelong activist and has clung tenaciously to the truth as he understands it.] Here is my response to Patrice, trying to apologize for having naysaid all the naysayers. I was the only one arguing we shouldn’t vote for Trump. Peter Man: “I don't want to be inside an echo chamber where we resonate only to the same frequencies. A little dissonance sometimes jolts us out of complacency and self-righteousness. It's interesting to note the incongruent phenomenon of the greatest democracy always blaming their social ills on others. Aren’t the people in charge? If not, then why keep fooling ourselves that it's the greatest system that should be foisted upon everyone else? I find that being introspective and looking in the mirror helps me understand the truth because it reduces self-delusion. We have met the enemy and he is us. Nothing will change until we acknowledge where the problem lies and do something about it.” On Dec. 7, a CWG member posted a link under the title “Pew on US vs China” https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/12/05/u-s-is-seen-as-a-top-ally-in-many-countries-but-others-view-it-as-a-threat/ I commented right away. Peter Man: “We should not be fooled by the word ‘ally.’ The US is an ally of Japan and South Korea? When will we see Japanese and Korean bases in America with extraterritorial rights? Supposing they do, if Japanese or Korean soldiers commit some heinous sexual offenses on a white girl in California, will they be sent home for trial to be released without fanfare? When American politicians want to get elected to high office, do they visit Japanese and Korean politicians to receive approval? Will America allow the Japanese and Korean military to install dangerous missiles near residential areas despite public protest? Will America change its policies when its Japanese or Korean allies put their foot down and demand that their interests be respected? That's how we judge whether we should believe in the word ‘ally.’ Patrice promptly posted. "Peter, we are ready to start publishing some of your thought provoking materials. Can you send us as soon as possible a bioblurb we can use on our site?" On Dec. 16, Patrice and I learned that our messages were not getting through to each other probably because of a server/computer malfunction. He had asked for my bio several times and he didn’t hear back from me. Patrice reassures me: “You have a natural ability to speak and define with great lucidity immensely important things in a few words, a rare gift. (I’ve seen several memorable instances of this on the CWG exchanges.)” To remove all my self-doubts, he closes: “I think your life trajectory is simply most impressive, explaining where that great lucidity comes from. My friend, we have our minds and the great gift of loving truth and justice, the two most beautiful things in this world. Only discriminate kindness compares well to those virtues. A person who is kind-hearted, especially to those who cannot defend themselves, and who loves truth and justice, is as good a person as you can find. Look forward to a great collaboration." Continue to Part 3
Back to Blog
How I became a political pundit (1)30/12/2019 Part 2
Part 3 Part 4 Since I decided to become an author, I have started writing articles on a knowledge sharing site known as Quora.com. It’s one way to hone one’s writing skills. Here are the links to some of the more popular articles I’ve written: What is China? Goodbye Mr. Rittenberg? At the same time, I was being invited to join the China Writers Group (CWG), a network of writers who have personal experience or knowledge about China. Most of these writers are not Chinese, writing almost exclusively in English, and generally hold divergent views from the mainstream. Members of this private club share links to interesting articles, make comments, and express themselves rather freely. Everything said in this little forum is meant for private consumption. We don’t even know if anyone in the group reads the messages until someone responds or makes a comment. Here is an account of my journey to becoming a political pundit: On Nov. 17, a CWG member posted a link under the heading “Fun read.” https://www.zerohedge.com/political/everything-you-need-know-about-trump-were-afraid-admit-you-wondered On Nov. 18, I posted: Peter Man: “I used to read a lot of Libertarian stuff; Lew Rockwell, Justin Raimondo who recently passed away, Ron Paul, Mises Institute, Sovereign Man, Zerohedge, etc. Like every other ideology, Libertarian-ism has its merits, but in the heart of their hearts, they are selfish and hypocritical, sort of like a lot of the Democrats and the Republicans. It's the nature of capitalism (I will share my contemplation on this subject another time). It's therefore laughable when Tyler Durden [Nom de guerre used by Zerohedge] attributes superhuman intelligence to Trump's erratic, bumbling, and crass behavior, trying to save the world in his own inane, immoral, and irresponsible ways. I don't want to waste a lot of time explaining what Trump is. He has never worked a day of his life for society. He is suddenly prepared to risk his business, his family, and his fortunes (let's see what happens to the Trump empire after 2020; the lawsuits will not go away) to benefit mankind? This is a sign of serious delusion on Tyler's part. It also shows that Trumpism is a widespread disease and extremely contagious. “Trump says one thing and means another. He switches his position every other minute. In fact, he will tell bald-faced lies so patently false that one begins to question whether there is any truth to those lies. Trumpism describes a special talent for creating a sentence by connecting two clauses which diametrically contradict one another. It's a paradox and an oxymoron. I call it a paradoxymoron. Notice how on the one hand, superman Trump teaches America and the world about ‘fake news’ by creating ‘fake news’ justifying his own incessant lies, on the other hand, we're supposed to trust every word Trump says when he tweets that he will pull out the troops from Syria (not the first time). When that turns out to be a lie (not the first time), Tyler then wheels out the nebulous ‘Deep State’ for us to blame and vilify. “Zerohedge was fun when it lasted, I may check out an article now and then, but I basically stopped reading it cold turkey about ten years ago. Tyler of course was fast and loose with his interpretation of European history as the secret manipulations of the Rothschild brothers (it's like my book's theory that the secret Shang clans have been manipulating Chinese history for three thousand years). And in his valiant attempt to beatify Trump, Tyler mentions nary a word about China and the trade war. Deliberate omission is also a lie. Trump is the king of lies not because he is teaching America about anything. He is the symptom of American democracy. He is the soul of America. He represents America which has been living in a cesspool of lies. Trump stinks to high heaven but the stench originates from the cesspool. Tyler is extremely disingenuous to suggest that Trump is here to save the world. We shouldn't be fooled. Trump, Tyler, and all of us here are just swamp things that have emerged from the cesspool. “One thing positive can be said about Trump though, is that while he's damaging America to the point of no return, he is at the same time weakening the Imperium Americanum as well. I predict in our lifetime, we will see the USD lose its predominance. The people of America will have to wake up from their stupor and rebuild from scratch, like what China did. I'm quite certain China will help America build its infrastructure and invest in factories. They may even want to make Nike shoes in America again, using mostly robots made in China. Cheer up. We'll live to see the day.” [Four comments followed saying they had voted for Trump and would likely vote for him again because of a lack of choice from the Democrats, and Trump was the only one who was anti-imperialist.] On Nov. 19, I responded: Peter Man: “By now, we should acknowledge that voting is perhaps not the answer to every social ill. The Greeks and the Romans did that long ago and it didn't seem to work very well. The Romans immediately resorted to gerrymandering and cheating. The Greeks paid for votes. Both controlled the populace with endless wars. Do we hear history rhyming? The reason for failure is simple. We cannot depend on humans to run complex human societies successfully for long periods regardless of the system. Humans are too flawed. It's a fool's errand. “Americans with normal brain cells from the left, right, and center continue to talk of American democracy as some sacred cow to be defended at all cost, while China is supposed to have a backward system run by ‘tyrannical thugs.’ Well, let's do a thought experiment. American democracy produced Trump. Chinese ‘tyranny’ produced Xi. Trump's approval ratings are in the 30's (Americans are unbelievably forgiving) while Xi's are in the 90's. Godfree [read Dr. Godfree Roberts’s articles at Greanvillepost.com and Unz.com] has a whole slew of US-vs-China graphs showing which system is doing a better job for its population [China is better, of course, by far]. If you have a choice, who would you choose? “Elections being elections, you gotta do what you gotta do as a patriotic American. On the other hand, never forget that politicians lie, especially American politicians. Obama was also a peace loving anti-war electioneer. He even got a pre-emptive Nobel for his anti-imperial anti-war peace-loving rhetoric. I remember the day people were weeping with joy that Obama was elected, and that America would be saved. They elected a liar of course [I told them so]. Well, the Donald is about a thousand times worse in terms of his constant and bald-faced lies. “But do not despair, all this will pass. Come 2020, use your vote to make a joke if there's nothing better to do; Caligula's pony comes to mind. Supporting a selfish lying misogynist racist is probably not advisable if only for health reasons.” [Continue to Part 2]
Back to Blog
End the Draft26/11/2019 http://www.riverasun.com/its-time-end-the-draft-once-and-for-all/
This is my comment to an article by Rivera Sun, a writer, a non-violence advocate, and a peace activist: The draft is nothing. The MIC actually gains more legitimacy with a "volunteer" army extravagantly paid by you the tax paying citizen, and legitimized by you, the democratic voter. Try instead to end the system that puts you in crushing debt to generate unlimited funds to pay without accountability for the uncountable unspeakable atrocities committed by your children, who will then be returned home in body bags, or still breathing but physically and spiritually broken to be promptly discarded by your society. If you attempt to take away the means of the warmongers to wage war, you will experience a rage and fury that you cannot imagine while singing Kumbaya. There will be blood. In my own story of awakening from my stupor, I find myself constantly repeating a terrible truth, "dying is easy; revolution is hard." But everyone needs to believe in something; I believe I'll have a beer.
Back to Blog
Well worth watching.
My comment: I have read a couple of Niall Ferguson's books, namely "Empire" and "The Ascent of Money." They're actually not bad. It's unbelievable that he has turned into a shill for the laughable American narrative of "Blame China." He looked and sounded like a rabid dog barking and yelping before being put down. He lost the debate on every count. When he could not debate on substance, he started expectorating vituperative nonsense about how America brings freedom to the world while China has Tibet. He must have thought that he was debating in front of the stupendously stupefied American public, but the debate was being held in South Korea, and the subject was the US-China trade war. The audience was not impressed. The ex-Professor of History should really brush up on his history. I had thought that he would do quite a bit better than this. His performance was an utterly disgusting disgrace. I can understand Trump, but Harvard professor and Hoover Fellow Niall Ferguson? I guess there really is no hope. Then Justin Lin makes that bet with Niall about the future world order in 20 years. Poor whimpering Niall loses even that, meekly negotiating from Lin's proposed $2 million USD to $200,000 RMB. For people who do not know the background of Justin Lin, he was a model military officer of the ROC in Taiwan when he defected to China in 1979. He later got his PhD in economics from the University of Chicago, the breeding ground of Nobel laureates in Economics. He was also the SVP of WB from 2008-2012. I tend to believe in Justin Lin's prediction of the future.
Back to Blog
Chinese version of "No Quid Pro Quo."7/11/2019 What does it mean when Trump says “No Quid Pro Quo”?
All the talking heads waste their time arguing that it’s a lie, and that there was a “Quid Pro Quo.” Trump doubles down and repeats over and over that there was “No Quid Pro Quo.” It becomes a shouting match between morons. My father taught me never to argue with a moron, because others would not be able to tell who is the moron. These geniuses do not know that in China, “No Quid Pro Quo” is an admission of guilt. I learned this Chinese idiom when I was growing up in Hong Kong. Smith and Schwarz are neighbors. Schwarz one day comes into an inheritance of 300 ounces of silver. He doesn’t trust banks, so he buries the silver in his garden. Schwarz can’t sleep because he worries that his neighbor Smith might steal his silver. Therefore he puts a sign in his garden saying “there is no 300 ounces of silver buried here.” Smith passes by Schwarz’s garden every day. He can’t help but notice the sign. He laughs, “What an idiot. I’ll get rich on his stupidity.” Next morning, Schwarz goes to his garden and finds a big hole where the silver should have been. Beside the hole is a sign that says, “your neighbor Smith didn’t steal the silver.” 本地无银三百两 - there is no 300 ounces of silver 隔壁张三没有偷 - your neighbor Zhang San did not steal it No Quid Pro Quo - I sold America down the river, dupes. |