Chen Shui-bian, You're no Thomas Jefferson

Chen Shui-bian, You're no Thomas Jefferson
From Formosa to Gulag
Bevin Chu
October 30, 2005

Executive Summary: American interventionists across the political spectrum insist that "Americans have a moral obligation to come to the military defense of Taiwan because Taiwan upholds sacrosanct American values of freedom and human rights." American interventionists are wrong on both counts. One, even assuming the ruling regime on Taiwan was a principled upholder of freedom and human rights, its military defense would nevertheless be its own responsibility, not the responsibility of foreigners. Two, the ruling regime on Taiwan is not an upholder of freedom and human rights. Not by a long shot. The unelected US puppet regime on Taiwan is composed of right wing fascists whose highest priority is not freedom and human rights, but "Taiwanese" identity politics and "Taiwanese" nation-building. For them, the ends justifies the means. For them, insincere mechanical lip service to freedom and human rights serves to gain international sympathy for their cause, nothing more. Their leader, Chen Shui-bian, has made a habit of quoting Thomas Jefferson's famous remark about preferring a free press to government. That however was before Chen Shui-bian and his fellow Taiwan independence Quislings became the government. Now that Chen Shui-bian and his fellow Taiwan independence Quislings are the government, it's "L'etat, c'est moi," and "Vox Chen, Vox Dei."


Chen Shui-bian, aka "A-Bian," aka "The Gollumbian." Created by K. Tan of Singapore. Not to be confused with Thomas Jefferson

President Chen Shui-bian yesterday reiterated his staunch resolution to protect the freedom of press, quoting former US president Thomas Jefferson, saying that he would choose media over government. Chen said he knows personally the injustice of an unfree media. In [an] article entitled "From Gulag to Formosa," Chen said that it takes extraordinary courage to criticize a totalitarian regime, whereas democratic countries blossom freely because they are not "Gulag Islands." "Though there have been quite a few shortcomings in Taiwan's democratization process, the transfer of political power set free the `Gulag' in everyone's mind." Chen paraphrased Jefferson's famous remark, saying, "If I had to make a choice, to choose the government without the press or to have the press but without the government, I will select the latter without hesitation." Chen also quoted Formosa magazine, which once wrote "Dark nights cannot last long, the tide will change mightily."
-- "President seeks to assure public he is all for a free media," Taipei Times, March 29, 2002

Over the years, Chen Shui-bian has made a habit of quoting American Founding Father Thomas Jefferson on the issue of freedom of the press. The above mentioned incident in 2002 is neither the first time nor the last time Chen has attempted to bask in the light from Thomas Jefferson's halo.

The only problem is, Chen Shui-bian is no Thomas Jefferson. Not even close.

During the 1988 US presidential campaign, Republican vice-presidential candidate Dan Quayle told Democratic vice-presidential candidate Lloyd Bentsen that "I have as much experience in the Congress as Jack Kennedy did when he sought the presidency."

Bentsen snorted in response, "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."

Bentsen's rhetorically devastating comeback was something of a cheapshot. After all, Quayle was not claiming to be the equal of Jack Kennedy. Quayle was merely claiming that he had the same amount of experience as Kennedy when Kennedy ran for president.

Chen Shui-bian on the other hand, has been mendaciously pretending to share the same reverence for press freedom as the great Thomas Jefferson, and that even if press freedom threatened him personally, he would defend it to the death. Chen's pretense is an insult to the memory of Thomas Jefferson, and an insult to the intelligence of the Chinese people on Taiwan.

As a champion of the Jeffersonian principle that those people are governed best who are governed least, I am tempted to respond to Chen Shui-bian by saying, "A-Bian, I am a student of Thomas Jefferson's political philosophy. I studied Thomas Jefferson's writings. Thomas Jefferson is a hero of mine. A-Bian, you're no Thomas Jefferson."

As famed investigative journalist and 1972 Pulitzer Prize winner Jack Anderson noted, even when Jefferson was being pilloried by America's free press, he refused to betray his principles by demanding or imposing censorship:

The need for the press to occupy an adversary role was clear to America's founding fathers. That is why they made freedom of the press the first guarantee of the Bill of Rights. Without press freedom, they knew, the other freedoms would fall. For government, by its nature, tends to oppress. And government, without a watchdog, would soon oppress the people it was created to serve. Thomas Jefferson, that wise man, that sophisticated man, that cultured man, that rich man ... a plantation owner ... understood. He was savaged by the press ... excoriated by the press ... abused more by the press than Bill Clinton, or Richard Nixon, or anybody in recent times. He didn't like it. He said to one Philadelphia paper: "Nothing in this paper is true, with the possible exception of the advertising, and I question that." And yet Thomas Jefferson said, "If I had to choose between government without newspapers, and newspapers without government, I wouldn't hesitate to choose the latter."

How, by contrast, have Chen Shui-bian and his allegedly "democratic" and "progressive" DPP responded to growing media criticism?

According to an October 29, 2005 Taiwan News news article entitled "DPP lawmakers accuse TVBS of being funded by PRC capital -- GIO to suspend licence if station found to have hidden ownership change," lawmakers of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party yesterday demanded the closure of TVBS Cable TV, the very day after a TVBS talk show presented evidence pointing to former national policy adviser Chen Che-nan as a key figure in the Kaohsiung MRT scandal, and Chen Shui-bian's possible involvement because of their close relationship.

The TVBS talk show ["21:00, The People Speak"] made public a photo of Chen Che-nan visiting a casino on Cheju island in South Korea in 2002, causing great embarrassment for the illegal Chen regime and the DPP, as Chen Che-nan had already denied visiting South Korea.

Accusing the station of being financed by capital from mainland China and collaborating with the mainland Chinese government to topple the "Taiwan" government, Government Information Office Minister Pasuya Yao threatened to suspend TVBS's license to operate in Taiwan.

KMT caucus whip Pan Wei-kang said the DPP appears to be trying to cover up for officials involved in the scandal. TVBS spokesman Yeh Yu-chun said the GIO had looked into TVBS' financial structure six months ago and found nothing wrong with it.

In other words, according to Chen Shui-bian and the DPP, the public shouldn't concern itself with whether the Chen regime ripped off ROC taxpayers to the tune of billions of their hard-earned dollars. Instead, the public should concern itself with who embarrassed the Chen regime, and join Chen and Taiwan's Quisling nomenklatura in denouncing them as "Chinese Communist agents."

According to an October 30, 2005 Taipei Times news article entitled "GIO readies the blowtorch for TVBS," [sic!] Government Information Office Minister Pasuya Yao yesterday said that the GIO is authorized to suspend all operation licenses for TVBS's four channels. The GIO levied a NT$200,000 fine on TVBS after a well-known and widely watched talkshow on TVBS alleged that a number of top government officials were corrupt, including former Presidential Office deputy secretary-general Chen Che-nan.

Yao denied there was any connection between the allegations and the probe into TVBS.

Yeah, sure.

Asked whether TVBS regarded the GIO's action as akin to "white terror" and a retaliation against its allegations of official graft, Yeh said "We still want to believe that truth and justice still exist."

Translation: "We no longer believe that truth and justice exist under the DPP's Taiwan independence Green Terror, but what can we do except hope, against all evidence to the contrary, that someone in the DPP's rubber stamp judiciary will develop a conscience?"

Chen has paid lip service to freedom of the press. He has quoted Thomas Jefferson. He has insisted that he would choose media over government. He has waxed poetic about transitioning "From Gulag to Formosa."

So much for talking the talk. But what about walking the walk?

Chen has conducted Gestapo raids on newspapers and searches of reporters' homes, alleging "violations of national security." He has betrayed Thomas Jefferson's ideals by choosing ominipotent government over an untrammeled media. Far from leading the Chinese people on Taiwan "From Gulag to Formosa," he has led them "From Formosa to Gulag."

Chen Shui-bian, you're no Thomas Jefferson. Taiwan independence Quislings, you're no champions of human rights and political liberty. And Americans have no obligation whatsoever, moral, legal, or otherwise, to defend such a corrupt and unregenerate political regime.

The consolation for the Chinese people on Taiwan, ironically, is that "Dark nights cannot last long, the tide will change mightily."

Google is still Right, Taiwan is still a Province of China

Google is still Right, Taiwan is still a Province of China
Bevin Chu
October 26, 2005

An October 20, 2005 Associated Press news article entitled "Google maps divide China, Taiwan" commits a universal but nevertheless unacceptable error.

AP: Google Inc.'s popular online mapping service has become entangled in a long-running territorial dispute between China and Taiwan. Until recently, Google's maps described Taiwan as a province of China.

Comment: So far, so good. This is in fact what happened.


Google's Map of the Chinese province of Taiwan

AP: That sparked protests from Taiwan's government, which has considered its island an independent state since ending a civil war with China more than a half-century ago. Shortly after Taiwan's foreign ministry formally complained, the China reference abruptly disappeared from Google's Taiwan map last week.

Comment: No, no, no! Wrong, wrong, wrong!

First, the protests were not from "Taiwan's" government. They were from the Republic of China government. More precisely, they were from the unelected Chen Shui-bian regime, which was deposed by ROC voters during in the 2004 presidential election, but which with the help of the US government is illegally squatting in the ROC Presidential Palace.

Secondly, the illegal Chen regime would have the world believe that "Taiwan" is an independent state, but they themselves know perfectly well it isn't.

See:
He Who Tells a Lie

Thirdly, the Chinese Civil War that the Associated Press refers to is not over. Not officially, anyway. The two sides stopped fighting, but no peace treaty, no cease fire agreement was ever signed. Even Lee Teng-hui, the self-styled "Moses" of the Taiwan independence movement, has openly conceded that legally speaking, the Chinese Civil War has never ended. Technically, the Chinese Civil War is more of a hot war than the Korean War.

That change has provoked cries of dismay in China and talk of a possible boycott of Google's service in that country, according to Chinese media. The change doesn't reflect Google's political opinion on the dispute, according to company spokeswoman Debbie Frost. She said Google wanted to enlarge its map images to make them even easier for users to see, so it removed all text from the left corner of the Web page. The long-planned switch also has removed the descriptive phrases that appeared alongside other countries on Google'ss maps.

Although initially disappointed with the change, the Chinese government now understands it's part of a product upgrade after discussing the issue with Google, a spokesman for China's San Francisco consulate said Wednesday. "We continue to think it's important to recognize Taiwan is part of China," Qiang Wang said.

In other words, Google may have removed the remark referring to Taiwan as "a province of China," but at the same time it has not substituted a remark referring to Taiwan as "a sovereign and independent state," as the Chen regime wanted. Google continues as company policy to recognize Taiwan as part of China, as it should based on hard facts, making the Taiwan independence nomenklatura's "victory" pretty damned hollow.

See:
Google is Right, Taiwan is a Province of China

Meanwhile, Taiwan independence zealots can comfort themselves by assuming their usual "Ah Q" attitude and acting as if they have won a genuine victory.

Taiwanese Don't Share Lee Teng-hui's Vision

Taiwanese Don't Share Lee Teng-hui's Vision
Bevin Chu
October 24, 2005

After years of debating Taiwan and Tibetan separatist zealots and Taiwan and Tibetan independence fellow travelers, I have learned something interesting. I have learned that you don't always need to be able to rattle off an endless stream of facts and statistics about a subject in order to expose anothers' lies. Often all you need is the ability to remain alert to the unintentional but obvious implications of what they are saying.

Consider for example, an October 19, 2005, Taipei Times news report entitled "Taiwanese lack vision for future: Lee":

[Former Republic of China president] Lee [Teng-hui] was in Washington, after traveling from New York and Philadelphia, to visit the Thomas Jefferson Memorial and the US National Archives ... Lee ... lauded ... the US, saying it was a shame that Taiwanese lacked such vision ... The former president had some stern words for Taiwan's people, urging them to look to the US for inspiration on how to forge their identity... saying it was a shame that Taiwan has failed to make its own nationals understand what direction the nation is pursuing... he said that Taiwanese are yet [sic] to fully identify with their own nation and do not fully understand their own history... as a result, Taiwanese do not know how hard their ancestors worked to make the nation what it is now ... Lee said that ... what matters the most ... is to allow people to understand the importance of national identity and the direction the nation is attempting to forge for itself ...

Think about what Lee Teng-hui said for a moment.

Lee Teng-hui just admitted to the entire world that the people of Taiwan do not share his vision of an independent "Republic of Taiwan" and he is unhappy about that fact.

That's quite a startling admission from the self-styled "Moses" of the Taiwan independence movement, who for all these years has been telling anyone who will listen that the people of Taiwan demand political independence from China, and that he and his fellow Taiwan independence zealots were merely responding to the Will of the People.

Now we have an open admission that Lee and Taiwan's Quisling nomenklatura have not been responding to the peoples' grass roots aspirations, but have been dragging the people of Taiwan kicking and screaming toward Taiwan independence against their will!

Still not sure you read that right? Still skeptical? Let's translate what Lee Teng-hui said into plain language.

LeeSpeak: Lee lauded the US, saying it was a shame that Taiwanese lacked such vision.

Translation: "Taiwanese" [i.e., Chinese people on Taiwan] don't want what Lee wants. Taiwanese don't share Lee's dream of a politically independent "Republic of Taiwan." Lee considers this fact a lamentable "lack of vision" on the part of Taiwanese.

LeeSpeak: The former president had some stern words for Taiwan's people, urging them to look to the US for inspiration on how to forge their identity.

Translation: "Taiwan's people" are a disappointment to Lee Teng-hui. Unlike Lee Teng-hui, "Taiwan's people" have no interest in "forging a new identity." Unlike Lee Teng-hui, they already have an identity they are perfectly happy with. They are Chinese.

LeeSpeak: It was a shame that Taiwan has failed to make its own nationals understand what direction the nation is pursuing.

Translation: It is a shame that Taiwan's Quisling nomenklatura has been unable to convince the Chinese people on Taiwan that they must redefine themselves as "Taiwanese, not Chinese" and fight a war of independence to establish a "Republic of Taiwan."

LeeSpeak: Taiwanese are yet [sic] to fully identify with their own nation and do not fully understand their own history.

Translation: Lee, who in his heart of hearts secretly considers himself Japanese, is frustrated because despite five decades of "Japanization," Taiwanese still identify with their motherland China, instead of their colonial occupier and oppressor Japan. Lee is frustrated because despite two decades of flagrant historical revisionism, Taiwanese still realize their own history is Chinese history, not Japanese colonial history falsely relabeled as "Taiwanese history."

LeeSpeak: Lee said that what matters the most is to allow people to understand the importance of national identity and the direction the nation is attempting to forge for itself.

Translation: What matters the most is to brainwash the Chinese people on Taiwan into thinking of Chinese as congenitally inferior and aspiring to be something else, something "better."

There you have it, straight from Lee Teng-hui's own mouth. The people of Taiwan do not share Lee Teng-hui's vision of a nominally sovereign "Republic of Taiwan" independent of China but in fact a Manchukuo style puppet of Japan, and this fact leaves him frustrated and angry.

As I said, you don't need a photographic memory. You don't need the ability to regurgitate an endless stream of facts and statistics. You only need to remain alert to the obvious implications of your opponents' own statements.

Google is Right, Taiwan is a Province of China

Google is Right, Taiwan is a Province of China
Bevin Chu
October 18, 2005

In a previous article entitled "How to Read the Taipei Times" I wrote, "Once one catches on to the fact that the Taipei Times' preemptive editorial opinion pieces are inadvertent admissions of guilt, one need no longer painstakingly rebut each and every Pan Green lie. Once one learns "How to Read the Taipei Times," one can sit back and chuckle as the Pan Green spin doctors on the Taipei Times editorial staff outsmart themselves, and unwittingly lay bare every DPP misdeed for the world to see."

And so it is with a Wednesday, Oct 13, 2005 Taipei Times editorial entitled "Speak out against injustice":

After receiving a letter of concern from the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office (TECRO) in San Francisco, amid protests lodged by Taiwanese legislators and complaints from expats based in the US about a map reference to Taiwan as a "province of China," Google finally yielded to the pressure over the weekend and removed the offensive description from its maps service. While it is less than satisfactory to see the portal site choose to remove the reference rather than right the wrong with the correct listing -- the term "Taiwan" -- the move by Google has at least cleared up the misunderstanding that Taiwan is a portion of its authoritarian neighbor across the strait.


Google's Map of the Chinese province of Taiwan

If there's one thing you can count on, it's that the Taipei Times will reflexively invert the truth, and by doing so, unwittingly telegraph to the reader what the real truth is. The real truth is invariably the diametric opposite of whatever Taipei Times editors say it is.

If the Taipei Times insists that Google was wrong to refer to Taiwan as a province of China, the reader can safely conclude that Google was absolutely correct to refer to Taiwan as a province of China.

Sure enough, a quick check of the Republic of China Constitution that governs the "Free Region of the Republic of China," including but not limited to the offshore Chinese island of Taiwan, confirms that Taiwan is indeed "a province of China." China's "Mainland Region" fell under the jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China (PRC) government and the PRC Constitution in 1949. China's "Free Region" however has remained under the jurisdiction of the Republic of China (ROC) Government and the ROC Constitution.

Taiwan independence Quislings have, by their own admission, not succeeded in overthrowing the ROC government. The Taipei Times editors, along with "Vice President" Annette Lu and "Foreign Minister" Mark Chen, know perfectly well that until and unless they succeed in doing so, Taiwan will remain a province of the Republic of China, i.e., "China." That is why they continue to demand the authoring of a "Republic of Taiwan" Constitution in 2006 and the founding a "Republic of Taiwan" government in 2008.

The Taipei Times: If the people of Taiwan [the old Fallacy of the Ambiguous Collective again] hadn't raised their collective voice and made themselves heard, would Google have even been aware of the incorrect [sic] listing on its Web site? Most likely not. In fact, Google had initially chosen to ignore the complaints and refused to make the correction on the grounds that it was consistent with international naming conventions, such as those used by the UN.

This is rich. Taiwan independence Quislings desperately want the United Nations to recognize Taiwan as "a sovereign and independent state." They consider official UN recognition the final word on issues of national sovereignty. But when Google quite reasonably abides by official UN convention and correctly refers to Taiwan as "a province of China," the Taiwan independence Quislings throw infantile temper tantrums.

The Taipei Times: It wasn't until news of the protests and complaints was picked up by the international media, namely the Asian Wall Street Journal and the San Jose Mercury News and Vice President Annette Lu's interview with the Voice of America (VOA) during which she lent her voice to the protests, that Google decided to remove the incorrect [sic] listing.

The chain of events that led to Google's removal of the phrase "a province of China" merely confirms that Google removed the phrase not in response to any reasoned appeal to objective facts, but to hysterical threats of endless harassment.

The Taipei Times: Taiwan is an independent nation and is not a province of China. It does not claim to represent China, but China wrongly claims to represent Taiwan. Taiwan is a sovereign state with its own government, own elections, own currency, own territory and it negotiates its own treaties and has its own president. It is even clearly listed in the CIA World Factbook 2005 that Taiwan is independent of any country, and that it has its own national flag and capital. The only country in the world that avidly thinks that Taiwan is a province of China is China itself.

Taiwan is not an independent nation. Taiwan is a province of China. Taiwan obviously cannot claim to represent China, anymore than Tasmania can claim to represent Australia. Taiwan is merely part of China, the way Tasmania is merely part of Australia. A part of a nation naturally cannot claim to represent the entire nation.

China, however one chooses to define the term, can rightly claim to represent Taiwan. Both the Republic of China based in Taipei and the People's Republic of China based in Beijing can rightly claim to represent both Taiwan and the Chinese mainland. Who in fact winds up representing both Taiwan and the Chinese mainland will hopefully be determined by peaceful negotiations between the two rival regimes.

Taiwan is not a sovereign state. The only government Taiwan has is the Taiwan Provincial Government. Taiwan has no central government. There is a central government on Taiwan, but it does not belong to Taiwan. It belongs to the Republic of China. Taiwan belongs to the Republic of China. The Republic of China does not belong to Taiwan.

Taiwan does not hold its own elections. The elections held on Taiwan, with the exception of those for the currently frozen Taiwan Provincial Government, are either Republic of China central government elections, or local level county and municipal elections, not "Taiwan" elections.

Taiwan does not issue its own currency. New Taiwan Dollars (NTD) are issued by the Republic of China Central Bank, not by any non-existent, would-be "Republic of Taiwan" or "Nation of Taiwan" government.

Taiwan does not have "its own territory," not in the sense the Taipei Times means. The only territory Taiwan has is provincial territory, not national territory.

Taiwan does not negotiate its own treaties. The central government of the Republic of China negotiates its own treaties.

Taiwan does not have its own president. The Republic of China has its own president.

The CIA World Factbook 2005 does not indicate that "Taiwan is independent of any country." A quick gander at the CIA's online map of China indicates that Taiwan is part of China. In fact, it indicates that Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China, as opposed to the Republic of China.

The CIA's online map, from the Taiwan independence Quislings' perspective, is far more offensive than the Google map. So why aren't Taiwan independence Quislings camped outside CIA Headquarters in Langley, Virginia, chanting angry slogans at "The Company?" Because Google, a peaceful and innocuous private sector internet company, is an easier, not to mention safer target than the powerful and dangerous Central Intelligence Agency, especially in George W. Bush's post-9/11 Police State.

See:
CIA World Factbook 2005 Map of China

And even supposing the CIA World Factbook had indicated that "Taiwan is independent of any country" on its webpages, just exactly what would that prove? That the CIA is engaged in malicious efforts to subvert foreign nations, as usual? Gee, what a surprise. Besides, who appointed the CIA the official arbiter of the political status of the nations of the world?

Taiwan does not have its own national flag and capital, for the simple reason that Taiwan is not a nation. The Republic of China has its own national flag and capital.

Finally, every one of the two dozen odd nations that maintain diplomatic relations with Taipei knows that Taiwan is a province of China, i.e., the Republic of China. These nations recognize the Republic of China government as the legitimate government of all of China, including the Chinese mainland. According to the Republic of China Constitution, they are correct in doing so.

Ironically this is not what the Quisling Chen Shui-bian regime wants. The Quisling Chen regime wants these nations to play along with the Taiwan independence Big Lie that "the Republic of China = Taiwan" and "Taiwan = the Republic of China." That's why the Quisling Chen regime was upset when some of these nations correctly referred to the Republic of China as "China."

And we haven't even mentioned the one hundred plus nations that maintain diplomatic relations with Beijing and also consider Taiwan a province of China, in this case, the People's Republic of China. But don't worry, the Taipei Times editors will mention it for us. In in their eagerness to preempt any rebuttals, they will invariably wind up discrediting their own case.

The Taipei Times: While it may be out of Taiwan's hands that so many countries in the international community kowtow to China's leadership, it is however a sorry state of affairs to see Taiwan's people subjected to such incorrectness and then staying silent -- and that statement goes for Taiwan's diplomatic stations abroad as well. It is sad but true that for so long, Taiwan -- having long been oppressed in the international community -- has seemingly grown numb to such blatant incorrectness day in and day out.

In the previous paragraph the Taipei Times insisted that "The only country in the world that avidly thinks that Taiwan is a province of China is China itself." In this paragraph, the Taipei Times contradicts itself by complaining that "So many countries in the international community kowtow to China's leadership."

So which is it? Is it "only China" that thinks Taiwan is a province of China, or is it "so many countries" that think Taiwan is a province of China? As I noted before, one need not painstakingly rebut each and every Pan Green lie, one can simply sit back and chuckle as Pan Green spin doctors outsmart themselves.

The Taipei Times: A lie told once remains a lie. A lie repeated 100 times eventually starts to sound true.

This comment amounts to a classic case of the "Freudian Slip." The claim that "the Republic of China = Taiwan" and "Taiwan = the Republic of China" told once remains a lie. Repeated 100 times however, this lie has begun to sound true to many in the West.

See:
The Republic of China is not Taiwan

The Taipei Times: While it hasn't yet got to the point of harboring an "if you can't beat them then join them" mentality, given Taiwan's struggle with China's incessant campaign to marginalize it internationally, how long will it be before such a mentality starts to really take hold? As Russian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky once said, "If you want to be respected by others the great thing is to respect yourself. Only by that, only by self-respect will you compel others to respect you." "Self-respect gains respect" is the lesson to be drawn from this recent Google incident. Silence is not golden in Taiwan's plight, especially in its diplomatic fight against international injustice. The Google incident has taught us that justice can be done -- so long as Taiwanese use their voice to get themselves heard.

Of all the psychological confessions Taiwan independence Quislings have unintentionally let slip while snowing Westerners with glib Taiwan independence sophistry, this has got to be the most pathetic.

As I wrote in "Diaoyutai and Pan Green Self-Delusion":

Respect entails self-respect. Before others will respect you, you must first respect yourself. Self-respect in turn, entails self-affirmation. If one respects oneself, one will have no hesitation affirming who one is. A reluctance to affirm who one is, a determination to pretend one is something one is not, is symptomatic of a deep-seated lack of self-respect. If one is reluctant to affirm who one is, if one is determined to pretend one is something one is not, one has already invalidated oneself at one's very core. Nothing one can do subsequently will ever make up for this initial act of self-invalidation.

The reluctance of Pan Green Quislings to affirm that they are Chinese, their stubborn insistence that they are "Taiwanese, not Chinese," their pathetic attempts to spin themselves as "quasi-Japanese," are all symptoms of the Pan Green Quislings' profound lack of self-respect. Pan Green Quislings who refuse to affirm that they are Chinese, who insist on pretending they are something else, anything else but Chinese, have already invalidated themselves at their very core. Nothing they can do subsequently will ever make up for this initial act of self-invalidation.

If Taiwan independence Quislings ever get serious about exhibiting self-respect, Honorary KMT Chairman Lien Chan, KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou, New Party Chairman Yok Mu-ming, and PFP Chairman James Soong will be deeply gratified to hear them reaffirm that "We are indeed Chinese as well as Taiwanese" and that "Taiwan is indeed a province of China."

Joseph Kahn, Abre Los Ojos!

Joseph Kahn, Abre Los Ojos!
Bevin Chu
October 5, 2005

"Forget everything you know, and open your eyes."
-- Tagline from "Vanilla Sky" (2001, directed by Cameron Crowe, written by Alejandro Amenabar and Mateo Gil)

According to a September 23, 2005 New York Times op ed piece entitled "China Lectured by Taiwan Ally":

China's [i.e., mainland China's] leaders may have felt they had no better friend in Taiwan than Li Ao, a defiant and outspoken politician and author who says that Taiwan should unify with Communist [sic] China. But when [mainland] China invited Mr. Li to tour the mainland this week, the Communist Party got a taste of its rival's pungent democracy. During an address at Beijing University on Wednesday evening, broadcast live on a cable television network, Mr. Li chided [mainland] China's leaders for suppressing free speech ... Mr. Li ... has an outsize reputation among intellectuals in [mainland] China for his ... fervent belief that Taiwanese [Chinese people on Taiwan] should be proud to be part of greater China. When Taiwan became a democracy, he attacked those who supported separatism. He ran for president in 2000 on a platform of unification with [mainland] China, supporting its government's vision of "one country, two systems." But when he arrived in [mainland] China, he surprised his hosts with caustic comments aimed not at Taiwanese separatism but at mainland authoritarianism ... and suggested that the "poker-faced" bureaucrats of the Communist Party did not have enough faith in their legitimacy to allow normal intellectual discussion.

Does Joseph Kahn really believe Li Ao "surprised his hosts?" Does he really believe mainland leaders had no idea what Li Ao was likely to say? To answer this question, let's read what Kahn himself wrote:

Mr. Li, 70, is ... the host of a popular talk show on the mainland-backed Phoenix TV of Hong Kong, which helped arrange his trip to China. Mr. Li ... has an outsize reputation among intellectuals in [mainland] China for his prolific writings - he has written nearly 100 books.

Think about what that means.

Li Ao's widely watched talk show is known as "Li Ao Yu Hua Shuo" or "Li Ao has Something to Say." And as anyone who knows Li Ao knows, when Li Ao has something to say, he says it.



See:
Li Ao has Something to Say

Li Ao's political views are no secret. Television viewers on both sides of the Taiwan Strait have been tuning into Li Ao's caustic commentaries for years. Chinese readers on both sides of the Taiwan Strait have pored over Li Ao's books from cover to cover. Li Ao's political views are as well known on Taiwan, Hong Kong, and mainland China as Rush Limbaugh's or Michael Moore's political views are in the United States.

Would Kahn snigger at the Democratic Party if it invited Rush Limbaugh to speak before assembled Democrats, and Limbaugh criticized liberals and liberalism? Would Kahn claim that Rush Limbaugh "surprised his hosts?"

Would Kahn snigger at the Republican Party if it invited Michael Moore to speak before assembled Republicans, and Moore criticized conservatives and conservatism? Would Kahn claim that Michael Moore "surprised his hosts?"

Or would Kahn correctly conclude that both the Democratic and Republican parties deserved enormous credit for providing bully pulpits to their harshest critics?

The mainland Chinese government has long known what Li Ao's views are on every topic under the sun. The mainland Chinese government has long known that Li Ao is an "enfant terrible." The mainland Chinese government was not the least bit surprised by Li Ao's egomaniacal boasting before admiring students on campus. The mainland Chinese government approved his visit to Beida, Qinhua, and Fudan knowing full well what this intellectual "bull in a china shop" was likely to say and do.

That mainland Chinese government leaders would permit Li Ao to visit the mainland anyway, knowing full well he would probably criticize and even insult them means only one thing: an increasingly confident, increasingly tolerant mainland Chinese leadership is not nearly as afraid of intellectual dissent as Kahn would have the world believe.

Does Joseph Kahn really believe Li Ao "surprised his hosts?" Or is Kahn simply determined to deny the mainland Chinese government one iota of credit for increased tolerance?

Like David Aames, the spoiled, self-indulgent, dissolute heir to a publishing empire in the nightmarish science fiction film "Vanilla Sky," Joseph Kahn and his fellow Neoconservatives inhabit a subjective idealist mental universe of their own making.

In David Aames' virtual reality, the horribly disfigured Aames imagines that he is still a handsome playboy irresistible to beautiful young women.

In Joseph Kahn's virtual reality, Kahn and his fellow Neoimperialists (their own term) imagine that they are handsome Supermen -- defenders of Truth, Justice, and the American Way, when in fact they are horribly disfigured Orcs, "half-men," monsters who lost whatever humanity they might have possessed long ago.

Like David Aames in "Vanilla Sky," Joseph Kahn and his fellow China Threat theorists are increasingly confronted by jarring inconsistencies in their narcissistic dream world. Even staunch "Anglosphere" allies such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are finding it increasingly difficult to continue rationalizing away Imperium Americanus' paranoid Sinophobia.

Unlike David Aames in "Vanilla Sky" however, Kahn and his fellow Benevolent Global Hegemonists refuse to examine the disturbing inconsistencies with reality that continue to pop up. Instead they fall back on the residual "soft power" of the US major media to persuade themselves and others that their delusions of grandeur are the way the world actually is.

Joseph Kahn and your fellow Neocons, abre los ojos! Time to open your eyes.

The only people you're fooling are yourselves.

Stand Up for Yourselves

Stand Up for Yourselves
Bevin Chu
September 29, 2005

According to a September 21, 2005 Taipei Times news article entitled "Stand Up for Yourselves, Lawless Tells Taiwanese":

US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for East Asia Richard Lawless yesterday issued a blunt statement on Taiwan's blocked arms-procurement bill, implying that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party were threatening Taiwan's security and urging Taiwanese to have the determination to defend themselves and hold lawmakers to account. The comments, delivered in a speech by Defense Security Cooperation Agency Director Edward Ross, which sources said relayed Lawless' original speech, were an appeal to the Taiwanese public and included some of the strongest criticisms of the pan-blue camp by a senior Bush administration official.

Richard Lawless's comments were yet another deeply offensive example of the Bush II regime's imperial arrogance.

Ironically, in a sense he never intended, Lawless is right. "Taiwanese" (Chinese people on Taiwan) should have the determination to defend themselves. Chinese people on Taiwan should have the determination to hold lawmakers to account.

Unfortunately for the Bush II regime, the Chinese people on Taiwan have expressed their determination in a way Lawless never intended. They have refused to pay protection money disguised as "arms procurements" to the American Empire.

When George Bush Senior entered the White House, he promised American taxpayers a post-Cold War "Peace Dividend". Bush successors Bill Clinton and Bush Junior, as well as Bush Senior himself, made a mockery of that promise. Chinese people on Taiwan however, have enough common sense to realize that with the Cold War long over, they deserve their own "Peace Dividend."

The comments were in a keynote speech at a US-Taiwan Business Council defense industry conference in San Diego, California. Lawless was unable to personally deliver the speech on Monday as he was in Beijing for talks on the North Korean nuclear program.

Lawless, a mere "Deputy Assistant Secretary" couldn't even be bothered to deliver his message in person. I guess we know where Taiwan stands in the eyes of the New Rome.

After acknowledging President Chen Shui-bian and Minister of National Defense Lee Jye for their attempts to facilitate passage of the arms package, the speech noted that nothing has happened in five years, despite the package being approved in April 2001 at the beginning of the Bush administration.

Translation: The protection money you owe "il Padrino" (the Godfather) is long overdue. Pay up now, or else.

The special budget has become a "political football," Ross said. "In fact, a neutral observer could draw the conclusion that this battered ball has been kept in play more to entertain the players -- the politicians -- than to serve the real needs of Taiwan," he said. The speech then urged the people of Taiwan to understand that national security is not simply a political platform and that no specific defense issue should become a football for partisan purposes. "Rather, national security is a political responsibility and the people of Taiwan should hold elected officials accountable for what they are doing, or more correctly, not doing," he said.

Ross's yammering about a "political football" is neither here nor there. It is a smokescreen. It is a diversion. It is a thinly-disguised, really can't be bothered effort to soften the impact of Lawless's peremptory demand that Taiwan cough up the money, PDQ.

The speech argued that Taiwan could take several steps to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its defense posture "without breaking the bank." "Taiwan is particularly vulnerable because it is an island in close proximity to a threat, possesses limited resources and relies heavily on advanced technology to meet its defense needs," he said. "For these reasons alone, it is important Taiwan minimizes its vulnerabilities and maximizes its strength."

Will wonders never cease? A leg breaker who appeals to fiscal responsibility and cost effectiveness! Don't think of the protection money you pay us as extortion. Think of it as a wise investment in your own future!

He said that under the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), the US is "obligated to `enable' Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense." "[B]ut the reality is, it is Taiwan that is obligated to have a sufficient self-defense," he added. Taiwan has to "fulfill its unwritten, but clearly evident obligations under the [TRA] by appropriately providing for its own defense while not simply relying on the US' capacity to address a threat in the Strait," he added. He also stressed that "the people of Taiwan and their elected officials [must] understand that when it comes to defense, they ... are in the first instance accountable," and not the US or anyone else.

Translation: Here's the deal. You pay through the nose to take our obsolete, unwanted hand me downs off our hands. When push comes to shove however, we can't promise you that we'll do "whatever it takes." But hey, what choice do you have? You pay up, maybe we'll "ride to the rescue." You don't pay up, maybe we won't. Get wise to your situation.

"We cannot help defend you, if you cannot defend yourself," the speech concluded. "We encourage our Taiwan friends both Blues and Greens, and more importantly I urge the people of Taiwan to think very hard about the future of Taiwan -- how should it look, how should it feel, and what is it worth?"

Guess what? The "people of Taiwan" have thought very hard about the future of Taiwan -- how should it look, how should it feel, and what is it worth.

The "people of Taiwan" have decided they are no longer willing to be Imperium Americanus' obedient watchdog against their own countrymen on the Chinese mainland. They have decided they are even less willing to pay for that dubious privilege. They are, to quote the immortal Paddy Chayevsky, "mad as hell, and not going to take it anymore."

If the New Rome expects Taiwan to be its watchdog against mainland China, it can damn well reach into its own pocket to pay for the dog food. Who ever heard of a watchdog paying for his own dog food in order to continue protecting his master?

The "people of Taiwan" have decided that the future of Taiwan is with mainland China, and that it is not worth one cent in tribute, meekly remitted to Imperium Americanus.

The problem isn't that the "people of Taiwan" haven't thought very hard about the future of Taiwan. The problem is Lawless is having trouble hearing their conclusion.

The problem isn't that the "people of Taiwan" haven't stood up for themselves. The problem is they have stood up for themselves against the New Rome and just said "No!"

How to Read the Taipei Times

How to Read the Taipei Times
Bevin Chu
September 22, 2005

Imagine yourself embroiled in a legal dispute with a shameless scoundrel, someone who knows perfectly well he is in the wrong and you are in the right, but doesn't care. As he figures it, "xian xia shou wei qiang" (The best defense is a good offense). As he figures it, you will expose his lies the first chance you get, so he accuses you of everything he's guilty of before you can open your mouth. This is known as "zuo zei de han zhua zei" (A thief shouting "Thief!").

If you've ever had the misfortune to run into someone like this, you have an inkling of how millions of ROC citizens on Taiwan feel. Scoundrels like this have seized control of the ROC government, and hapless ROC citizens are forced to endure shameless Pan Green lies every waking day.

Pan Green scoundrels know the grotesquely overpriced US arms deal is nothing more than protection money for Uncle Sam and pork for DPP cronies, but they don't care. Their defense against public exposure is to accuse the Pan Blue opposition first.

Unfortunately for long-suffering ROC taxpayers, this Pan Green tactic of preemptive damage control often works.

Unfortunately for Pan Green spin doctors, it sometimes works too well.

ROC citizens are catching on. They are beginning to realize that most Pan Green "rebuttals" they read are inadvertent admissions of guilt. They are beginning to realize they need no longer painstakingly rebut each and every Pan Green lie that comes their way. Once they learn how to read between the lines, they can sit back and chuckle as Pan Green spin doctors, such as those on the Taipei Times editorial staff, outsmart themselves and unwittingly lay bare every DPP misdeed for the world to see.

Consider for example this September 10, 2005 Taipei Times editorial, entitled 'Lies, damned lies and KMT "truths."'

"Thursday's comments by the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) legislative caucus cause a severe philosophical headache. There are, proverbially, three categories of untruth: lies, damned lies and statistics. The KMT's manipulation of the the results of last year's referendum on the purchase of anti-missile technology involves the misuse of statistics to disseminate damned lies. So into which category does it fall, or is there a whole fourth category of untruth of its own: KMT statements?"

Ignore the long-winded lead-in. Ignore the borderline Chinglish. Focus on the Pan Green tactic of preemptive damage control.

The editors of the Taipei Times know that the KMT, NP, and PFP are certain to expose the DPP's transparent lies the first chance they get, so they launch the rhetorical equivalent of a preemptive First Strike. They accuse the Pan Blue opposition of everything they know the DPP is guilty of, only they do it first.

In other words, when the editors of the Taipei Times insist that "The KMT's manipulation of the the results of last year's referendum on the purchase of anti-missile technology involves the misuse of statistics to disseminate damned lies," what they really mean is they themselves are disseminating lies by manipulating the results of last year's referendum.

How specifically? Let's subject their spin control to a badly needed reality check, paragraph by paragraph. Let's learn "How to Read the Taipei Times."

Taipei Times: "The KMT's argument is that the proposal to purchase PAC-3 missile batteries was defeated in the referendum and according to the Referendum Law the issue cannot be put before the people again until 2007, so a fortiori a budget for the purchase of the weapons cannot be passed. This is not just rubbish of the sort we expect from this source, it is a dangerous lie that is making every single resident of Taiwan significantly more unsafe for longer than they need to be by delaying weapons purchases essential for the nation's defense. Let us be clear: For all of the perhaps frivolous language, this is absolutely no laughing matter. "

Reality Check: The Taipei Times claims that Chen Shui-bian's "weapons purchases [are] essential for the nation's defense."

Nonsense.

A "weapons purchase" is a purchase of weapons. Chen "weapons purchases" are not attempts to purchase weapons. Chen "weapons purchases" are attempts to purchase protection.

After 17 straight years of incompetent beyond belief Pan Green misrule, the once disciplined, once capable ROC armed forces now have as much fighting ability as a troop of Boy Scouts. They don't even know how to operate the equipment they have now, let alone any future weapons acquisitions. They are referred to disparagingly by the public as "cao mei bing" (strawberry soldiers), raw recruits too delicate to do any real fighting.

The ROC's armed forces can't fight, and the Pan Greens know it. Not that it matters.

The Pan Green Quisling government of former president Lee Teng-hui never had any intention of using the weapons it bought from the US to do any actual fighting. Neither does the Pan Green Quisling government of current "president" Chen Shui-bian. Lee's past "weapons purchases" and Chen's proposed "weapons purchases" are protection money paid to the New Rome in the hope that if Taiwan's Quisling nomenklatura ever declares independence, George W. Bush will "do whatever it takes" and the US Navy's Seventh Fleet "come riding to the rescue."

The nation that ROC taxpayers are being asked to pay to defend is the ROC, the Republic of China, or "China" for short. Chen's "weapons purchases" are not only not essential to the defense of China, they are positively harmful to the defense of China. Chen's "weapons purchases" are "essential" only to the advancement of the treasonous Taiwan independence movement. That is why a solid democratic majority of patriotic ROC citizens on Taiwan rejected them outright.

Taipei Times: "It takes an astonishing twisting of the truth therefore to come to the KMT's present position that the vote on the missiles was "defeated" in the referendum. For it to have been defeated, about 8 million people would have had to vote no. How many people did vote no? Some 581,000. The KMT has deliberately tried to confuse two issues: the referendum's failing to be valid and the defeat of the referendum proposal."

Reality Check: The Taipei Times is right about one thing. It does take an astonishing twisting of the truth -- for the Taipei Times to insist that Chen's "Defensive Referendum" was not soundly and decisively defeated in 2004.

Taipei Times: "So what is the truth? In March last year, 7.5 million people voted in the referendum -- 92 percent of which voted for the arms purchases, while 8 percent voted against. The referendum was not, however, considered to have passed because the law requires that more than 50 percent of eligible voters agree to the proposal. This meant that for a referendum to be considered a valid test of public opinion, half of Taiwan's 16 million eligible voters would have to vote either yes or no. Not only did not enough people support either outcome, not enough voted to even make a valid decision possible."

Reality Check: Never mind the confusing run-on sentences. Never mind the irritating use of passive voice. Concentrate on the Pan Green tactic of striking first, and consider its logical implication.

When the authors of the Taipei Times editorial insist that the Chen regime's proposal to purchase PAC-3 missile batteries was not defeated during 2004, they are really admitting that it was defeated.

Both referenda failed because 55% of the voters who went to the polling stations on election day boycotted them. Only 45% of the voters who went to the polling stations on election day obtained referenda ballots.

As everyone, Blue (KMT), Green (DPP), Yellow (NP), Orange (PFP), and Purple ("Naderite") knows, A-Bian's media campaign explicitly bound voting Yes! on the referenda to voting 1 in the presidential election. It was part and parcel of his reelection strategy. He was determined to exploit antipathy for Beijing to boost his reelection prospects.

Pan Green voters were instructed to vote "100," meaning for president vote 1, for referendum one vote YES, and for referendum two, vote YES.

Pan Blue voters responded with their own, mirror image binding of the referenda and election. The Pan Blue catechism, which rhymes in Chinese and was memorized by all Pan Blue voters was "For president vote 2! Boycott the referendum!"

Chen's heavy-handed publicity campaign polarized the voters exactly as he intended. None of the above is disputed by anyone across the ROC political spectrum.

On election day, 55% of the voters -- Pan Blue voters, obtained presidential ballots, stamped the 2 box for Lien/Soong, then walked out the door, boycotting both referenda.

Conversely, 45% of the voters -- Pan Green voters, obtained presidential ballots, stamped the 1 box for Chen/Lu, obtained both referenda ballots, stamped the Yes boxes in order to say "Yes! Taiwan."

Furthermore, 20% of those who took part in the referenda did so under duress. They felt pressured to take part in the referenda because local voting booths were staffed by people they knew, who might leak their failure to take part in the referenda to their superiors.

In principle this cuts both ways. In practice it doesn't. In practice, the DPP is the ruling party and controls the machinery of government. Pan Blue public servants in particular might lose their rice bowls if they refused to at least go through the motions. These voters in the privacy of the voting booth stamped the NO box on the two referenda after stamping the 2 box for Lien/Soong on the presidential ballots. These voters amounted to one in five of those who participated in the referendum.

Were Chen's referenda defeated? You bet they were. Did Chen's illegal and unconstitutional referenda inadvertently amount to "a valid test of public opinion?" You bet they did.

See:
Taiwan's Stolen Election
Taiwan's Potemkin Referendum

Taipei Times: "Since the referendum was not valid, it cannot bind the government to any policy in any way. If the KMT wants to think of the referendum as valid after all, then it appears that Taiwanese who care about the issue overwhelmingly want the anti-missile weapons. We could argue that those who didn't vote simply don't care. The pan-blues might call this intellectually dishonest, to which we could cynically reply that "what's sauce for the goose ...." But of course we don't have to. The referendum was not valid. This is a fact, not a piece of politically motivated obfuscation. An invalid referendum, just like a law that fails to pass, binds nobody's hands."

Reality Check: Here is where the editors of the Taipei Times really outsmart themselves. Here is where the editors of the Taipei Times trip themselves up, big time. Here is where in their overeager effort to preempt every imaginable criticism from the Pan Blue opposition, they unwittingly expose their own mendacity.

The editors of the Taipei Times know perfectly well that boycotting a referendum is hardly the same as not bothering to vote in a referendum. Boycotting an illegal and unconstitutional referendum because one is resolutely opposed not merely to the passage of its provisions, but even to the legitimization of the referendum itself, can hardly be equated with not bothering to vote in a referendum because one is afflicted with sheep-like passivity.

Boycotting Chen's Potemkin referendum was the Pan Blue voters' way of saying NO even more loudly than accepting a referendum ballot under duress and marking NO on the ballot. Boycotting Chen's Potemkin referendum by refusing to accept the referendum ballot altogether, was the Pan Blue voters' way of saying a resounding NO both to the arms purchase and to the high-handed means by which the referendum was rammed down their throats.

Do the editors of the Taipei Times know this? Of course they do. The editors of the Taipei Times know perfectly well they are being "intellectually dishonest." They know perfectly well they are engaging in "politically motivated obfuscation." But in their panicky attempt to preempt anticipated exposure, they unintentionally wound up shining the spotlight on their own dishonesty and obfuscation.

The editors of the Taipei Times want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to claim that Chen's referenda were both valid and invalid at the same time. Valid when it appears to substantiate the Pan Green case. Invalid when it in fact substantiates the Pan Blue case. They want to play "Heads I win, tails you lose." Well sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

Taipei Times: "It should be remembered that this was a deliberate strategy of the pan-blue camp. Having been outfoxed by the government over the holding of the referendum in the first place, it encouraged its supporters not to vote in the referendum in order to ensure that the referendum simply failed to produce a result."

Reality Check: Yet again, the editors of the Taipei Times unwittingly prove the Pan Blue case and disprove their own. What is this "rebuttal," except a candid admission that the Chen executive rammed its illegal and unconstitutional referendum down the throats of a reluctant public, which responded by boycotting the referendum altogether? What does this "rebuttal" do, except put the lie to the Taipei Times' allegation that "those who didn't vote simply don't care."

Once one catches on to the fact that the Taipei Times' preemptive editorial opinion pieces are inadvertent admissions of guilt, one need longer painstakingly rebut each and every Pan Green lie. Once one learns "How to Read the Taipei Times," one can sit back and chuckle as the Pan Green spin doctors on the Taipei Times editorial staff outsmart themselves, and unwittingly lay bare every DPP misdeed for the world to see.

The next time you pick up a copy of the Taipei Times at your local Taipei 7-11, or log onto their homepage, don't wear yourself out rebutting the transparent absurdities in their op-ed pieces. Just remember "How to Read the Taipei Times" and let them do the work for you.

Taiwan Fiddles, while Rome Burns

Taiwan Fiddles, while Rome Burns
Bevin Chu
September 8, 2005

Senatus Populus Que Americanus

According to an August 24, 2005 Wall Street Journal editorial entitled "Taiwan Fiddles":

"Taiwan spends a small fortune lobbying Washington so the U.S. will ride to its rescue in case of a Chinese attack. Yet more than four years after the U.S. offered a package of advanced defense weapons, politicians in Taipei still haven't decided to buy them. This isn't helping Taiwan's cause in Washington."

The title of the editorial refers of course to Nero, aka Tiberius Claudius Nero Domitianus Caesar, the decadent Roman emperor who "fiddled while Rome burned." The Wall Street Journal's dire implication is that although Taiwan/Rome is on the verge of falling to mainland China/the Huns, Republic of China political leaders are "fiddling" and "dawdling," and that any ROC political leaders who balk at buying a pig in a poke from the US military industrial complex are latter day Neros, fiddling while Rome burns.

But what is Rome in this scenario? Is it Taipei?

How could it be? Taipei is hardly the center of the Roman Empire. All roads do not lead to Taipei.

As a matter of fact, it would be more accurate to say that under Pan Green dictatorship, no roads lead to Taipei. The Taiwan independence nomenklatura has banned direct mail, maritime cargo, and air transport links to mainland China for nearly two decades. Lee Teng-hiu's economically suicidal "Avoid Haste, Use Patience" policy, dutifully maintained by successor Chen Shui-bian, has effectively doomed the island's economy, sealing it off from its vital source of livelihood, the Chinese mainland. Taiwan independence Quislings pursue this economically suicidal course of action because their fundamental strategy is to promote political independence through ethnic apartheid.

Besides, what is Taiwan to the authors of the editorial? Is anyone so naive as to believe they lie awake at night wringing their hands, worrying about the well-being of 23 million Chinamen on Taiwan? Taiwan is Imperium Americanus' military colony, its regional puppet, its "forward presence" against alleged "strategic competitor" China. Nothing more.

The Neocon China Threat theorists who penned the editorial know perfectly well that Rome is Washington, DC, the capital of Imperium Americanus, the American Empire, the New Rome. New Rome, the Galactic Empire depicted by George Lucas in his Star Wars saga is what the authors of the editorial care about, not the Taiwanese "ma qian zu," (sacrificial pawns).

See:
Star Wars and the American Empire

The Gravest Threat to Peace in the Taiwan Strait

"In April 2001, the Bush administration reversed the Clinton policy and offered Patriot anti-missile batteries, anti-submarine aircraft and diesel submarines. It did so at some diplomatic risk, since China has objected to the sale. But Taiwan clearly needs a stronger deterrent given China's military buildup, which includes more missiles targeting the island and aggressive submarine activity. China passed an anti-secession law in March, mandating force if Taiwan rejects "peaceful reunification.""

Scare quotes arround the term "peaceful reunification" to the contrary notwithstanding, Taiwan, or more precisely, Chinese people on Taiwan, do not need extortionately priced, technologically obsolete versions of "Patriot anti-missile batteries, anti-submarine aircraft and diesel submarines." They do not need "a stronger deterrent" because they oppose Taiwan independence in the first place. They do not need to meekly cough up protection money disingenuously relabeled as "arms sales." No independence, no war. No war, no arms. No arms, no sales.

Neoconservative China Threat theories to the contrary notwithstanding, Beijing is not "the most serious threat to peace in East Asia." That distinction goes to the New Rome, Washington, DC. As a result of Necon China Threat theorists' irrational hostility towards a peacefully rising China, the gravest threat to peace in the Taiwan Strait is Imperium Americanus. Even formerly compliant allies of the US such as South Korea and Australia have recently come to this realization. Beijing ironically, is beginning to look like "the most responsible guarantor of peace in the Taiwan Strait."

Butter Yes, Guns No

What precisely is Neocon China policy?

Neocon China policy can be summed up in three words: "Keep China Down!" The Neoconservative China Threat theorists in the Bush II administration keep China down by undermining Chinese reunification and abetting Taiwan independence. They extort "protection money" from Taiwan's privileged and wealthy Quisling nomenklatura, which in turn takes it out of the hide of hapless ROC citizens on Taiwan.

No US administration is going to openly admit this of course. So one administration after another pays ritual lip service to "One China," even as they continue to covertly aid and abet Taiwan independence from behind the scenes.

What Chinese people on Taiwan need is a long overdue cessation of outdated Cold War hostilities. What Chinese people on Taiwan need is orderly and peaceful reunification with the Chinese mainland, on the largely successful German model. I say "largely" because Germany encountered technical difficulties that China ought to avoid repeating.

The ideological discrediting of Stalinism in the Warsaw Pact nations resulted in the political dissolution of the USSR.

As a consequence, Soviet/Russian Communism is no longer a messianic, expansionist political force that needs to be defended against. Even assuming it needs to be defended against philosophically, it no longer needs defending against militarily.

The ideological discrediting of Maoism on the Chinese mainland resulted in the economic transformation of the PRC.

As a consequence, Chinese Communism is no longer a coercive redistributionist political force that needs to be defended against. As a consequence, the Cold War era "Mexican Standoff" between Taipei and Beijing has reverted to a domestic Chinese concern. It is no longer an American concern, assuming it ever was.

In fact, what the editorial refers to as "China's military buildup" is the best reason for patriotic Chinese on Taiwan to accelerate the process of reunification with the Chinese mainland. Accelerated reunification with the mainland would allow Chinese citizens on Taiwan to stop paying through the nose for "defense." Defense against whom? Against their fellow countrymen?

Accelerated reunification with the mainland would allow Chinese on Taiwan to rely on their mainland compatriots for defense against genuine aggression, such as recent Japanese attempts to annex the Taiwanese island of Diaoyutai. It would allow Chinese on Taiwan to reallocate arms budgets to desperately needed ecological measures such as watershed conservation, and infrastructure improvements such as storm drain construction.

Chen Fiddles while Taiwan Drowns

The Wall Street Journal speaks of "politicians in Taipei." Who are these "politicians in Taipei" who have incurred the wrath of the Wall Street Journal? Are they the illegitimate US puppet Chen Shui-bian and his unelected appointees in his imperial executive?

No, they are the duly elected legislators of the Pan Blue KMT/NP/PFP democratic majority in the ROC legislature.

As the authors put it:

"But legislators in Taiwan have blocked any purchase plan proposed by President Chen Shui-bian. Some opposition politicians have even accused the U.S. of using the arms sales as a pretext to pursue a hidden agenda of demonizing China. Lien Chan, until last week chairman of the main opposition party, has argued the country can't afford the $15 billion price tag. But this doesn't wash for an island with per-capita income of $13,000 a year."

Really? The United States of America, the richest nation in the world, with a per-capita income of $40,100 a year, cannot afford to wage war against Baghdad and Hurricane Katrina at the same time. The World's Only Remaining Superpower has lost the "Big Easy," New Orleans, one of her most beautiful cities, and over 10,000 lives to a single hurricane.

How is the Taiwan region of China, with a per-capita income of only $13,000 a year, supposed to wage war against the Chinese mainland in addition to Typhoon Haitang, Typhoon Toraji, Typhoon Nari, and Typhoon Talim, assuming it has any reason to do so?

Typhoon Haitang, Typhoon Toraji, Typhoon Nari, and Typhoon Talim have devasted Taiwan the way Hurricane Katrine devasted Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Lousiana. The Taiwan independence nomenlatura has attempted to attribute the catastrophic consequences of these typhoons entirely to Force Majeure, to Acts of God.

Unfortunately for them, the public on Taiwan doesn't buy it. The public's memory may be short, but it's not that short. The public remembers perfectly well that tax monies which should have been devoted to flood control and water conservation were squandered promoting Taiwan independence; bribing tinpot dictators in Central America and Sub-Saharan Africa, not to mention congressmen and arms merchants in the United States.

Most westerners don't know it, but Chen Shui-bian's given name, Shui-bian, has a peculiar meaning. The word "shui" means water. The word "bian" means "flat" (adjective) or "to flatten" (verb, transitive). Together "Shui-bian" means "to flatten with water" or "to be flattened by water."

During Chen Shui-bian's first term, plus his unelected, illegal "second term," the island of Taiwan has quite literally been "flattened by water."

The irony has not escaped the notice of either the public on Taiwan, or talking heads on television. Is "Lao Tien" (Heaven/Providence) giving the Taiwan independence nomenklatura a sign? Is Lao Tien suggesting "regime change?" Even Pan Green voters are wondering.

The Will of the People vs. the Will of Washington

"Mr. Lien, as it happens, was given red-carpet treatment during a high-profile visit to Beijing in April. A month later, he rebuffed a plea from 33 U.S. Congressmen to end his party's obstruction of the bill now before Taiwan's legislature and approve special funding for the arms purchases. Mr. Lien instead blamed President Chen for waiting three years before submitting the funding request in June 2004. Opposition parties, which run the legislature, have used procedural tactics to block the funding bill at least 26 times."

"The good news is that the recent Pentagon report on China's military has put opponents on the defensive by highlighting how Taiwan risks "being quickly overwhelmed" by Beijing's rapidly modernizing forces. And Mr. Lien has been succeeded as KMT chairman by Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou, who seems to understand the urgency of the arms purchases."

What can one do except laugh?

Ever since the Berlin Wall fell, ever since the Cold War ended, ever since America became the World's Only Remaining Superpower, what have Neoconservative "Neo-imperialists" (their own term) been telling us? Haven't these Champions of Democracy been trumpeting the virtues of the American political system?

Leave aside the critical differences between a republic and a democracy for the moment. Leave aside the fact that George W's US police state bears scant resemblance to the America of Founding Father George Washington. Haven't Neocon China Threat theorists been telling God and all Creation that their most devout wish is for the world to adopt American style "democracy?"

Leave aside the fact that the US today is ruled by a single party, the "Demopublican Party," and that there isn't a dimes worth of difference between the liberal and conservative wings of this single party monopoly. Hasn't the Neocon China Threat theorists' central criticism of mainland China been that it is a "single party dictatorship without an effective political opposition to ensure that it respects the Will of the People?"

Isn't the American political system characterized by its tripartite separation of powers into executive, legislative, and judicial? By its legislative branch providing a check on unbridled spending by an imperial executive?

Aren't the actions of opposition parties on Taiwan, which "run the legislature," and which "have used procedural tactics to block the funding bill," merely the purest expression of American style "multiparty democracy" in action?

Neocon Neo-imperialists are not really concerned about whether foreign governments practice American style "democracy." Neocon Neo-imperialists are not really concerned about whether foreign governments obey the "Will of the People." Neocon Neo-imperialists are only concerned about whether foreign governments obey the "Will of Washington."

Taiwan Independence and Free Lunches

The Fallacy of the Ambiguous Collective: The use of a collective term without any meaningful delimitation of the elements it subsumes. "We" "you" "they" "the people" "the system" and "as a whole" are the most widely used examples. This fallacy is especially widespread and devastating in the realm of political discussion, where its use renders impossible the task of discriminating among distinctively different groups of people.
-- A Handbook of Logical Fallacies

"The problem is that while Taiwan dawdles, China keeps modernizing its military. The 2001 U.S. offer, while still useful, may require upgrading if Taiwan truly wants the capability to hold off an invading force long enough to allow the U.S. to intervene. Given Taiwan's half-hearted response to the current arms offer, there's little point in considering a fresh one now. But if Taiwan wants the U.S. to risk its blood and treasure in the event of an attack, paying for an adequate defense would seem to be a minimum prerequisite."

Every nation worthy of the name should of course pay for its own national defense. After all, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. I have made this point repeatedly in my own articles over the years.

Unfortunately the authors of "Taiwan Fiddles" are guilty of the "ambiguous collective fallacy." They use the term "Taiwan" as a synonym for 23 million individuals, as in "If Taiwan wants the U.S. to risk its blood and treasure."

But "Taiwan" doesn't want the US to risk its blood and treasure.

A 55% majority of the voting public on Taiwan angrily rejected Chen Shui-bian's "Defensive Referendum." These are so-called "Pan Blue" voters. These Pan Blue voters do not expect free lunches from the United States. They do not want the US to "ride to the rescue." They do not want to pay the US to "ride to the rescue." They want the US to butt out and mind its own damned business. They know that if the US ever does "ride to the rescue" it will be because it is aiding and abetting the Taiwan independence movement in an attempt to Balkanize the nation they love.

Pan Green Taiwan independence Quislings are the only people on Taiwan who expect free lunches from the United States. They want to provoke Beijing into lashing out against Taiwan in anger. They want the US to "ride to the rescue." They want the US to "risk its blood and treasure." They want to exploit the ensuing Sino-US War to establish an independent "Republic of Taiwan." Is it necessary to point out that they want to pay as little as possible for this result?

Are the authors of "Taiwan Fiddles" serious about identifying the freeloaders on Taiwan? Or are they merely interested in railing against the Taiwanese counterparts of Hugo Chavez?

See:
Taiwan is not a Colony or Protectorate of the United States
Taiwan's Stolen Election
Taiwan Independence and Free Lunches

Democracy, the Worst Form of Government, Part II

Democracy, the Worst Form of Government ever Tried, Part II
America and China, Republics not Democracies
Bevin Chu
August 29, 2005

de·moc·ra·cy
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

1: Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives 2: A political or social unit that has such a government 3: The common people, considered as the primary source of political power 4: Majority rule 5: The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community
-- The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

1: the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives 2: a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them [syn: republic, commonwealth] [ant: autocracy] 3: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group [syn: majority rule]
-- WordNet 2.0, 2003 Princeton University

Progressive Era

The Progressive Era ... began in ... the 1890s and lasted through the 1920s ... Many reforms dotted this era, including Prohibition with the 18th Amendment ... the Income Tax with the 16th Amendment and direct election of Senators with the 17th Amendment. Muckrakers ... reaction-producing writers ... were among ... the best examples of progressive reformers ... Initiative, Referendum and Recall, all parts of the ... fully democratic state, were ... pioneered during the movement.
-- Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

China, like America, was never intended to be a democracy. Dr. Sun Yat-sen, the Founding Father of modern China, like Benjamin Franklin, intended that the nation he bequeathed to posterity would be "A republic, if you can keep it!" This much is beyond dispute. The name of the nation Sun founded, after all, is "The Republic of China." This would hardly be worth mentioning were it not for the fact that so many people have forgotten it.

Yes, Sun made frequent and abundant use of the term "min zhu," i.e., "people rule," i.e., "democracy." But Sun was using "democracy" in the greatly expanded, grossly inaccurate 20th Century sense of the word, as if it were a synonym for republic and an antonym for autocracy. When Sun used the word democracy, he meant republic. No one who knows anything about Sun's "San Min Zhu Yi" (Three People's Principles) can have the slightest doubt about this.

Sun, like America's Founding Fathers, was a firm believer in republican government, not democracy. Sun, like America's Founding Fathers, was a firm believer in indirect as opposed to direct government. Sun, like America's Founding Fathers, was a firm believer in structural constraints as obstacles to "democracy," aka "mobocracy."

All this should be abundantly clear from the structural constraints Sun incorporated into the Chinese constitution, which closely mirror the structural constraints the Founding Fathers incorporated into the American constitution. The National Assembly is a good example. The National Assembly was Sun Yat-sen's answer to the Electoral College. The National Assembly, like the Electoral College, is a proudly, unabashedly "undemocratic" feature of the Chinese constitution. The Control Yuan is another. The Control Yuan represents Sun's attempt not only to emulate the American constitution's checks and balances, but to enhance them.

What is the difference between a republic and a democracy?

A republic is a nation ruled by law. The highest law in a republic is its constitution. In a republic everyone obeys the constitution.

A democracy, on the other hand, is a nation ruled by men. The highest law in a democracy is the "Will of the People." In a democracy, everyone obeys a man who represents the Will of the People. A man who represents the Will of the People is better known as a dictator.

It is no accident that Pan Green Taiwan independence fascists spearheaded the elimination of both the National Assembly and the Control Yuan. The aptly named Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) understands only too well that democratic political institutions such as Initiative, Referendum, and Recall, are highly compatible with fascism, whereas republican political institutions such as Constitutionalism, Original Intent, and the Rule of Law are insurmountable obstacles to fascism that must first be eliminated before the Pan Green camp can implement their fascist agenda.

It is no accident that Pan Blue "Da Zhong Guo" (Greater China) reunificationists spearheaded the successful boycott of Chen Shui-bian's illegal and unconstitutional "Defensive Referendum." Pan Blue reunificationists, after all, are true blue champions of the Republic of China Constitution and the Rule of Law.

George Orwell, in "Politics and the English Language," observed that "The slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts... to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration... the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers."

Truer words were never written. What language could be more slovenly than modern political language? What thought could be more foolish than modern political thought?

Terms such as "liberal" and "democracy" once had exact meanings.

The term "liberal" originally meant "an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism." A liberal was a disciple of Adam Smith and John Locke.

Today "liberal" means "an advocate of redistributionist welfare statism." Today a liberal is a disciple of John Maynard Keynes and John Kenneth Galbraith. Today, the term "liberal" means the diametric opposite of what it meant during the Enlightenment. Today bonafide liberals have no choice but to refer to themselves as "classical liberals" or "libertarians."

The term "democracy" originally meant "people rule," or more idiomatically, "rule by the people." A democracy was a form of government that stressed universal suffrage, multiparty elections, and majority rule. Nothing more. The term did not contain any unwarranted positive connotations. It did not imply superiority over other forms of government. It did not imply, a la Neoconservative polemicist Francis Fukuyama, that mankind had arrived at "The End of History" and that democracy was the final stage of political evolution.

Today democracy is defined as the only legitimate form of government. Rejecting democracy is not an option. "Non-democratic" is equated with "undemocratic." "Undemocratic" is equated with "autocratic."

Today "democracy" is no longer a scientific definition. It is a religious catechism, to be invoked in the same breath as motherhood and apple pie. It is a catch-all phrase for "good government," for "enlightened government," for "progressive government," for "social equality and respect for the individual within a community."

Today, two centuries after the American Revolution, one century after the fascistic, populist Progressive Era, the critical distinction between a republic and a democracy has been thoroughly obliterated. Today "democracy" is considered a synonym for "republic" and an antonym for "autocracy."

This sort of equivocation, enormously useful for enforcing pro-democracy Political Correctness, has made our political language as worthless as fiat currency following runaway inflation.

Alexander Hamilton warned that the essential nature of democracy is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson warned that democracy is nothing more than mob rule. James Madison warned that democracies are spectacles of turbulence and contention, incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.

In today's America, the solemn warnings of these far-sighted champions of republican government and opponents of democracy are treated as "er bian feng" (wind whistling past the ears), and the proud republic established by America's Founding Fathers has been perverted into the very system they feared and loathed the most -- democracy.

The Republic of China under the Two Chiangs was a republic -- a flawed, imperfect republic, but a republic nonetheless.

The Republic of China under Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shiu-bian is a "democracy." Not a democracy in today's ambiguous, equivocal sense of the word, but a democracy in the Founding Fathers' semantically precise sense of the word, i.e., an elective dictatorship.

What Taiwan needs today is not a Pan Green "deepening of democracy," but a Pan Blue rebirth of republican government.

Democracy, the Worst Form of Government ever Tried

Democracy, the Worst Form of Government ever Tried
Bevin Chu
August 2, 2005

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-- Winston Churchill

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."
-- Winston Churchill

Executive Summary: As the preceding quotes suggest, Winston Churchill was deeply ambivalent about democracy. On the one hand, he was not about to regurgitate the civics class twaddle we all ingested about Democracy with a capital D. On the other hand, he could see no better alternative. Alas, Churchill's political education was incomplete. The great statesman, for all his far-ranging political knowledge, was wrong. Democracy is not "the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." Democracy is the worst form of government ever tried, period. Democracy ranks among the gravest threats to individual rights and individual liberty in human history. Democracy is, in certain respects, even worse than absolute monarchy. Ignorant and arrogant modern day "champions of democracy" need to get a clue. Assuming they are sincere when they sound off about valuing the sovereign individual above the ominipotent state, then the people they most need to educate about democracy are not the leaders of the PRC in Beijing, but themselves.

Modern Ignorance, Modern Arrogance

Modern day "champions of democracy" consider democracy, or liberal democracy, (or is it Liberal Democracy?) their secular religion, and "free and fair elections" their holiest of sacraments. Let's hear what some of them have to say about their religious faith.

According to the right wing, global interventionist Freedom House, which purports to employ "rigorous analytic standards" in its annual reports on the state of freedom in the world:

"Democracies... are political systems whose leaders are elected in competitive multi-party and multi-candidate processes in which opposition parties have a legitimate chance of attaining power or participating in power. Freedom House is a clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world. Founded... by... Americans concerned with the mounting threats to peace and democracy, Freedom House has been a vigorous proponent of democratic values and a steadfast opponent of dictatorships of the far left and the far right... Freedom House is a leading advocate of the world's young democracies, which are coping with the debilitating legacy of statism, dictatorship, and political repression. It... promote[s] human rights, democracy, free market economics, the rule of law, independent media, and U.S. engagement in international affairs."

According to the federal Leviathan's compulsory, involuntary, decidedly unfree, taxpayer-funded National Endowment for Democracy, whose motto is "Supporting freedom around the world":

"The Endowment is guided by the belief that freedom is a universal human aspiration that can be realized through the development of democratic institutions, procedures, and values... the NED makes hundreds of grants each year to support prodemocracy groups in Africa, Asia, Central and Eastern Europe, Eurasia, Latin America, and the Middle East."

According to exiled mainland Chinese champion of democracy Wang Dan, of Tiananmen notoriety:

"We make no attempt to conceal the aim of the current student movement, which is to exert pressure on the government to promote the progress of democracy. People's yearning for democracy, science, human rights, freedom, reason, and equality, which lack a fundamental basis in China, have once again been aroused."

According to exiled mainland Chinese champion of democracy Wei Jingsheng, author of "The Fifth Modernization":

"People need prosperity... to pursue their first goal of happiness, namely freedom. Democracy means the maximum attainable freedom so far known by human beings. It is quite obvious that democracy has become the goal in contemporary human struggles."

What can one say in response to these "champions of democracy," except that they are wrong, wrong, wrong? Freedom House is wrong. The National Endowment for Democracy is wrong. Wang Dan is wrong. Wei Jingsheng is wrong.

Freedom House for example, purports to employ "rigorous analytical standards" in its self-congratulatory annual ritual of passing judgment on the nations of the world.

One can only wonder what "rigorous analytical standards" Freedom House employed when it classified Bush II's post-911 "Secure Homeland" as "Free" and awarded it a rating of 1 for Political Rights and 1 for Civil Liberties; while awarding mainland China, which takes from "Unfree" Chinese less than a third of what the US federal government takes from "Free" Americans in taxes, a rating of 7 for Political Rights and 6 for Civil Liberties.

One can only wonder what "rigorous analytical standards" Freedom House employed when it classified Taiwan, with its unelected US puppet squatting in the ROC Presidential Palace since May 20, 2004, as "Free" and awarded it a rating of 2 for Political Rights and 1 for Civil Liberties; while classifying transparent, uncorrupt Singapore as "Partly Free" and awarding it a rating of 5 for Political Rights and 4 for Civil Liberties.

The "rigorous analytical standards" Freedom House employed were apparently double standards.

It's bad enough that flagrantly biased judgment calls such as these cast doubt on Freedom House's integrity. What's worse is they cast doubt on Freedom House's grasp of political science, of cause and effect, of the catastrophic consequences of imposing defective political systems such as democracy upon hapless human populations.

Freedom House, the National Endowment for Democracy, Wang Dan, and Wei Jingsheng are united in their ignorant conflation of liberal democracy with political liberty, and their arrogant demand that China adopt their failed and discredited system of government.

Free market economist Thomas Sowell had some choice words for this kind of facile thinking: "To include freedom in the... definition of democracy is to define a process not by its actual characteristics... but by its hoped for results."

Ancient Wisdom, Ancient Humility

Modern champions of democracy, who fancy themselves courageous defenders of the American political ideal, have either totally forgotten or never learned what America's Founding Fathers knew two centuries ago -- democracy is the worst form of government ever tried.

Don't believe me? Consider the following quotes:

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
-- Benjamin Franklin, leader of the American Revolution

"A Democracy is the most vile form of government there is!"
-- Thomas Paine, author of Common Sense, champion of the American Revolution

"We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy... It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."
-- Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury to George Washington, author of the Federalist Papers

"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
-- John Adams, 2nd President of the United States

"The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind."
-- Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States, author of the Bill of Rights

"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.
-- James Madison, 4th President of the United States, Father of the Constitution

"The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived."
-- John Quincy Adams, 6th President of the United States

"Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."
-- John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, 1801-1835

Surprised? You shouldn't be, not if you know your political history.

America's Founding Fathers were visionary political philosophers confronted with the most daunting task imagineable. Their task was not merely to found a new nation, but to invent a new system of government. They diligently researched history to learn what to do. History rewarded them. It taught them not only what to do, but even more importantly, what not to do. The most important thing they learned not to do, was to adopt democracy, the worst form of government ever tried.

Given the Founding Fathers' fully warranted fear and loathing of democracy, we should not be surprised that the Constitution of the United States does not contain a single solitary reference to the word "democracy," but instead stipulates that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government."

The distinction between a democracy and a republic is hardly trivial. That the distinction between a democracy and a republic could inspire the Founding Fathers to such passions speaks volumes. The Founding Fathers considered the distinction between a democracy and a republic to be the distinction between freedom and slavery, between civilization and barbarism, between prosperity and poverty.

Not so Ancient Wisdom, Not so Ancient Humility

The following are excerpts from a 156 page citizenship manual issued by the US War Department, November 30,1928, explaining the difference between a democracy and a republic.

The Franklin Delano Roosevelt White House later ordered all copies of this manual withdrawn from the Government Printing Office and all US Army posts and destroyed without explanation:

Prepared under the direction of the Chief of Staff.

CITIZENSHIP

This manual supersedes Manual of Citizenship Training The use of the publication "The Constitution of the United States," by Harry Atwood, is by permission and courtesy of the author.

CITIZENSHIP Democracy:

A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, [chaos].

CITIZENSHIP Republic:

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress. Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world. A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of

(1) an executive and (2) a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create (3) a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their government acts and to recognize (4) certain inherent individual rights.

Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.

Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority can not be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered. Democracy is the direct rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success. Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic.

By order of the Secretary of War: C.P. Summerall, Major General, Chief of Staff. Official: Lutz Wahl, Major General, The Adjutant General.

[That was 1928. By 1952 however, the new Army Field Manual read:]

"Meaning of democracy. Because the United States is a democracy, the majority of the people decide how our government will be organized and run - and that includes the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The people do this by electing representatives, and these men and women then carry out the wishes of the people.
-- The Soldiers Guide, Department of the Army Field Manual, issued June 1952

As we can see, after being subjected to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's fascistic New Deal, the once free American people forgot their constitutional republican roots, and allowed themselves to be led down the populist democratic path toward slavery.

Heaven protect China from Democracy

That modern day "champions of democracy" are so woefully ignorant about something that America's Founding Fathers knew backwards and forwards, makes one want to weep with despair. It wasn't supposed to be this way. Mankind was supposed to become more sophisticated with the passage of time, not more simple-minded. Mankind was supposed to profit from precious wisdom acquired at immense cost in human lives, not blank it from memory within a few short generations.

That modern Chinese intellectuals would wind up reflexively parroting pro-democracy slogans is deeply discouraging, but is at least understandable. Democracy after all, is a western innovation. Chinese intellectuals eager to be perceived as progressive and forward thinking can be forgiven for conflating western progress in general with western democracy in particular.

But what excuse do American intellectuals have? The wisdom of America's Founding Fathers is not foreign history. The wisdom of America's Founding Fathers is not Chinese history. The wisdom of America's Founding Fathers is the vital core of America's proud history.

Demands from Chinese citizens on the mainland for the PRC government to adhere to the Rule of Law are entirely legitimate. In fact, they are absolutely essential. Idealistic PRC leaders at the central government level are pressing for such reforms themselves.

Demands from Chinese citizens on Taiwan for the PRC government to adhere to the Rule of Law are also entirely legitimate. Ironically, the current ROC government on Taiwan is far less committed to the Rule of Law than the current PRC government on the Chinese mainland.

Demands from Chinese citizens on Taiwan for the PRC government to adopt democracy before they are willing to see the two sides reunited however, are myopic folly, especially coming from Pan Blue political leaders.

Demands from foreign governments for the PRC government to adopt democracy are the most despicable of all. Demands from foreign governments that China be saddled with the worst form of government ever tried, can rightly be construed as overtly hostile gestures and looked upon askance.

Heaven protect China from Democracy!

The Best Form of Government ever Tried

Democracy, as we have seen, is the worst form of government ever tried. But what is the best form of government ever tried?

The best form of government ever tried, sadly, has largely been lost to mankind's collective memory. The best form of government ever tried flourished on Iceland between 930 and 1262.

It is time the modern world reclaimed the best form of government ever tried and gave it another chance. But that is the subject for another essay altogether.

See:
Democracy, the Worst Form of Government ever Tried, Part II
Democracy, the Worst Form of Government ever Tried, Part III
http://thechinadesk.blogspot.com/2006/03/market-anarchism-solution-to-dilemma-of.html