Tags: More | Chinese | Propaganda

More Chinese Propaganda

Thursday, 09 September 2004 12:00 AM

“The Jamestown Foundation’s mission is to inform and educate policy makers and the broad policy community about events and trends in those societies which are strategically or tactically important to the United States and which frequently restrict access to such information.”

The Foundation has e-mailed to me the Sept. 2 issue of its China Brief, a “journal of news and analysis” about China.

Of the three articles in the issue I have found only one of interest to me, judging by its title, “New National Strategy Provides Insight into China’s Rise.”

The word “rise” is as vague, propagandistic and alien to English as the Soviet Russian word “podyom,” which Mao took from his teacher Stalin and had translated into Chinese as “rise.” The two authors of the China Brief article do not use even once the word “dictatorship” in application to China. For in post-1949 China the form of government is, you see, not dictatorship, but “true democracy,” as it was in Stalin’s Russia.

A Chinese reader of my Internet column explained to me that in contrast to Soviet Russia the leadership in China is collective.

Well, in Soviet Russia, when Lenin became incapacitated by his illness and then died, the dictatorship was “collective” – it was an oligarchy, and Stalin became a sole, Mao-like dictator only 10 or 15 years later. When Stalin died, an oligarchy again ensued. And so on up to 1991, when the dictatorship fell – if only for a while.

Avoiding such “bad words” as “dictatorship” or even “oligarchy,” the article announces:

“In late July, the Politburo standing committee met for a study session to consider ways to build a ‘prosperous nation and powerful military. ...’”

Then, in parentheses, follows the Chinese version of “prosperous nation and powerful military.” It is clear why. Exactly the same could be said by Stalin in Russian (or in his native Georgian). But according to the ritual of American university humanity scholarship, it is necessary to drop Chinese words in “Chinese studies,” just as it was necessary to drop Russian words in “Sovietological” scholarship, no matter how absurd, or propagandistic, or shallow. The question that the article answers: Why is a more “powerful military” necessary? Stalin answered “for peace”! And this is how the article answers the question:

“While the idea that carrying a big stick gives a nation the ability to negotiate peace on their own terms is not novel [no, it was proclaimed by ancient empires, to say nothing of modern dictatorships], its adoption by Chinese leaders potentially signifies a major departure for Chinese national strategy, providing insight into a new phase of China’s development that will undoubtedly affect its international relations in the post-cold war period.”

The article takes Taiwan as an example. If the People’s Liberation Army is powerful enough to “liberate” Taiwan and deter U.S. participation in the defense of it, then the latter will PEACEFULLY discard its wish to be independent of China. The same applies to Hong Kong (or Tibet). See? The Politburo’s increasingly “powerful military”? This is all

Speaking of the United States or of the democratic West as a whole: When the “powerful military” of China becomes powerful enough to annihilate the West (by molecular nanoweapons, for example), they will never start a war (the idea!) if the West surrenders PEACEFULLY, as did Japan when two “atom bombs” were dropped on two of its cities in 1945.

With the West as a colony of China, the advantages of this new peace (or should I say “peaceful rise,” imitating the Pidgin English of the article?) will be tremendous for China. The West will work for China as for the most ruthless employer in the old times of unlimited exploitation, and at the same time the United States will no longer subvert, by its very fact of independent existence, any Chinese, as happened on Tiananmen Square.

Neither Taiwan nor Hong Kong (nor Tibet) will be any problem henceforth. And world PEACE will reign supreme, for any country challenging it will be offered PEACEFULLY to surrender or face annihilation by the “big (nano) stick” of the Politburo.

Note that the word “buro” in “Politburo” is spelled in the article not in the English way, “bureau,” but in the Russian way, “buro,” as Stalin spelled it and Mao followed. The political world of China is that of Stalin’s Russia minus Stalin’s “world’s most democratic general elections.” The phrase “Communist China” is too general. The phrase “Stalinist China” is more accurate.

Now, who are the authors of this “scholarly study”?

Zhu Feng is a “Chinese citizen” (not a Chinese dissident who has escaped to the USA in search of freedom). He is a scholar at the Center for Strategic (!) and International (!) Studies in Washington, D.C., AND a professor in Peking University in the capital of Stalinist China. If he knows nothing else about it, he does know that if he writes what runs counter to the Stalinist Chinese propaganda, he will lose his Peking University professorship – at the very best.

However, this knowledge may be quite subconscious. Consciously, he may well believe that he is a free person in the world’s freest country, as Stalin’s Russia was officially called. Many Chinese are no less naive politically than were Russians in Stalin’s Russia or than are children under the age of 6.

Thus, on Sept. 5, Professor Jun Hu of the Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics sent me an e-mail protesting my mention, in the Foreword to Robert Marlow’s article, of Dr. Hu’s nano-bio research as “supporting evidence for your points on [the] ‘China threat.’”

Dr. Hu says that already in January 2000 he and his team were “ahead of other researchers in the world.” I have not read the final version of my Foreword, but in general this is my point. If Dr. Hu could be in January 2000 ahead of the West (by years!) in nano-bio research, why could not Stalinist China be ahead (by years!) in nanoweapons research, for which the Politburo of China can allocate any money without any legislative body or any public notice?

Besides, whatever the intentions Dr. Hu might have been, no one can vouch that his world-leading nano-bio research will not be used in the development of post-nuclear superweapons. Many scientists who had studied nuclear physics up to 1939 did not suspect that their studies would lead to the development of nuclear weapons from 1939 to 1945.

The second author of the China Brief article is Drew Thompson, who “worked” (?) in China “for 7 years in the 1990s,” but China Brief does not say what his work was. If he writes, with Zhu Feng, what runs counter to Stalinist Chinese propaganda, he will not be allowed to re-enter China at the very best, which he knows, even if only subconsciously.

What is the role of such “Chinese studies”?

Outside universities, there has been total oblivion of what was still occasionally called in the 1990s “the China threat.” However, the academic “Chinese studies” have continued to exist, since the salaries are paid, the social benefits are issued, the grants and endowments are intact. Besides, some Americans, terrified by the general silence about “the China threat,” express hope that at least “academic Chinese studies” are not silent.

No, they are not. And as the China Brief of the Jamestown Foundation indicates, they are engaged in Stalinist Chinese propaganda.

For information about Drexler’s Foresight Institute and its lobbying in Congress, see www.foresight.org

To learn more about the Chris Phoenix report, suggesting a “nano Manhattan Project,” go to crnano.org.

For information about the Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, Inc., including how you can help, please e-mail me at

The link to my book online is www.levnavrozov.com. You also can request our

104-104-104-104

© 2019 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

   
1Like our page
2Share
Pre-2008
"The Jamestown Foundation's mission is to inform and educate policy makers and the broad policy community about events and trends in those societies which are strategically or tactically important to the United States and which frequently restrict access to such...
More,Chinese,Propaganda
1296
2004-00-09
Thursday, 09 September 2004 12:00 AM
Newsmax Media, Inc.
 

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved