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.