陈凯一语： Kai Chen's Words:
中国人的病态“主子奴才情结”是与中国人的“非人政治文化心态”是息息相关的。 “人上人”与“人下人”是相依而存的。 不平等、没尊严是与“非人反人”相依而存的。 “无人虚无”是中国非人反人文化的实质。 我将一篇关于迟浩田讲话声称“杀一半儿美国人称霸世界”的文章贴在这儿共你思考。 --- 陈凯
The pathological Chinese complex of "being either a master or a slave" is deeply rooted in China's "anti-human" nihilistic political culture. "Being above someone" actually goes hand in hand with "being below someone". Superiority actually goes hand in hand with inferiority. Inequality with indignity from everyone is the necessary result. Inhumanity is the essence. I attached another article on Chinese general Chi Haotian (Tiananmen Butcher). To think that by eliminating half of America's population to ensure a Chinese Slave Empire makes me shudder. --- Kai Chen
At Large
American Spectator: China Wins 美国观察：中国人的不平等/奴才主子情结 By George H. Wittman on 11.25.09 @ 6:07AM
President Obama has done his best to convince the Chinese leadership that he considers China an equal to the United States. Unfortunately he has missed the essential point of Chinese thinking. The Chinese believe they are superior to the United States -- and every other country. Part of this belief grows out of the sense of superiority that is an intrinsic part of Han culture. It perhaps does not fit in with the occidental idiom of international diplomacy that calls for a pretense at modesty, but it well fits the deep-seated, if carefully obscured, Chinese mindset.
An old Asian hand, the late Donald Wise, ex-Japanese POW and eventually an editor of the Far Eastern Economic Review, put it this way:
"The Westerner rarely understands that no matter how obsequious any Asian, especially the Chinese, may seek to act, he always will consider you a lesser human being. The Japanese show it more often and appear to need to ultimately display their dominance, but the Chinese are far more clever at hiding their true feelings and exercise their strength only when it is most advantageous." In more academic terms Dominic Lieven has noted in his book, The Russian Empire and Its Rivals, "… few Chinese have ever doubted the absolute superiority of their culture…" He further quotes a contemporary Chinese expert as speaking of "an innate, almost visceral, Han sense of superiority." This has certainly been the case in Beijing's handling of the new Obama Administration and President Obama himself -- even though the American president has shown no sign of noticing any slight. In fact, as the Financial Times's Geoff Dyer and Edward Luce have written regarding Obama's recent visit to Beijing: " …Mr. Obama formally conceded that in today's world the U.S. can get only so far without China's help."
This of course plays to the firm Chinese belief in their ultimate cultural, and now financial, superiority. While perhaps a necessary device in diplomatic placation of Beijing, such kowtowing does not provide any leverage for the U.S. in terms of its own strategic interests. The problem that exists is that President Obama and his White House advisers think it does. Like so many Westerners who in the past thought that they could "out-clever" the Chinese, the White House now thinks it has evolved a special relationship with Beijing in the creation of a unique financial partnership that it is happy to have the media characterize as the "G-2." Regarding China, sympathetic Washington pundits have taken to referring to "the new more pragmatic approach of Obama."
Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, what possibly is viewed by him as pragmatism is judged by the always superior Chinese leadership as an exploitable opportunity.
The idea of the United States teaching China how to be a friendly global power is ludicrous. The Chinese were developing economic contacts in Africa as early as the 1960s, and have played the game of patron of the Third World since the decade before that. It is possible to suggest that the Obama diplomatic methodology of excessive courtesy, characterized by some as fawning, is an excellent device that is far more effective than the "cowboy" character of the White House during the Bush years.
It indeed would be possible to say this if there was any sign that the Chinese in turn have assumed any global responsibility to go along with having been anointed by President Obama an equal to the United States. The truth is that Beijing, Washington's banker, delights in its role as a financial tutor to the United States that has so egregiously mismanaged its finances. The Chinese are quite secure in counseling their American government counterparts to roll back domestic programs while cutting back international military commitments. The Beijing administration sounds positively -- paleo-conservative. How clever is that? It might be well for the current White House to remember that the Chou empire of c.1000 B.C. believed their land occupied the middle of the earth, and that they were surrounded by barbarians. The communists renamed their country Zhonghua renmin gonghequo (middle glorious republican country), translated into English as, the People's Republic of China.
This Middle Kingdom still believes it is surrounded by barbarians. President Obama would do well to recognize the fact that this is not going to change. -------------------------------------------------------------
Chi Haotian 迟浩田 -- Butcher of Tiananmen Square 天安门屠夫 How Chi Haotian sees China's slave empire being first in history to go global 迟浩田声称杀一半儿美国人后奴役世界 Speech by Chi Haotian Link: 迟浩田讲话链锁： http://www.rense.com/general85/China'sPlanToConquer.htm
Lev Navrozov emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1972. His columns are today read in both English and Russian.
No ancient empire became physically global — the outside world was too distant and vague owing to the lack of later-day communications. Nor were slave empires rarities. Even in the first half of the 19th century, Russia was an empire with “serfdom” — slavery-dominated agriculture, and most inhabitants of cities were also slaves, except that they did not have private owners, for whom they would be obliged to work without pay. Today the entire world is observable from China, and that world might become part of the Chinese slave empire. Thus, such an empire would become global for the first time in history.
The event was so much delayed in global history because in free or freer countries there developed science and engineering — and hence the most advanced weapons. On the other hand, in the first half of the 20th century, China was “backward,” and hence it could well be grateful that it would not be conquered by Japan, for example, since the United States, at war with Japan after the latter’s Pearl Harbor attack, dropped on Japan two nuclear bombs.
During the June 4, 1989, massacre of unarmed Tiananmen seekers of freedom, Chi was the Chief of Staff of the People’s Liberation Army and supervised the massacre. Yet President Clinton received him in Washington, with a 19-gun salute in his honor. Until 2003, Chi Haotian was the Minister of Chinese National Defense. He is now 80 years of age, and in 2005 he was Vice Chairman of China Military Commission.
On 6/24/2009, the Yahoo! readers could read Chi’s speech of December 2005, under the heading “Speech by Comrade Chi Haotian, Vice-Chairman of China’s Military Commission.” The speech was delivered to the audience of top officers and generals of the People’s Republic of China.
Chi said that he was “very excited today” because in answering, “in the large-scale survey,” the “question ‘Will you shoot at women, children, and prisoners of war’ [in the U.S.A. and other enemy countries], more than 80 percent of the respondents answered in the affirmative.”
Why was Chi “very excited” about it?
If China’s global development will necessitate massive deaths in enemy countries, will our people endorse that scenario? Will they be for or against it? The fact is, our ‘development’ refers to the great revitalization of the Chinese nation, which of course, is not limited to the land we have now, but also includes the whole world.
Chi does not consider German Nazism evil. He considers the Germans insufficiently superior as a race and hence a failure. “Our Chinese people are wiser than the Germans because, fundamentally, our race is superior to theirs.” Yet Chi advises to avoid the use of the German word Lebensraum “too openly” in order to “avoid the West’s association of us with Nazi Germany, which could in turn reinforce the view that China is a threat.” Chi prefers to use Britain and the U.S.A. as negative examples (and not to praise Nazi Germany): . . . if we refer to the 19th century as the British Century and to the 20th century as the American Century, then the 21st Century will be the Chinese Century! (Wild applause fills the auditorium.)
How to deal with America?
America was first discovered by the ancestors of the yellow race, but Columbus gave credit to the White race. We the descendants of the Chinese nation are ENTITLED to the possession of that land! However: “Only by using special means to ‘clean up’ America will we be able to lead the Chinese people there.” Fortunately for the owners of China, these “special means” are known as biological weapons, and Chi devotes a long paragraph to describe for how long biological weapons have been developed in the People’s Republic of China.
In conclusion, Chi presents his usual excuse. “It is indeed brutal to kill one hundred or two hundred million Americans. But this is the only path that will secure a Chinese century, a century in which the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] leads the world.” Now, what is the purpose of making this official top-level speech known to the West? Traditionally, attackers make their war as unexpected as possible.
Here the Minister of National Defense of China up to 2003 and then, in 2005 the Vice-Chairman of China’s Military Commission explains to Chinese generals and officers (and to the world, including the U.S.A.) how China will kill by biological weapons one-third or two-thirds (or three-thirds?) of the population of the U.S.A. in order for the Chinese to settle in “clean America,” that is, America minus one-third or two-thirds (or all?) of its population. Mass robbery via mass murder. It seems to the rulers of China that China’s strategy should not be concealed but, on the contrary, should scare a potential victim. The United States has freedom, not slavery. The result of slavery in China is the conversion of population into slave soldiers ready to die if necessary when fighting an enemy. The result of freedom, according to Chinese like Chi, is the free search of the free population for its private happiness and first of all safety. Therefore, the free countries should be terrorized to make them surrender, which Chi has been doing for years. At the same time, Chi declares the Chinese to be the superior race and promises to them the property of the Americans and other inferior races to be murdered by Chinese biological weapons and make the People’s Republic of China a truly global empire for the first time in the history of our planet. -------------------------------------------------------------
Lev Navrozov can be reached by e-mail at navlev@cloud9.net. To learn more about and support his work at the Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, click here. If you intend to make a tax-exempt donation to the non-profit Center, please let us know via e-mail at navlev@cloud9.net, and we will send you all relevant information. Thank you.
Prague Spring 1968 布拉格之春 1968 
圖為哈維爾 Václav Havel 
