Mao Tse Dunn looks kinda cute in a Mao Suit like all the Chinese wore back in the romantic era of Chairman Mao.
Posted on 10/24/2009 5:53:33 AM PDT by Kaslin
"[T]he death of ten to twenty million people is nothing to be afraid of." -Mao Tse-tung
"Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being's entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend ... on the pleasure of anyone else." -Mother Teresa
I recently wrote about the spectacle of New York's tallest building aglow in red and yellow to commemorate the founding of Mao Tse-tung's People's Republic of China. Oblivious New Yorkers basked in the glow of a leader and nation that killed more people more quickly than any leader or nation in history. Within its first two decades, Mao's Red China annihilated 60-70 million people, exceeding the combined death toll of World War I and II.
As I said, I'm not surprised by such horrible historical ignorance. This is what our education system, from K-12 to universities, has taught-or failed to teach. Besides, Mao was idolized by many of the '60s leftists who today pervade our culture and politics.
Well, behold another painful exhibit: President Obama's director of communications, Anita Dunn.
Speaking on June 5 at a high-school graduation ceremony at the National Cathedral, Dunn provided the youngsters with some nuggets of wisdom. She cited "two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse-tung and Mother Teresa."
I know that seems unbelievable. Yet, thanks to the advent of FOXNews, talk-radio, and the web, these things are no longer easily censored by the partisan mainstream media. You can look them up yourself. (Click here to watch .)
Specifically, Dunn's comments were exposed by Glenn Beck on Fox. In response, liberals are attacking not Dunn but Beck. (See this article by CNN. ) This is sadly predictable, as it has always been anti-communism (watch my lecture here ) that upsets liberals.
It's maddening to have watched the children of the '60s openly embrace Chairman Mao-some for 40 years now-and then, on a dime, cry foul (with the media's backing) when criticized. But so be it.
Dunn has since tried to argue that she was using "irony." Even more lamely, she claims to have borrowed from a comparison she heard from late Republican political strategist Lee Atwater.
In fact, if you actually watch and read Dunn's remarks-CNN didn't quote them in full-you'll see she was not being ironic. She was dead serious, going into precise detail on how Mao inspired her.
Almost as if she were describing a political squabble within the Democratic or Republican Party, Dunn spoke of "when Mao Tse-tung was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over." She added, "Chiang Kai-Shek and the nationalist Chinese held the cities, they had the army. They had the air force. They had everything on their side, and people said [to Mao], 'How can you win? How can you do this?'"
Therein was the core message in Dunn's parable: Inspiring the youngsters with the tale of Mao's triumph, Dunn said: "Against all the odds ... Mao Tse-tung said, 'You fight your war, and I'll fight mine.'"
Dunn told the graduates to "think about that for a second." As they so meditated, she prodded with this insight: Dunn told the teens that they "don't have to accept" others' definitions. They should not accept "external definitions." No, she told them, standing aside a crucifix, they must set their own definitions. "It is about your choices," Dunn instructed. "You figure out what's right for you."
She told the youngsters to establish their own definitions of what's right and wrong in following their own path.
To be sure, this was indeed Mao Tse-tung's philosophy: Right and wrong is not left to a single, universal authority-to a Supreme Being-but to oneself. Each and every human being is his or her own moral arbiter. This explains how Mao killed so many people without bothering his conscience. The Marxist-atheist created his own definitions. He decided it was right to let all those people die in order for him to follow his own path, according to his own definitions.
Of course, Anita Dunn obviously doesn't support killing 60-70 million people. But she does support a morally relativistic philosophy that is hurtful enough on its own. That philosophy, taken to its logical conclusion, allows for the kind of reckless madness advocated by Mao. This is a philosophy that, left to the wrong people-to evil people like Mao-can be extremely dangerous.
This is why moral relativism doesn't work, why it is nonsense, and why even its purported advocates rarely support it. (For a great book, see Greg Koukl's "Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air." ) And it is why our schools shouldn't be inviting graduation speakers to deliver such inane messages to wide-eyed youngsters preparing to enter the world.
Alas, needless to say, none of this, from the moral relativism to Maoism, would have found approval from Mother Teresa. As the saintly nun from Calcutta put it, "There is only one God and He is God to all." We are not our own gods. There are external definitions of right and wrong-set by God, not by ourselves.
That was Mother Teresa's philosophy, and it wasn't Mao's.
When is America going to start equipping its youth with truth, both historical and moral? For now, we'll continue to reap what we've sown.
Obama’s mentor is Mugabe of Zimbabwe.
We are rapidly reaching the same level of corruption and destruction.
Mao and Mother Teresa did share one thing: they did not shy away from suffereing.
Mao, when he caused it on a massive scale, and Teresa when she healed it in others.
She could just as easily have cited the Marquis de Sade if she had wanted to substantiate that philosophy.
She was being ironic about Mother Teresa. Dunn is her polar opposite.
Of course, Anita Dunn obviously doesn't support killing 60-70 million people.
Slow down Grasshopper. She's an ardent supporter of abortion.
Here is what Mother Teresa says about abortion-
“But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child - murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?”
Any plans to honor Mother Teresa the same way?
My gosh... how we've sunken so low as a country that extolls the virtues of freedom, liberty and a lasting republic.
The philosophies of Chairman Mao and Mother Teresa could not be further apart and could never be reconciled in any way shape or form. One used power to slaughter millions of people while the other used self sacrifice, humility, a deep and profound belief in God and an imbued spirit of humanity toward ones fellow man to make life better for millions of people and reduce the suffering of those same multitudes. Now do I have to tell you which one is which.
I am not so sure.
I was once enamored of Chairman Mao. His philosophy was introduced to me by a Black Panther from Philadephia named Van in 1969. Van gave me the little red book and a red and gold Mao button. I had been flirting with Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism, and Maoism seemed a logical step forward, as he had been the only successful revolutionary since Lenin.
Van was subsequently purged from the Panthers when they abandoned Mao for Kim il Sung, as if he was actually different from Mao.
We joined our little cadre with Bob Avakian’s Bay Area Revolutionary Union, which soon dropped the Bay Area and became just “RU”, but remained a splinter group, one of many, in the ever splintering left, all vying for recognition by the Black Panthers.
We spent time studying and discussing “Fanshen”, a book about the land reform activities in a Chinese village after the Maoist takever, with its author, Bill Hinton, who was an observer in the village.
He (Hinton) made no bones about the abuses of power by those in charge of redistributing the land, but could not see why it happened, and neither could the rest of us. We thought that revolutionaries should always act in the best interests of the people and never saw how absolute, and absolutely corrupting was the power that was taken by the revolutionaries.
But, Maoism, and other Marxist permutations, was loosing favor as the libertinism (not libertarianism) in the wake of Woodstock was becoming the dominant cultural theme, and the left discovered how to take over the system from within, by quietly getting into decision making positions in the media, the government, and large foundations, getting control of information and interpretations, large amounts of cash, education, and government power.
They had radicalized large numbers of young people through the anti-war movement, and those are their footsoldiers in the long march through the West’s institutions.
They increasingly have control of the guns, from which Mao’s version of political power grows, but it was a horrible strategic mistake on the part of the administrations officials to openly embrace Mao. We now have that as a club to use against them in the same way the left has always used the fascism club against their enemies.
Mao used the post war chaos in China, the war weakened state of the Koumintang government, the unwillingness of the West to fight another war so soon after the big one, and Chinese cultural xenophobia to take over and murder millions in the process.
Communism/socialism always seems to produce a Stalin, a Hitler, a Mao, or a Kim il Sung. It’s the dirty little secret that the left tries to ignore - that communism/socialism places absolute power in the hands of a few individuals, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, or as Dune author Frank Herbert put it “Power attracts the corruptible. Absolute power attracts the absolutely corruptible. This is the danger of entrenched bureaucracy to its subject population. Even the spoils systems are preferable because levels of tolerance are lower and the corrupt can be thrown out periodically. Entrenched bureaucracy seldom can be touched short of violence. Beware when Civil Service and Military join hands.”
Obama’s proposed domestic force is that joining hands of the civil service and the military. Can we be anything but afraid?
The whole idea of communism is to cajole people to fight for their cause by suborning them or fooling them with lies or by threats and intimidation or blackmail. Communism could never be popular if it were strictly voluntary. They need power and control as well as slaves to do their bidding and carry out their plans while the head guys never get their hands dirty and keep their skirts clean. That is how it works. They always must have zombie underlings to do the dirty work.
And the left produces madmen and assassins. Every single assassin throughout history has been a terrorist, a communist or a far left radical liberal.
Mao Tse Dunn looks kinda cute in a Mao Suit like all the Chinese wore back in the romantic era of Chairman Mao.
They did...they also raised the Communist China flag nearthe White House - the first time a Communist flag has flown here. Right next to the Stars and Stripes.
Photo here:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=110583
Information on this book and many other great resources, articles, & commentary can be found at Greg Koukl’s website: http://www.str.org.
I have long maintained that you cannot understand “Them” until you understand what “they” think.
One of the books I found invaluable in this respect was David Horowitz’s book “Radical Son”. As a window into the mindset of liberal thinking, it has few parallels. One of the key things I took from that book is that Liberalism lacks introspection. They NEVER sit back and think “Am I sure I am on the right track? Is this the correct course of action?” This is something most conservatives practice on a regular basis, because we have to. We are constantly presented with the opinion that we are wrong, and as such, have many opportunities for reflection.
I forced myself to read “Rules for Radicals”, and I found it to be one of the most reprehensible books I have ever read. But as a viewpoint of liberalism, it is peerless.
I can see that you have a special insight into this, and that you understand all too clearly what is going on. Thanks very much for your insight.
"She could just as easily have cited the Marquis de Sade
if she had wanted to substantiate that philosophy."
4 posted on Saturday, October 24, 2009 9:16:36 AM by Mr Ramsbotham
In time, maybe they will.
Exactly, way too much intellectual thought put into that lecture for her to try to claim she was just making a joke, a la Atwater (lie) or anyone else.
It was incredibly frustrating to have O'Really and Ann Coulter dismiss Dunn and her speech to the students the way they did last night, both considering it no big deal, Coulter even saying, "I've quoted Mao myself." Totally missing the whole point Glenn made with his showing us the video, oblivious to the point the doctor makes her -- her proclaiming Mao as one of the two political philosophers she turns to most, and then going on to tell graduating students to do as he did, a sort of *think outside the box* by highlighting his success, no matter how many millions died because of it. Totally outrageous and far from the irrelevance that O'Really and Coulter think it.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
The irony here is that if Mother Teresa was in China, she would have to be a member of the underground Church. If she was discovered, then Mao would have killed her.
And the author knows that, how? I think that many in the O Admin wouldn't shed a tear if those millions were conservative critics -- or old people (so useless and needy of resources, you know).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.