Posted on 04/19/2009 2:14:08 AM PDT by nickcarraway
Snip
"He's insulted the Chinese people. Chinese people aren't pets," pro-democracy Hong Kong legislator Leung Kwok-hung told The Associated Press in a phone interview. "Chinese society needs a democratic system to protect human rights and rule of law."
"His comments are racist. People around the world are running their own countries. Why can't Chinese do the same?" another Hong Kong lawmaker, Albert Ho, told the AP.
"He himself has enjoyed freedom and democracy and has reaped the economic benefits of capitalism. But he has yet to grasp the true meaning of freedom and democracy," Taiwanese legislator Huang Wei-che said.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
Bump.
Cruisin for a bruisin, Jackie!
I can understand the remarks aimed at Taiwan, because the two main parties truly hate each other to the point that they will clash over minor personal issues and have fist fights in the legislature. Many Taiwanese are like Americans and they want problems solved, not see fist fights on TV as legislatures of each competing parties jocky for political advantages even over minor issues. However Chan’s remarks at Hong Kong does not make sense. The Hong Kong council is a lot more refine and orderly than Taiwan’s legislature.
“If we’re not being controlled, we’ll just do what we want.”
That’s kind of the point of freedom, isn’t it, Jackie?
Are you talking about crime, Jackie? Corruption?
So the Chinese people must be kept under whips and shackles, Jackie?
He’s been hangin’ ‘round Hollyweird too long.
This statement just blows me away.
Almost as bizarre as an American President who bows to kings and parties with communists and denigrates America every chance he gets.
Anything goes these days.
“If you’re too free, you’re like the way Hong Kong is now. It’s very chaotic. Taiwan is also chaotic.”
Chan added, “I’m gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we’re not being controlled, we’ll just do what we want.”
///////////////////
tOOOOO many kicks to the head.
I’m sure Chan has a reason for his mindset and opinion, as everyone does. It has always interested me that counter to the enforced conventional wisdom, the Left is usually composed of middle and upper class people.
Sure, they’ll put forth figureheads (minorities, union workers, useful idiot kids) to enlist support. But the genesis of all Leftist movements always comes from those with money who feel alienated by or hostile to their nations’ middle class.
I’m not calling Chan a communist, but his sentiments about ‘they don’t know what to do with freedom and money’ are the same we hear from all Leftists. Chan sure knew what to do with his freedom and money...
The Bolsheviks were largely not even Russian by heritage. Most were atheistic Jewish immigrants (many from the US) and others who hated the Christian/monarchist Slavic majority. The Communist Party USA was similar in makeup. The Democratic Party fashions itself as speaking for the ‘little guy’ and minorities but its doctrines and money come from those who view the American middle class and religious people with disdain.
There are a few Hollyweirds who actually identify with “the little people”. Obviously Jackie “Let Them Be Slaves” Chan isn’t one of them.
****”Chinese society needs a democratic system to protect human rights and rule of law.”****
No, the rule of law needs to be protected from the influence of democracy.
What you call "hate" is the difference between a party that insists on freedom from China, and a party that wants to sell Taiwan's independence out in the name of progress and even freedom, like our RINOs. One of the tactics, therefore, is to undermine the determination for true freedom with calls for "moderation," such as the way you're doing in your post. Except in Taiwan, moderation over "minor issues" will inevitably lead to the loss of the country. So given the stakes are so high, many Taiwanese are like conservative Americans - they want their party to stand for freedom and not give in (even if that means fistfights in the legislature).
Anyone who thinks other people need to be controlled is just an idiot, period.
We (the American people), Hollywood and the media make too much of what actors and comedians say on matters which they are no better informed than the average person. Mere celebrity status should not be grounds for providing a public megaphone to actors and comedians speaking on matters outside their own craft and profession.
Confusion, mis-education and indoctrination flows from the modern fusion of news and entertainment.
Jackie is an amazing athlete, a groundbreaking stuntman, and an exceptional comedian.
Like another useful idiot, Yao Ming, Chan’s western success has been made possible by the approval granted by his Chicom handlers. Chan, falsely legitimized by his positive global reputation, has become a propoganda tool used to spew the company line.
Perhaps he can campaign for Obama in 2012.
The problem with Taiwan is the pro independence movement raises the prospect of independence during elections, but once it is over, they make symbolic gestures but no serious military preparations. They engage in fist fights and insults with KMT oppositions over fashion, personal attributes so fights will break out for the TV. Granted we understand and tolerate the political theater. I can see how Chan can perceive Taiwan to be chaotic. However, the average people of Taiwan, pro and anti independence are starting to get pist off. They have major issues like economic slowdown, trade or no trade with mainland, war or no war with mainland, needs to upgrade Taiwan’s energy independence thru nuclear power plants (ironicly supported by KMT but opposed by pro independence party), needs to upgrade defense (yet pro independence feel conscription and severe ROK type training reminds them of the bad old days of KMT militarism). IMHO the pro independence Taiwanese fraction needs to get themselves in rational order if they intend to face mainland China. Example, nuclear power plants, civil defense, serious military training and meeting conscription obligations by all walks of life (ie no college deferments or bribing local mob office to exempt children of wealthy), serious spending on military (not stagnation and all the extra GDP money going to European socialist type programs). Compare Isreal’s efforts with Taiwan’s efforts is like day vs night. Better yet compare ROK efforts to Taiwan’s efforts is like dragon vs paper tiger.
I'll have to disagree. The independence movement's attempts to increase equipment procurement were repeatedly shot down by the pro-China Nationalists, who were the majority in the legislature. The real reason for the failure to increase military readiness lies not with any political party, which are simply following their stated inclinations, but with the electorate, which chooses to vote for lower military spending.
The pro independence party better get their act together. History has shown that in order for a region to successfully declare independence, they need three critical conditions - (1) military capability to resist, (2) popular support for independence, (3) a world power to recognize the independence. Taiwan needs to work on civil defence (where will the civilians go to be safe); tougher military training atleast to the level during KMT era; nuclear energy to counter oil cut off; stringent enforcement of military conscription; more stockpiling of food, spares and critical resources; serious allocation of funds to military defense, training, spares, and upgrades. To be frank, I am not impress with Taiwan and her people’s efforts like I would Korea, Singapore, and Japan. I do not think it is too late for Taiwan, she still has time to make up the deficiencies. Each decade goes by, China’s GDP increases substantially, and a larger economy means a more capable military.
>>> The Bolsheviks were largely not even Russian by heritage. Most were atheistic Jewish immigrants (many from the US) and others who hated the Christian/monarchist Slavic majority. <<<
Let’s see — Vladmir Lenin, who founded the bolsheviks, was born in the Russian Empire and was baptized into the Russian Orthodox Church. Leon Trotsky, aka Lev Bronstein, was born in the Russian Empire into a farming family of jewish descent that was decidedly non-religious. Matvei Muranov was born in the Ukraine and was not jewish. Joseph Stalin was born in Georgia (but not the “Georgia Peach” one) and was not jewish.
Let’s see — only one from this cream of the bolshevik crop could be called jewish, and none were descended from US immigrants.
What ARE you talking about?
I would suggest reading Solzhenitsyn, Churchill, Courtois' Black Book Of Communism or declassified U.S. intelligence archives to find out. Soviet Communism, like any political movement, isn't just about the four or five people at the top. There are hundreds of commissars and many thousands of bureaucrats. A study of the early history of the Bolsheviks does reveal that the predominate 'flavor' of the political ruling class differed greatly from that of the population at large. The Stalinist purges were viciously anti-Semitic. Stalin led the push to 'Russianize' the USSR and often railed against the 'internationalist' or 'cosmopolitan' forces he sought to liquidate - Trotsky (Bronstein) being the most visible example.
My point was not to highlight the preponderance of atheist Jews in the Bolsheviks, just to give an example of why the 'bourgeois' is so hated by revolutionary leftists. There is usually an 'internationalist' mindset to the Left and a feeling of otherness which can be political, racial, or religious. The Communist Party USA, Weathermen, Black Panthers and so forth viewed the American middle class as oppressive, threatening and foreign... and therefore worthy targets for demoralization and violence.
Reading Chan's comment reminded me of this dangerous tendency, though I doubt he meant it quite the way it sounded. After traveling the world and becoming vastly successful, Chan now looks down upon his fellow countrymen and suggests that they cannot be trusted with the same freedom and prosperity. His desire for 'control' over the middle class is elitist and, to me, reminiscent of the many communist writers I've studied.
>>> I would suggest reading Solzhenitsyn, Churchill, Courtois’ Black Book Of Communism or declassified U.S. intelligence archives to find out. <<<
I’ve read Solzhenitsyn and _The Black Book_. I’ve also read books on anti-semitism, and the White Russian B.S. that bolshevism was a “jewish plot” is one of the nastier anti-semitic slurs of the 20th century.
>>> Soviet Communism, like any political movement, isn’t just about the four or five people at the top. <<<
True, but when a poster makes the claim, as you do, that
>>> The Bolsheviks were LARGELY NOT even RUSSIAN by heritage. MOST were ATHEISTIC JEWISH IMMIGRANTS (many from the US) and others who hated the Christian/monarchist Slavic majority. (my emphasis) <<<
I would think that some clarification would be in order, wouldn’t you?
>>> There are hundreds of commissars and many thousands of bureaucrats. A study of the early history of the Bolsheviks does reveal that the predominate ‘flavor’ of the political ruling class differed greatly from that of the population at large. <<<
According to an “ethnic breakdown” I’ve read for the year 1924, 72% of Bolsheviks at that time were “Great Russians (Russians)” (270,409 out of a party membership of 410,000); only 5.2% (19,564 out of 410,000) were “Jews.” Certainly a pretty perky minority membership, but hardly worth describing as being “most” of the membership.
For earlier years,I don’t see much of a difference. The Bolsheviks were a Russian phenomena, as far as I can tell — not foreign, NOT jewish. Thus, the “predominant flavor” was Russian. I don’t see how that differs from the general population of the RUSSIAN Empire.
>>> My point was not to highlight the preponderance of atheist Jews in the Bolsheviks... <<<
According to my dictionary, “preponderance” means “the condition of being preponderant; superiority in amount, weight, power, influence, importance.” Don’t you mean the preponderance of RUSSIANS in the Bolsheviks? You remember, the group that made up 72% of the bolshies in 1924?
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.