Imitation Outrage: Faking Concern for the Chinese Masses

Let's stop jacking the Chinese around. We do not care a whit now -- nor have we ever cared -- about their human rights or any other aspect of their lives as long as they satiate our unbridled appetites. To pretend otherwise is to deny centuries of exploitative history in which the West drugged the Middle Kingdom and plundered it for its resources and cheap labor while obliterating any sign of popular resistance to our imperial sway.

 From the Opium Wars to the contemplation of using nuclear weapons to bomb China back to the Stone Age because of our differences with it over Korea and Vietnam, the response of the West has been one of brute intimidation. Never have we been willing to acknowledge that China, for all of its immense contradictions, upheavals, sufferings and errant ways, represents the most complex and impressive example of national history.

Instead we intrude upon China in fitful moments of pique or treat it as a plaything. Who owns China? That was the question that marked the first period of U.S. involvement, when we joined other Western imperialists in carving up China into economic zones. And then came the bitter argument in the U.S. in the late 1940s and the '50s about "Who lost China?" Now Americans find themselves preoccupied with how best to exploit China's amazing economic prowess while feigning interest in the well-being of its people.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton performed the expected diplomatic dance around the latest flare-up of pretend concern, involving a blind lawyer suddenly made world-famous when he escaped from house arrest in rural China. The fact that Chen Guangcheng was targeted by Chinese authorities because of his opposition to his nation's oppressive population control policies added the United States' "pro-life" lobby to the army of morally subjective China watchers. Now if we can get the pro-lifers to care about the human rights of fetuses after birth, the condition of the millions of severely exploited Chinese workers who float U.S. consumption and our national debt just might stand a chance of improvement.

The overwhelming human rights issue in China is one of labor justice: the right of workers to organize into independent unions and to politically advance their claims on the nation's new treasure, which they have done so much to generate. China has relatively few natural resources other than its people, and its survival as a nation is dependent most of all upon nurturing the well-being of its population. Fortunately that population, ever better educated and more resourceful, has turned out to be the economic salvation of the country rather than the curse that once had been almost universally predicted.

How convenient to forget that concern over China's population bomb began with hysterical warnings from Western alarmists a half century ago when the country's population stood at a mere 400 million. Or to disregard the nation's immense achievement in increasing life expectancy and life quality for a population now more than three times higher. The Chinese also have made giant strides in business, and now when the overlords of Chinese finance attempt to rig international trade in the well-honed practice of the masters of Wall Street, outsiders condemn them for being too effective at the capitalists' game.

Western multinational companies have found advantage in China's population growth by turning many of those additional people into a labor power that now drives the world's economy. While the courage of an activist speaking up against the forced sterilization of women is certainly to be applauded, foreigners' deafening indifference to the working conditions of the millions who make our technologically exquisite toys is a sad commentary on the state of the international human rights movement.

The sanctuary that Chen found in the U.S. Embassy in Beijing was particularly awkward because U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Clinton were en route to China at the time for urgent meetings on cooperation over security and economic issues. Republicans will attempt to score points by claiming that Chen was pushed out of the embassy to protect the negotiations aimed at getting China to buy more of our bonds. They will be right, but who will they be kidding in suggesting that a Republican president wouldn't have taken the same hard line in dealing with the dissident?

Ever since the Republican Richard Nixon went to Beijing to suck up to Mao Zedong, every American president has acknowledged the power of China's rulers to sweep aside the human rights concerns of foreigners as mere political theater for the folks back home. What a great spin it is to pretend that we are the champions of universal human rights as we tweet about our great concern for the Chinese people on the very mobile devices that their exploited labor created.

We all know that the rulers of China now have the clout to mess up our economy overnight by shedding their holdings in U.S. debt. Our leaders are no more serious about human rights in China than they are about such conditions in oil-rich Saudi Arabia, for the simple reason that we need what those nations have more than they need us.

Author: Robert Scheer Editor, Truthdig.com; Author, 'The Great American Stickup'

A Muslim Woman's comment on House of Saud, Saudi Arabia

Famous "Curse in your Heart" call to George Galloway about House of Saud, Saudi Arabia

A NWO History of Mongolia

Situated between Russia and China, Mongolia is the least densely populated country in world, with three million people living in a country the size of Western Europe.

Over thousands of years, the Mongol people have perfected a nomadic lifestyle to thrive in Siberian winters, acrid deserts and barren steppes. Despite recent urbanization, half the population continues to live a nomadic lifestyle.

The warring tribes of the region were once merged under the leadership of Genghis Khan and used their innovative military tactics to create the great Mongol empire.

Yet despite their famed indigenous culture, the United Nations classifies Mongolia as a developing country. By 'development', the UN means the integration of Mongolia into a world government.

THE SOVIET ERA

The start of Mongolia's 'development' was a Soviet invasion in 1921, which radically altered Mongol culture and laid the foundations for a modern international state.

After an initial settling in period, the Soviets went about destroying Mongol identity to bring in the new. Buddhism was top of their hit list. They murdered 30,000 monks and liquidized over 750 monasteries.

Their next target was nomadism. Stalin's forces worked to destroy any independence from government. They even went in search of Kazakh groups in the Western mountain regions who hunt prey with eagles, but couldn't track them down.

The plan was to replace nomadic lifestyle with collective agriculture, with all proceeds going to the state.

This was not easy, as Stephen Bodio writes, 'nomads have always valued freedom, and Mongolia has always been a society of nomads. Soviet puppet leader Choibalsan's attempt at collective agriculture failed when rural residents killed their livestock rather than submit.'

The Soviets developed their capital city Ulaanbaatar and brought in the key elements of an international state: a central bank, large bureaucracies and a standardized education system.

The Soviet era was characterized by enormous infrastructure projects building power stations, bridges and highways.

In the 1960's though, Mongolia was still lacking in the facilities to house foreign dignitaries. There were only a few embassies (all Soviet satellites), and significantly, a British envoy. His name was Reginald Hibbert whose job was to chronicle how the people were reacting to Communism

Reginald's observations are found in the book, 'Letters From Mongolia' in which he bemoans the harsh conditions and the inefficiency of the country. He writes the locals are 'accustomed to rhythms of life and work that have nothing in common with those of urban communities, and their way of life is primitive.'

In a passage on Mongol kin values, he elucidates: 'they retain many of the virtues of simple people, especially loyalty and mutual help among family and friends. They will work extraordinarily hard on the impulse of helping a friend or acquaintance but seem to be completely without conscience when it is working for a living or for the general good.'

In other words, working for friends and family is primitive, while working for an impersonal Soviet state is civilized.


"DEMOCRACY"

With the fall of the Soviet Union, Mongolia became a democracy in 1992 but was still crippled by $11 billion of Soviet debt.

Where poverty reigns, the IMF sweeps in like vultures, handing out further loans with strings attached that benefit the global power elite. In 1992, 80% of state enterprises were privatized sinking a population made dependent on government into poverty.

To fill the void left by the removal of Soviet subsidies, loan sharks prowl the frozen wastelands luring nomads into debt.

Even 'charities' like New Zealand's VisionFund offers loans to nomadic people with interest of 2.5%-3.5% a month! VisionFund work to emasculate the men: 85% of loans are given to women.

Through the creation of debt on both a state and personal level, the Mongols are enslaved to alien forces by a paper currency emblazoned with their hero Genghis Khan.

With a central bank, bureaucracies and infrastructure developed by Communism, foreign corporations can now enter Mongolia and mine its vast resources of copper, gold, coal and uranium.

The country is expected to fuel China's growth. Perhaps this was the role planned for the country all along.

WESTERN "CULTURE"

Democracy also brings in the Western culture industry which is designed to erode traditional family values. The intention is to create an atomized populace obsessed with consumerism and entertainment, obediently serving their economic masters.

MTV is very popular in Mongolia and the youth mimic what they see. Take Lumino, a Mongol hip-hop group. Their early songs were light-hearted and innocent, but now inside their videos are sleazy and dominated by gyrating girls dressed like whores.

International governmental agencies also work towards breaking the traditional family. Take a UNESCO scheme called, 'The Gobi's Women's Project,' an educational project designed to emasculate men.

The program 'empowers women' by teaching them, 'livestock rearing techniques; family care (family planning, health, nutrition and hygiene); income generation using locally available raw materials and basic business skills, for a new market economy.'

Haven't these people survived for thousands of years without the United Nations?

The project also aims to direct the social agenda of women by giving a radio to every female. 'Programs are broadcast at times convenient to the women, mostly at evening time. They cover topics of general interest, whilst others are more specific and directly related to the needs of the Gobi women.'

The programs are laced with feminist lesbian propaganda. Safe to say there is no Gobi's men project.

Funded by the taxpayers of the world, UNESCO is global socialism. It creates a scenario where the tax dollars of a Wal-Mart worker in Cincinnati are used to emasculate nomadic herdsmen in Mongolia!

The fall-out of poverty and the take down of traditional Mongol society is reactive. In 2008, rioting followed the general election with cries of a fix. The Mongol parliament was set on fire; five people died and 700 were put in prison.

Grass roots fascism is rising. Tsagaan Khass (White Swastika) is a Mongolian Neo-Nazi group. They portray themselves as patriots standing up for ordinary citizens in the face of foreign invasion and rampant inequality. They respect Hitler for 'preserving racial identity'.

Their empty posturing masks the horror that the roots of traditional Mongol culture have been killed. They wish to destroy the system but if they do what will be left? A void.

CONCLUSION

The story of Mongolia's 'development' shows Communism, democracy and NGO's working towards the same end: a regional plantation under the flag of the United Nations.

In a 2009 trip to Mongolia, UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon praised the country for being a role model for developing countries, and 'making progress in the fight against poverty.'

And yet, if you visit the bright lights and technological advancement of Ulaanbaatar you will see thousands of gers, the traditional Mongol nomadic house, scattered about the outskirts of the city. Their inhabitants are starving.

In a land with a tradition of self-sufficiency, a third of people now live below the poverty line. Such is the fallout of 'development.'

by David Richards

20 Oct. 2010
(for henrymakow.com)