(06-17-2019, 07:15 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: As a result of research on my book, late last year I had a major
change in views.  China does not want war against the United States,
but does want a war of revenge against Japan for the atrocities
committed during WW II.  China also wants to invade Taiwan, in order
annex it.  China does not want war with the US, but the CCP knows that
it will have no choice, since the US will defend Japan and Taiwan
against China's war of extermination against Japan and war of
annexation against Taiwan.

There's even an alternate explanation for all those missile systems
that China has been developing and deploying for decades.  It's
possible that the Chinese believe that just having those missile
systems will serve as a threat to deter the US and to force the US to
remain neutral when China invades Japan and Taiwan.  If this is what
the CCP hopes, then it's entirely delusional.

(06-23-2019, 06:34 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: I hadn't realized until now the depth of racial hatred between the
"Han" and the "Hao" (assuming I have those terms right)

(06-27-2019, 09:19 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: They
started using the phrase "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics,"
which is laughable because it means "Socialism that's really
capitalism, but we don't want to call it that." However, China
retained its governmental dictatorship, and "Socialism with Chinese
Characteristics" is really the same as Adolf Hitler's "National
Socialism."

(06-27-2019, 10:38 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(06-23-2019, 06:34 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: I hadn't realized until now the depth of racial hatred between the
"Han" and the "Hao" (assuming I have those terms right)

I don't think you have those terms right.  Both north Chinese and south Chinese are Han.  Note that the one child policy only applied to Han, and it definitely applied to the south.

You do have it right that there is a split, though.  I used to think it was a split between Cantonese speakers and Mandarin speakers, but I think by your definition Nanking was in the south, but the Nationalist government that was based in Nanjing was a Mandarin government.

You do bring up a very interesting point about all the revolutions starting in the South.  The South is generally where the businesses and, let's say, capitalists are.  I don't think of them as very prone to militarism - not as much as the north.

I think the northerners overreacted to your article with their insults because Chinese economic growth in recent decades has mostly been in the south, and some northerners may resent that.

(06-28-2019, 12:41 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: China has more often been invaded from the north, the worst invasions by the Mongols. Even the Japanese really invaded largely from the north once they got a hold of Manchukuo. That makes a huge difference between North China and South China.

South Chinese have more often emigrated than invaded.

(06-27-2019, 10:47 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Except that National Socialism was actually still socialist...

(06-28-2019, 01:37 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: I first became interested in geopolitics when I read The Coming War With Japan by George Friedman.  In one sense the book doesn't quite fit the present-I don't believe that in the near future we will see war between Japan and the United States.  But the list of geopolitical goals he listed-based on geography-remains.

And Japan's geopolitical goals are in conflict with China's attempt to dominate east Asia.

• MIT criticizes 'toxic atmosphere' targeting Chinese students
  
• American attitudes towards the Chinese
  
• MIT Lincoln Lab and security
  
• Hong Kong and Taiwan
  

• The Tiananmen Square massacre itself
  
• The brutal violence against the obviously harmless Falun Gong
  
• Violence against Tibetan Buddhists
  
• The attack on and downing of an American surveillance plane on
  April 2, 2001
  
• The "Nine-dash map" and bizarre claims to the South China Sea
  
• Demands that CCP select Dalai Lama replacement
  
• Demands that CCP select Catholic bishops
  
• Treating the WTO contemtuously by using it to manipulate trade,
  while ignoring the WTO rules
  
• Artificial islands and militarization of South China Sea
  
• Repeatedly lying and making ridiculous, laughable claims about the
  South China Sea
  
• Contempt for international law and Hague ruling
  
• Destruction of Christian churches
  
• Using students to infiltrate governments in Australia, New
  Zealand
  
• Sending tens of thousands of Chinese to work in American high tech
  firms, and steal intellectual property.
  
• Violence, beatings, rapes, torture and abductions of
  Christians
  
• Abducting free speech advocates in Hong Kong and sending them to
  Beijing
  
• Threatening massive military action against Taiwan
  
• Violence, beatings, rapes, torture and abductions of Uighurs and
  Kazakhs
  
• Locking up millions of Uighurs and Kazakhs in concentration
  camps
  
• The Social Credit Score system which is building up a giant data
  base of personal and surveillance information about every Chinese
  citizen
  
• Extending that database through hacking databases in other
  countries
  
• Participating in US-China trade talks for months, and then
  reneging on the agreements
  
• Passing the National Intelligence Law in 2017, which requires all
  Chinese people and businesses to cooperate with the military in
  stealing foreign intelligence, even when doing so is illegal
  
• Sending out Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei to make laughable claims
  that he would rather go to jail than obey an order by the Chinese
  military to install backdoors in their products
  
• Violence against pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong

• "27-Jan-19 World View -- George Soros speech at Davos marks significant global shift against China"
  
  
  
• "22-Jun-19 World View -- Hong Kong protests show historic split between northern and southern China"
  

(06-29-2019, 07:58 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: The fact that Reif felt compelled to write this letter at all
indicates how hostility has been growing nationwide towards Chinese
students, and to the Chinese diaspora in general.  However, in the
case of MIT, the question is whether the source of that hostility is
Americans or other Chinese students.

(06-29-2019, 11:00 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > What makes you think the hostility actually exists?

> Reif toes the progressive political line, and his periodic
> missives to us alum show that. Of course, a lot of us alum,
> especially those of us that actually donate to MIT, are
> conservatives, and some of us respond to Reif's idiotic emails
> accordingly.

> What Reif is doing here is trying to fan fears of hostility among
> us alum, especially those with Chinese ties, and then try to use
> it to gain support for the open borders part of the progressive
> agenda. There's no other real connection between the two
> issues.

• There's enormous hatred between Chinese and Japanese, and the war
  they fought 70 years ago was characterized by massive atrocities.
  
• There's enormous hatred between northern and southern Chinese, and
  the war they fought 70 years ago was characterized by massive
  atrocities.
  
• China has been an economic and political disaster since world war
  II.
  
• Southern people fled Mao's atrocities by going through Hong Kong
  to Formosa/Taiwan.
  
• Colonial Hong Kong became an economic superpower while China
  remained a poor, pathetic, backwater country.
  
• Taiwan became an economic superpower while China remained a poor,
  pathetic, backwater country.
  
• Japan became an economic superpower while China remained a poor,
  pathetic, backwater country.
  
• South Korea became an economic superpower while China remained a
  poor, pathetic, backwater country.
  
• Taiwan is becoming increasingly anti-Beijing and pro-independence,
  as younger generations gain power.
  
• Hong Kong is becoming increasingly anti-Beijing and
  pro-independence, as younger generations gain power.
  
• The recent Hong Kong pro-democracy riots have further infuriated
  the CCP thugs.
  
• The CCP are total barbarians, committing atrocities on a daily
  basis, in Xinjiang, Tibet, and elsewhee.

(06-30-2019, 01:55 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: Wow!  What you're suggesting is even more cynical than anything I've
written.

Actually, I really don't believe that.  For Reif to be purposely
stoking hostility targeting Chinese would be at AOC-level stupidity.
It works for AOC because she's targeting an audience that's even
stupider than she is, if that's possible.  But if Reif tried the same
thing in the MIT community, it would evoke a lot of backlash.

Quote:And that's only one aspect.  Reif's letter makes a point of mentioning
Lincoln Lab.  If I were working on a confidential project at Lincoln
Lab, and a Chinese co-worker from Beijing came and started asking me
questions, then I would be VERY concerned.  What I would do would
depend on the specific circumstances, but I can definitely see that
some level of "hostility" would be justified, given that China is
conducting constant cyberwar against the US, is weaponizing Huawei,
and the National Intelligence Law requires every Chinese citizen to
provide intelligence to the military, even when doing so is illegal,
which means that it's quite possible that this co-worker was working
for the Chinese military.

• North Korea will never give up its nuclear weapons, no matter what
  Trump or anyone else does.
  
  
• China will never give up its illegal trade practices and illegal
  theft of foreign intelligence and intellectual property, no matter
  what Trump or anyone else does.
  
  
• Russia and North Korea will never stop illegally going around the
  North Korea sanctions, no matter what Trump or anyone else does.
  
  
• China will never stop preparing to launch World War III to
  exterminate Japan and annex Taiwan, no matter what Trump or anyone
  else does.

• The People's Liberation Army (China's military) Hong Kong
  garrison comes out of hiding and conducts emergency response
  exercises for three days (Global Times)

Quote: "Yet, some extremists on the pretext of opposing the
amendments to the relevant Bill of the special administration
region government, attacked the Legislative Council building in an
extremely violent manner and deliberately damaged its facilities.

This serious illegal act tramples on the rule of law in Hong Kong,
undermines Hong Kong's social order and undermines the fundamental
interests of Hong Kong. It is a blatant challenge to the ‘one
country, two systems’ bottom line."

Quote: "There's definitely a problem with the policies
towards Taiwan and Hong Kong. Why does the central government
think that as long as it gives enough benefits and special rights,
the people will be loyal to you?"

Quote: "One country, two systems is too lax, and this is the
result. If Hong Kong wants to return to normal, it should start
with decolonization and change the name of Victoria Harbour to
Oriental Pearl Harbour."

• In an earlier protest, British flag is visible, and placard
  reading, 'Make Hong Kong Great Britain Again' (SCMP)

(07-02-2019, 02:40 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: > I wonder if your point (1) is accurate. I think Kim was sincere
> about the outlines of his agreement with Trump and S. Korea.
> Let's recall that the agreement had two parts: there was opening
> of trade, which mutually benefited North and South Korea, and
> there was military deescalation, which included N. Korea giving up
> its nuclear weapons and the U.S. withdrawing its forces from South
> Korea.

> I think if all of this could be done at once, Kim would be willing
> to do it. It's just that Kim wants the economic trade first,
> because it's easier for him: it gives him a win to help him with
> internal support for the military trade, plus it stabilizes the
> situation so the temptation to invade once the US withdraws from
> S. Korea won't be too much to resist.

> The US wants the military trade first, since it's concerned that
> the military trade may never happen if the economic trade goes
> first. The situation is complicated by the fact that S. Korea
> wants the economic trade first. Kim overestimated the influence of
> S. Korea on the US, and thought that if he and S. Korea agreed to
> do the economic stuff first, the US would go along, which it would
> have under previous Presidents. I'm not sure he's going to do the
> military trade first. But again, if everyone else did all of
> their parts at the same time, he'd give up the nuclear weapons, so
> it's not that he won't give them up no matter what other people
> do.

(07-02-2019, 02:40 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: > Incidentally, I bought your books on Iran and China and have
> skimmed them.

(07-02-2019, 02:40 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: > I'm still puzzled by your obvious concern about all the nuclear
> weapons China has that are primarily targeted at the US, but your
> lack of concern for the many more nuclear weapons Russia has that
> are primarily targeted at the US. I'd be interested in your
> analysis of Russia, as I believe you think their crisis occurred
> in the 1990s.

(07-02-2019, 02:40 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: > I'd also be interested in your analysis of why Germany entered
> WWII. As I recall, you believe that Europe had had a recent
> crisis war in the form of WWI, so how did European WWII become a
> crisis war? Did US involvement somehow turn it into a crisis war?
> Otherwise Chamberlain's peace would have happened, or what?