“Falun Dafa is Good”

falundafagood

I volunteered to help at an annual Phoenix event today, “Phoenix Chinese Week,” which is like an outdoor trade show for local companies to reach out to the Chinese community, to sell their Chinese wares, offer Chinese massage and acupuncture, serve up Chinese food, etc. There are also fashion shows and demonstrations of Chinese calligraphy. I loved it. It was the first time since I moved back to Phoenix that I was able to practice my Chinese for hours at a time.

Phoenix Chinese Week is held at the Phoenix Cultural Center, a huge complex housing a Chinese supermarket, a number of Chinese restaurants and a lot of office space, much of it unoccupied. The money-losing COFCO center is closely affiliated with the CCP, which helps it survive with generous funding.

So it caught my eye when I saw a booth for the Falun Dafa, with their usual battery of literature, including a “special edition” of the Epoch Times, which seemed even more over the top than usual.

scoundrels

ccpdeathknell

I stopped by and chatted with the staff at the booth, who seemed very nice, though they didn’t seem to be very busy. Many of the attendees were from Mainland China, and they tended to steer clear. I just wondered how the Chinese Cultural Center felt about the Falun Dafa’s presence on what is for all intents and purposes CCP territory. This isn’t China, however, and I’m guessing there was little the Center could do about it. You can’t discriminate based on religion.

I might be more sympathetic to the Falun Dafa if their materials and methodology weren’t so extreme. I think they’re a cult, but then again, I think Mormonism and the Republican Party and several sects of Christianity qualify as cults, too. I can never accept the argument that the CCP’s treatment of them is justified because they’re “a dangerous cult” (another well-drilled message nearly all Chinese people I’ve met adhere to, as they do to the message, for example, of “the Dalai Lama clique”). That said, I find them singularly distasteful, even though I don’t think they should be beaten, tortured or discriminated against.

This is another of those topics I learned long ago never to discuss with my Chinese friends. It is simply impossible to have a rational discussion about Falun Dafa. It’s impossible to make the argument that even if they are a cult, they should have a right to exist. Creepiness is not a crime.

(All photos taken, poorly, on my iPhone.)

Update: To better understand how I feel about the Falun Dafa, I want to refer readers to this earlier post.

The scripts for FLG are… predictable: their leader is a lunatic who believes, among other things, that he can fly. They don’t allow practitioners to see a doctor when they’re sick, causing a terrible threat of disease and loss of life. They recruit and multiply and they can’t be trusted. Of course, the No. 1 script is the “dangerous cult,” a phrase that has been permanently soldered onto the words Falun Gong and can be heard in virtually every conversation with Chinese people about it.

I’ve always believed the cult part, and I’ve never believed the dangerous part. I would see FLG members practicing their breathing exercises outside the National Museum in Taibei, and while they may have looked odd they certainly didn’t seem to be threatening anyone. In Country Driving, Peter Hessler describes how the family he shadows in Book Two participated in the dangerous cult before it was banned:

Falun Gong was hard to define. – in some ways it felt like a religion or philosophy, but it was also a basic exercise routine. All of these elements combined to create something enormously popular, and this was especially true in the economically challenged parts of northern China. In Sancha, practitioners liked having a new structure to their lives, and soon others began to join them. By the late 1990s, it seemed most villagers met every morning on the lot at the top of the dead-end road. Cao Chunmei and Wei Ziqi became part of the faithful, and years later she described that period fondly. “Wei Ziqi didn’t drink or smoke in those days, because Falun Gong says you shouldn’t do that. And he was so angry then. It seemed the people in the village were happy we all spent time together in the morning.

I can think of other things that sound a bit more dangerous than that.

So again, I want to be sure it’s clear, I am not anti-Falun Dafa, even though I find the propaganda and methodology of its zealots (as in the photos from Epoch Times above) to be unappealing. I think most of its practitioners are normal, decent human beings who have a right to practice as they choose.

______________

Richard Burger is the author of Behind the Red Door: Sex in China, an exploration of China's sexual revolution and its clash with traditional Chinese values.

The Discussion: 301 Comments

Falun Dafa is good, my butt.

They teach practitioners that Falun Gong is the only religion that relieve people from their torment and others like Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, etc. don’t.

They teach practitioners that Li Hongzhi is a God and will protect them.

They teach practitioners that taking medicines merely presses back karma and finally destroys you. There’s actually a book on Amazon which I can’t located that lists the practitioners who had died under this rule .

February 14, 2011 @ 12:35 pm | Comment

Regarding all your points: So what? We have our own cults and we have Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists who reject medicine. They have a right to believe whatever they want without being tortured or imprisoned.

February 14, 2011 @ 12:38 pm | Comment

Christianity teaches people to believe in God or face eternal damnation. So FLG isn’t much different there.

Similar to the FLG, Scientologists take Hubbard’s word as the gospel truth, and aren’t big on medicines either.

So in those respects, FLG seems comparable to a respectable religion, or to a religion/cult depending on your POV.

It could certainly mean they’re quacks. But it doesn’t mean they’re deserving of the CCP’s special treatment.

February 14, 2011 @ 2:21 pm | Comment

They made the mistake to scare the CCP shitless, that is why they get the “special treatment”

Any other argumentation about its religion/idelogical mindset is irrelevant in the discussion.

When dealing with someone touchy, one must first take into account that he has no easy access to repression means.

February 14, 2011 @ 5:10 pm | Comment

I almost have exact opinion as yours. But just want to add a little information here.

FLG was OK in China for quite a long time until one day they are seeing as “dangerous” when they want to force the government to make statement they are good. Like many other religion, FLG do not accept criticism from media. They think the criticism from media is direct by CCP, but actually not. And they try to force the government to accept it by surround the government with over 10,000 people. As we are know, none government should ever do that. As you can imagine, there is no way to ask them leave except force them.

Pls. do not compare this with US or any other countries since it doesn’t make sense. But in China, if you are trying to force the government do something that it will never do, that’s the border.

I think whatever the FLG, CCP or the regular Chinese people should learn from whatever 1989, FLG is the art of compromise. Why it always has to be a live or death threat?

February 14, 2011 @ 6:44 pm | Comment

L. Ron Hubbard said it all with his famous quote:

“If you really want to make a million, the quickest way is to start your own religion.”

Still n’ all Richard, off of a discussion I was having over on Just Recently’s blog, may I infer that you recognise that 95%+ or there-abouts) of will Mainland Chinese substantially the same, rote-learned opinion about Fa Lun Gong/Taiwan/Tibet/Tiananmen? Whatever their actual opinion? Can you therefore really say that the characterisation of China as a “totalitarian” state is necessarily wrong?

Think on Taiwan, or Argentina. During the martial law period in Taiwan many people would at least privately state that they did not believe, for example, that the ROC could “counter-attack” the mainland, whatever government propaganda said. Many Argentines also were not taken in by the Junta’s artificially-generated crises with Chile and the UK, and would say so, at least off the record.

Taiwan and Argentina were, I suppose, classic examples of so-called “authoritarian” states – something I believe to have no clearly defined difference from totalitarian states except, perhaps, in that they usually contain some corrupted and meaningless apping of democracy. However, at the very least, the governments of Taiwan and Argentina were rarely successful in brainwashing the public so completely as they are in mainland China.

February 14, 2011 @ 8:17 pm | Comment

@Richard (and everyone)

Just because Falun Gong is similar to Jehovah’s witnesses and Christian Scientists doesn’t mean it’s ok… In fact, all religions tend to perpetuate horrifying child abuse (all that brainwashing results in lifelong traumas…)

I agree people should believe whatever they want, but I am adamantly against allowing these people to have children in their households. In my humble (yet remarkably outspoken :) ) opinion, if you’re an adult you can choose to do whatever you want, including harming yourself, but you should *still* not be allowed to make decisions for your children – definitely not when it comes to “spiritual” matters.

So I’d be happy with Falun Gong and Christians and Jews and Muslims and everyone… if they left children out of their irrational, damaging practices.

There should be a law against preaching to humans less than 18 years old. Religions would all be dead within a couple of generations and we’d all live happily forever after.

February 14, 2011 @ 9:43 pm | Comment

Given the profusion of cults/religious activities flourishing in China today you might ask why the special CCP animosity towards the FLG (even as stupid as they are to some)? Maybe they consider it a threat to their existence. The CCP probably see a hidden agenda behind the FLG cult/religion which is being exploited by some political rivals to generate regime change – not unlike the colour/flower revolution used so successfully by the Americans & the West. This make sense to me as I too doubt very much whether the Americans would likewise tolerate any cult/faction/sect or whatever bent on destroying the American dream. I still remember the fear/paranoia of the McCarthy era where a slight suspicion of being a commie sympathiser was enough to ruin/jail anyone.

I guess it’s just human nature to eliminate a threat. The Americans (the global hegemon) chooses to get rid of AQ by bombing the hell out of everyone. The Chinese (I guess) would also like to do the same with FLG – if permitted.

February 14, 2011 @ 10:23 pm | Comment

Falun Gong’s newspaper has a counter, which displays how many CCP members so far have been convinced by FLG to quit the CCP. They claim many senior military officials inside the CCP have secretly quit the CCP and swore their allegiance to the FLG, and are ready to stage a coup at any moment’s notice. Every time a prominent CCP member dies of cancer, they cheer in their newspapers. Every time a disaster happens in China, they attribute it to CCP’s bad rule and punishment from heaven. Every time there’s abnormal weather happening in China, they point it to another sign that China is collapsing.

They receive much more funding than many other overseas Chinese pro democracy groups, they have a TV station that’s on public airwaves, they have annual Chinese new year performances in major performance centers in major world cities, all very high cost productions. They have free, glossy newspapers distributed in all major world cities and reporters and journalists everywhere. The Taiwanese intelligence service admitted itself that it gives millions and millions of dollars to FLG every year, they also receive funding from many US organizations that all have roots tied to different foundations tied to the US gov’t. In fact, there’s a lot of fighting going on between FLG and many other rival overseas Chinese democracy groups – FLG has caused those other groups to have fallen out of favor with their paymasters, and those groups saw their funding shrink as a result. Those groups are too gentlmanly, too intellectual, while FLG is like Karl Rove, goes for the nasty and cult throw tactics, and in the harsh world of politics, FLG is winning against their rivals.

February 14, 2011 @ 11:36 pm | Comment

The same can be applied to ideologies.

What is a religion but an ideology with a divine/metaphysic component.

There should be a law against indoctrination to humans less than 18 years old too.

February 15, 2011 @ 12:24 am | Comment

Guo, I completely agree that it’s their ability to gather the masses that scares the CCP shitless. In a country that is so insecure it oversees every club and group and religion, any organization that can gather 10,000 people at a moment’s notice is a lethal threat.

Poet, I say I find them creepy, and I feel the same way about most organized religions. But they all have a right to exist, or else we surrender our basic freedoms.

FOARP, that’s not a productive argument (whether this proves the CCP is totalitarian). It’s all relative. Stalinist Russia, Pol Pot’s Cambodia and Hitler’s Germany were truly totalitarian. All aspects of your life were controlled by the state. An off-color joke about Hitler could land you in a concentration camp. China is absolutely not in this category, in my estimation. It’s an authoritarian state with some liberal and some totalitarian elements. Their approach to the FLG is totalitarian. Their approach to its people’s social lives is relatively liberal. I can’t lump today’s CCP with Mao’s, or with Nazism or Stalinism.

February 15, 2011 @ 1:08 am | Comment

@Richard – The approach of any totalitarian government will contain some aspects in which people are actually free within a certain limit, even if it is only Winston Smith’s “few cubic centimetres”.

I am not necessarily trying to say that China is a totalitarian state, but does the Chinese government have a totalitarian hold over the minds of the people of China in some areas? I think in at least relation to what China expats usually label the “sensitive subjects” the answer is yes. Government control is “total”, or as near “total” as it needs to be to suit its purposes.

You are a media professional, and I think you have a good deal of experience in the field of marketing. Tell me: could any ordinary media campaign convince people so quickly, so uniformly, and so totally with so little supporting evidence that something was the case as the way in which the ire of the Chinese people was turned on the western media’s imagined ‘bias’ in 2008? How do you, as a media professional, believe that this uniformity of opinion is acheived?

Some will be inclined to put this down to cultural factors, but the fact is that we have seen this before in other countries belonging to other cultures – in Fascist Germany and Japan, in Islamist Iran, etc. The unifying factor in all of them was the total degree of control that the government exercised over people’s patterns of thought through the education system and the media.

And as we’ve seen lately, an off-colour joke about the anti-Japanese protests can land a Chinese citizen in jail.

All this said, I don’t put China in the category of Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. I put it in the category of Jaruzelski’s Poland, Brezhnev’s USSR, or Mussolini’s Italy – all of which could justifiably be called totalitarian, or authoritarian depending on your inclination.

February 15, 2011 @ 2:29 am | Comment

I don’t think we’re in disagreement. It’s true, many of these memes – the Dalai Lama, FLG, Taiwan, Tiananmen Square, the “chaos” of Russian democracy – are too ingrained to wipe away overnight, so I guess you can say the party has total control of may of its citizens brainwaves. This is achieved, per your question, by intense memorization at very early age, contnued for many years and echoed every day in the media. And yes, that has elements of totalitarianism. (Of course, our FQ friends will argue that we in the West undergo a similar process.) I just cringe when we try to pigeonhole China as being this or that kind of society (totalitarian, authoritarian or what have you), as it doesn’t fit neatly into any one box.

February 15, 2011 @ 2:37 am | Comment

@SKC

Scientology’s opposition to mainstream psychiatry is not similar FLG’s opposition to medicine.

That was a huge reason why CCP flip-flopped of being nice at the first place to getting rid of FLG for good.

There’s also bunch of FLG practitioners playing the Tai Chi/peace card as their propaganda. Too bad it isn’t true. Tai Chi without FLG influence has been striving even when CCP took over.

February 15, 2011 @ 3:05 am | Comment

To RP:
I agree, organized religions teaching kids to recite their doctrines, when those kids have little to no grasp of the underlying concepts, gives me the willies. It would be completely unacceptable if religions try to conscript or recruit kids into their spheres of influence.

However, what actually happens is that the kids’ parents send/take them there. They “believe”, so their kids should “believe”, or something mildly off-putting like that. Nonetheless, in principle, it’s no different from parents sending their kids off to school, or any manner of organized activity. If kids can’t go to church, then can they go to school, to soccer practice, or to whatever?

I realize this is one of those vage slippery slope arguments, but if parents are allowed to make decisions for their minor children, then that’s what they should be able to do. I would totally support your suggestion, though, if there was a feasible way to do it.

February 15, 2011 @ 3:26 am | Comment

“mainstream psychiatry is not similar FLG’s opposition to medicine.”
—is mainstream psychiatry not a vocation of medicine? Or are you talking about taking cold medication? Remember also that JW’s can’t accept blood transfusions even if they would die without one. So when it comes to life-or-death medical decisions, FLG is not alone among ‘religions’ that try to wedge itself into the discussion.

“That was a huge reason why CCP flip-flopped”
—are you trying to suggest that the CCP is giving ‘special treatment’ because of concern over the medical well-being of potential FLG followers? That’s a good one.

As has been said, they may be quacks. But the CCP response is also a little quacky (though motivated by fear for its self-interest, no doubt).

February 15, 2011 @ 3:36 am | Comment

@FOARP.

“… in Islamist Iran, etc. The unifying factor in all of them was the total degree of control that the government exercised over people’s patterns of thought through the education system and the media.”

More ongoing resistance to the regime by the educated urban (mostly younger)classes yesterday. You are over-egging the pudding here.

To understand Iran today, you have to look at how the fundamentalists/theocrats control a large section of the economy (control whole sectors of the economy), the mammoth charitable foundations (provide jobs, education for farmers sons, etc), and then the divide between uneducated rural classes who form the Basij/regine thugs and the educated youth-bulge urban classes.

Okay, at one level there is probably a certain amount of common agreement across the board about Iran’s right to develop its own nucleur projects, but thats about it. This is a far more sophisticated society than the PRC in many ways. Total thought control across the board. No way.

There is an urban and fairly liberal civil society bubbling away beneath the surface and demanding a voice, even if it is coming in for some very rough treatment by the states security apparatus.

February 15, 2011 @ 4:31 am | Comment

@SKC

Yes I am talking about cold medication and other related illness not just the big life or death situations. FLG practitioners will say reading Li Hongzhi book and Li Hongzhi healing is going to cleanse their bodies of illness and complicated problems.

FLG will also say that the solution to battle their illness is reciting “sincerely” “Falun Dafa is good” and “Truthfulness, Compassion and Forbearance is good.”

Your conclusion that CCP is motivated by fear for its self-interest is offensive to the victims of this belief.

February 15, 2011 @ 4:33 am | Comment

“FLG practitioners will say reading Li Hongzhi book and Li Hongzhi healing is going to cleanse their bodies of illness and complicated problems.”
—as i said, to me, that’s nutty. But if that’s what they want to believe, that’s their gig.

On the other hand, if you’re agreeing they’re not all that different from JW for instance in the life-and-death situations (ie willing to refuse treatment even if death is the consequence), then really the distinction comes in the treatment of less severe ailments. And ‘praying’ for their health is certainly not a unique feature among practitioners of religions.

“Your conclusion that CCP is motivated by fear for its self-interest is offensive to the victims of this belief.”
—is it? If someone dies in attempting to fully practice their religious beliefs, is that offensive to them? On the other hand, I can certainly see it being offensive to the CCP, and to her apologists like you. So be it.

February 15, 2011 @ 4:57 am | Comment

SKC is totally right. A sudden burst of compassion for the health of its citizens is not the motivating factor behind the CCP’s assault on the FLG. If it were, they’d do much more to end life-threatening pollution and unsafe working conditions. This is an excuse that gives them free license to repress the FLG, pure and simple.

February 15, 2011 @ 4:59 am | Comment

@ If someone dies in attempting to fully practice their religious beliefs, is that offensive to them?

How is an ill FLG practitioner dying attempt to practice their religious belief?

To fully practice FLG belief, you will be alive since Li Hongzhi healing saves the ill.

If you are dead, then Li Hongzhi teaching just sucker-punch the ill victim belief entirely.

Hey, if you want to be a FLG apologist, be my guest.

February 15, 2011 @ 5:06 am | Comment

@If it were, they’d do much more to end life-threatening pollution and unsafe working conditions.

CCP has gradually done a good job on pollution and unsafe working conditions in the last few years.

But this takes time while FLG practices takes one pill.

More excuses of semi-FLG apologist to suppress information that doesn’t follow their agenda.

February 15, 2011 @ 5:13 am | Comment

“How is an ill FLG practitioner dying attempt to practice their religious belief?”
—if FLG belief calls for you to forego medical treatment, then an ill/dying FLG practitioner eschewing medical treatment does so in the practice of his/her religious belief. They’re not trying to die; they’re believing they won’t die even without medicine, because that’s what they believe.

“To fully practice FLG belief, you will be alive since Li Hongzhi healing saves the ill.”
—not so. To fully practice it, you simply have to BELIEVE that you will remain alive with that guy’s healing. If you ACTUALLY remain alive with that guy’s healing alone, that would be PROOF of FLG belief. Naturally, no such proof is on offer. But a lack of PROOF of the things religions make claims of is certainly not unique to FLG. In fact, a lack of proof defines religions in general. Religion is not something you can prove; it’s simply something you believe.

“If you are dead, then Li Hongzhi teaching just sucker-punch the ill victim belief entirely.”
—that’s true. But if they die while holding true to their religious beliefs, who are you to say that that is not acceptable to them. It’s not my cup of tea. SOunds like it’s not yours either. But their beliefs are not for you and me to decide. That last concept is a difficult one for folks like you to grasp.

“if you want to be a FLG apologist”
—like I said, i think they’re quacks themselves. But if someone wants to believe it, that’s up to them. Besides, this is just an excuse for the CCP anyway. But hey, you believe what you want to believe.

“CCP has gradually …”
—come on, shouldn’t “gradually” be in bold or caps or something. If CCP devoted as much energy to miners’ safety as they do to the FLG, I imagine miners’ families would be very grateful indeed.

Who is “suppressing information”? Do you know what “suppress” means? You’re accusing the guy who wrote the post and put it up for discussion of “suppressing information”? Your world is ass-backwards, dude.

February 15, 2011 @ 5:28 am | Comment

I don’t buy your argument that ill practitioner let God (Li Hongzhi) on their well being and if it FAILS, it is still ACHIEVES the practitioner’s belief “healing can cure me.” Let’s leave at that.

@ In fact, a lack of proof defines religions in general. Religion is not something you can prove; it’s simply something you believe.

True but this isn’t embellished or overly-exaggerated story of morality. Li Hongzhi is playing practitioner’s life. Li Hongzhi needs a bit of proof on that not essays which who knows who’s writing it as a marketing strategy on his claims.

@ If CCP devoted as much energy to miners’ safety as they do to the FLG, I imagine miners’ families would be very grateful indeed.

Well, we shall see this coming year and the future.

@ Who is “suppressing information”? Do you know what “suppress” means? You’re accusing the guy who wrote the post and put it up for discussion of “suppressing information”? Your world is ass-backwards, dude.

Brushed off. Ignore.–Happy now?

February 15, 2011 @ 6:18 am | Comment

@KT – OK, so you caught me out trying to come up with a totalitarian society which was not the USSR.

@Jason – Okay. I’ll bite. Yes, I think there’s something ludicrously wrong with someone telling someone else to do something that will harm them whilst telling them it will do them good. But Li Hongzhi does not, as far as I know, force his followers at gun point to do these things. I think you know where I’m going with this.

February 15, 2011 @ 6:23 am | Comment

“I don’t buy your argument …”
—no worries. To understand why a practitioner of FLG believes in what they believe in, you would have to speak to one. I don’t share their beliefs either. But i don’t deny them the right to believe in it.

Besides, if it “fails”, you’d be hard-pressed to determine what the practitioner thinks at that point, so it’s a question that cannot be answered.

“this isn’t embellished or overly-exaggerated story of morality. Li Hongzhi is playing practitioner’s life”
—that’s why FLG might be a religion, but is probably closer to a cult, as many here have characterized. It seems many cults are simply religions whose deity figure happens to be the founder of that cult. FLG seems to perpetuate the trend. Like I said, it seems neither of us approve of it. The difference is whether we feel people should be free to believe in what they want to believe in.

“Li Hongzhi needs a bit of proof on that ”
—clearly he’s nowhere close to convincing you or me. But also clearly, he’s convinced a lot of people. If those people feel he is adequately compelling, again, that’s for them to decide.

“we shall see this coming year and the future.”
—let’s hope so. i think that would be a more worthy priority than the FLG.

“Brushed off. Ignore”
—ok, so what information has been “brushed off and ignored”? You confuse your disapproval of what FLG represents with other people’s right to buy it if they wish. You also confuse said disapproval with adequate justification for what the CCP does in this regard.

To FOARP:
that’s a good one.

February 15, 2011 @ 6:52 am | Comment

@FOARP. Not trying to catch you out, but simply pointing our via example that each society/socio economic formation must be treated on its own terms. I’m not real big on all-encompassing global concepts like authoritianism/totalitarianism, since in looking at common denominators across similarly organised countries, one tends to obliterate particular specificities and differences.

However, I like the general point you recently made on JR’s blog, and will return to that discussion when I get some clutter our of my life.

A similar objection applies to your use of the idea of civil war which I also commented on.

February 15, 2011 @ 8:36 am | Comment

Hi. I practice Falun Gong. I just have a couple of points.

1. The anti-communist rhetoric bandied about by The Epoch Times and Falun Gong is standard anti-communist stuff. Anti-communists have been saying the same things for decades. There is a respectable tradition here, and Falun Gong’s counter-propaganda must be understood within that tradition. Communism has been called satanic for a long time by writers and philosophers with anti-communist leanings. This is a spiritual orientation toward communism that Falun Gong shares. Nothing groundbreaking here. The materials you saw were translated from Chinese, too. Among many Chinese the Nine Commentaries has an extremely edifying influence,[1] and many do not find it particularly extreme. Keep in mind that it’s really only during the last couple of hundred years, and mainly the second part of the 20th century, I would say, that people began thinking that those who say good and evil are important categories for understanding the world are crazy. Do you get it? You are all relativists. Your displeasure with Falun Gong results from an ideological disjuncture. You don’t believe in good or evil, but Falun Gong is founded upon the belief in good and evil, and their materials on the CCP reflect that.

2. Richard uses the term “cult” a lot, but never defines it. Generally a cult refers to a certain organizational structure: i.e. the boss getting money from the useful idiots, tight organization, control of life and activities, etc. etc. We all know the deal. But Falun Gong has none of these things: no money, no organization, no formal leadership system (there is a mostly ad-hoc ‘coordinator’ role that can be filled by whoever is at hand and up to it), no institutions, no way of directing people’s lives. Falun Gong offers a set of exercises and teachings that are available free of cost online. People download them, or buy the book, learn them, then associate with others who do the same. After the persecution those people started getting together and organizing themselves, starting media companies, and so forth. In fact, some of the media they produce is excellent. I commend you to NTD’s 大陆新闻解读,[2] for example. It is genuinely funny. I think Richard uses the cult term to denote his displeasure with Falun Gong’s orientation toward the world. It is primarily an ideological complaint he has. But “cult” is the wrong term for expressing this. Richard, I think you should use some other word, or just state your case in clear terms without resorting to vague and negatively charged language. We Falun Gong practitioners wish to be simply understood as people, as individuals like you or anyone else. We are doing what we think is right, and ultimately just wish to be left alone to live a life of peace and dignity. There is not much more to it. Commentators should examine what Falun Gong really has done in the face of an overwhelming persecution and propaganda campaign, that even extends outside of China.[3] No group in Chinese history has withstood and peacefully fought back against the CCP’s cruel oppression as Falun Gong practitioners have.

That’s all, just those two points. I’ve enjoyed most of the discussion. Some of the things people say here are quite amusing, and some are absolutely bizarre. Funding from Taiwan? I wish. I would be a milionaire if I got paid for my Falun Gong activism.

Zhang

[1]http://tuidang.dajiyuan.com/index/showpage/type/2/page/1
[2]http://www.ntdtv.com/xtr/gb/prog109.html
[3]http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/50788/

February 15, 2011 @ 10:14 am | Comment

@ But Li Hongzhi does not, as far as I know, force his followers at gun point to do these things.

Has Li Hongzhi allowed people inside his circle to criticize on his claims? As far as I know, there’s hardly any criticism on this cult within the FLG community which even JW has allowed some leeways on the criticism they endured with the blood transfusion.

February 15, 2011 @ 10:58 am | Comment

@Jason
OK, now I’m a tad confused. Falun Gong is bad but the CCP is good…because they are pretty much both the same??
“Has Li Hongzhi allowed people inside his circle to criticize on his claims? As far as I know, there’s hardly any criticism on this cult within the FLG community….” pretty much characterises my confusion. I think you can see where I am coming from ;-)

February 15, 2011 @ 11:52 am | Comment

“CCP has gradually done a good job on pollution and unsafe working conditions in the last few years.”

Since they were the ones that got people into those situations in the first place, one would assume that’s only polite of them to clear up their mess….

February 15, 2011 @ 12:11 pm | Comment

“Has Li Hongzhi allowed people inside his circle to criticize on his claims?”
—perhaps not. I guess there are rules once you get into the “inner circle”. Similarly, I don’t think you’ll find too many cardinals mouthing off at the Pope or mocking the holy trinity. But FOARP’s point is that people aren’t coerced at gun point to enter into that circle. If people are willing to enter that circle, and subject themselves to the rules of that “circle”, well, that’s up to them. You may disagree, or disapprove. But no one there is asking for your agreement or approval…at least I don’t think so. Maybe you can start by asking Mr. Zhang.

“As far as I know, there’s hardly any criticism on this cult within the FLG community which even JW has allowed some leeways on the criticism they endured with the blood transfusion.”
—taken at its absolute face value, this statement would only suggest that JW might be more lenient towards, or tolerant of, criticism. That’s great, but possibly being prickly with criticism hardly justifies FLG persecution.
Moreover, lack of dissension within the FLG community might simply mean that those who believe it are happy to do so. Besides, i don’t know how well you think you’re tapped into the pulse of the FLG community, but you may not be the type of guy that they would air dirty laundry to, your open-mind towards their beliefs being what it is.

To Mike #30:
that’s another good one.

February 15, 2011 @ 1:30 pm | Comment

Wow, it doesn’t take long for the FLGers to get here once their name is called eh?

For the record –

1) I don’t particularly oppose FLG, in fact I’d be just as angry and bemused if I found an otherwise sane friend of mine being taken in by FLG rhetoric as I would if they were being taken in by the Mormons, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, or the Raelians.

2) FLG’s so-called “anti-communist” rhetoric includes straight-out lies, like the supposedly sky-high number of CCP members quitting the party. All I can tell you is this – as far as I can tell, next to no-one has quit the CCP due to the CCP’s anti-FLG stance or anything else. You might as well expect Nazis to quit the Nazi party out of opposition to anti-semitism.

3)Having lived in China for five years, as well as in Taiwan, this is the first time I have ever even heard of the “nine commentaries”, which actually look a lot like standard communist fare (CF “The eight dos and don’ts”, “The three represents” etc.) except with the rhetoric reversed. Forgive me if I don’t believe that that many Chinese people think this is ‘edifying’, especially when it is directed at Jiang Zemin, a guy who left power more than seven years ago now.

4) Citing references from FLG-owned publications will not win any awards for NPOV.

5) I’ll take your word for whether FLG is free or not.

6) Speaking for myself, I most definitely do believe in good and evil, it’s just that you almost always find them to be mixed in whatever subject is concerned.

February 15, 2011 @ 2:19 pm | Comment

@FOARP

“…the Mormons, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, or the Raelians”

Why not throw in the big names in the religion marketplace in there as well? Why are Mormons more worthy of disdain than Baptists, or Jehovah’s Witnesses than Muslims?

February 15, 2011 @ 4:59 pm | Comment

The big names. No one is even close so far. Its the Catholics with their voyeuristic confessional peep shows, paedophilia, wholescale sexual repression and a CCP command and obey organisational structure.

FG are harmless by comparison.

You can forget the Anglicans however, since even atheists are accepted into their clerical ranks.

One of the good things about China is its freedom from religion. Pity it is getting a bit slack about enforcing that principle of late. Also, its nice to see Chinese gays going about their private lives without physical repression in contra-distinction to the Islamic world, Cuba and a good part of christian Africa.

February 15, 2011 @ 5:39 pm | Comment

FLG did not appear out of a vacuum, but from a large number of Qigong movements in China, most of them had the support of the state and connections high up in Government. Movements like Zhong gong. The book Qigong Fever gives some great historical background and some funny stories of the Extraordinary Powers movements that infiltrated the state, including the army, the nuclear research arm, including government army research into using extraordinary powers to communicate with submarines through ESP. So the joke is really on the CCP who were highly involved with this stuff, and the crazy stuff from the FLG is rather tame.

Qigong extraordinary powers were considered the ‘third’ most important scientific discovery in human history, after relativity and quantum mechanics!!! This was the romantic nationalism of China and a reaction to western domination of scientific modernity. Qigong hardly existed before the Communist revolution came to power, other than a few brief esoteric mentions in old Taoist scriptures. But the CCP saw Qigong as a cheap and powerful healing technology that could help provide something to the masses where they couldn’t afford to provide modern medicine. Qigong evolved from a therapeutic practice into a mass expression of charismatic religiosity. At its heights in the 1980s, the qigong movements may have attracted over one hundred million practitioners in some form or another, over 20% of the urban pop, making it the most widespread form of popular religiosity in Post-Mao urban China. Promoted by Party leaders at various stages, and at times deeply embedded in Central government.

Qigong Fever, great book and particularly interesting the aspects of Charismatic Religiosity, which will continue to appear in various forms.

February 15, 2011 @ 5:57 pm | Comment

My feeling when reading the Epoch Times or seeing Shen Yun (the FLG propaganda dance/musical) is that apples never fall too far from the tree. FLG agit-prop is every bit as crude, tendentious and full of logical leaps and holes as an anything on the Global Times would publish on a sensitive subject or anything the Maths, Jasons and Yourfriends would post here.

February 15, 2011 @ 10:56 pm | Comment

@SKC – My sister-in-law is ex-JW, the things she tells me about them makes my blood run cold.

@KT, Res. Poet – Perhaps the religion/cult dichotomy is similar to the totalitarian/authoritarian dichotomy we’ve talked about. At the very least we must be on guard not to use the term authoritarian rather than totalitarian simply because we are more comfortable with it, and I think the same may be true of cult versus religion.

I cannot share the dislike shown towards the Catholic church, though. For myself I think the particular mark of a cult is the extent to which it exploits the gullible, separates them from their family and loved ones, uses them financially, brainwashes them, and ultimately does them harm for the benefit of the leadership.

I know that your rejoinder to this will be that the Christian, Jewish, Muslim etc. faiths do this, but I cannot square the stories my sister-in-law tells me with my own upbringing in a Church of England school, even though I have been an agnostic for as long as I remember.

February 15, 2011 @ 11:19 pm | Comment

@Slim – I heartly agree. Yet, FLG are not the ones imprisoning and torturing people.

February 15, 2011 @ 11:19 pm | Comment

@Taaleem

That would explain why they were able to pull that sudden stunt of mass seat down which really scared shit less the CCP top rank.

Hard to understand how in a so controlled society such mass movement could have gone undetected. Now I understand better, in a way it was sort of integrated in the system.

Had they kept quite, we would not have heard much of FLG today, and business continued as usual.

February 15, 2011 @ 11:47 pm | Comment

I wonder if they were afraid of a new kind of Taipin rebellion.

February 15, 2011 @ 11:49 pm | Comment

@39. I meant to confine my thoughts to their similar propaganda styles and apologize for any confusion. The huge and grim body count of torture deaths, lives or careers ruined by persecution or spent in unwilling exile — that is on the CCP’s tab.

February 16, 2011 @ 1:45 am | Comment

TO FOARP:
I think JW are fairly nutty themselves. In a mildly amusing way. To be honest, i think most religions contain, and require of their believers, some degree of nuttiness. The difference is in the extent. That said, what a competent individual chooses to believe or not believe, or chooses to do unto him/her-self and not do unto him/her-self, is not for me to decide. The real creepiness for me is with the “young” children who don’t know up from down, but are immersed in this stuff (of any religion) without the ability to judge for themselves (as RP has said). The gray zone is with the teenagers. Still minors, but with some capacity to make their own decisions (though of course some more than others). WRT JW, this is something the courts in Canada still grapple with. I haven’t heard much of it, but I imagine similar moral conundrums arise with FLG/Scientologists etc who refuse medical treatment for children.

February 16, 2011 @ 3:05 am | Comment

Richard said
Regarding all your points: So what? We have our own cults and we have Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists who reject medicine. They have a right to believe whatever they want without being tortured or imprisoned.

One key difference is that Li Hongzhi had ambitions beyond religion.

February 16, 2011 @ 3:30 am | Comment

SK Cheung
WRT JW, this is something the courts in Canada still grapple with. I haven’t heard much of it, but I imagine similar moral conundrums arise with FLG/Scientologists etc who refuse medical treatment for children.

I don’t believe there is much of a conundrum- what their parents are doing is evil unless one believes children are chattel owned by parents whose lives can be discarded at their whim.

Organized religion is just any other belief system that has been privileged by the violence and intolerance of its followers.

February 16, 2011 @ 3:48 am | Comment

@yourfriend’s post #44

Finally one thing we can all agree on :)

February 16, 2011 @ 5:25 am | Comment

“what their parents are doing is evil unless one believes children are chattel owned by parents whose lives can be discarded at their whim.”
—let me walk you through the logical progression required to work this out.
First, do you want a society where parents are responsible for their children, meaning housing, feeding, nurturing, making decisions and choices on their behalf, etc? Or do you simply want all children to be wards of the state until they reach age of majority. If it’s the latter, then it’s a whole other ball of wax. Parents become simply sperm donors and rent-a-wombs. If it’s the former, then…

Second, where do you draw the line wrt which decisions and choices the parents can make on behalf of their children? Can they pick schools? Determine diets? Select extra-curricular activities? Limitation of salt and sugar intake? Make medical decisions (realizing that, on a grander scheme, some of those other decisions are in fact already ‘health’ decisions)? If you answer in the affirmative, then…

THird, do you allow parents to make said decisions on whatever basis they choose? ie if they make a decision based on religious grounds, is that acceptable?

If you’ve answered “yes” throughout, then you have nothing to complain about, at least wrt the FLG discussion here. If you’ve answered “no” at any point, then I’ll leave you to explain your own reasons for that.

I believe parents can make decisions on their childrens’ behalf, unless of course it’s illegal (for instance, a parent deciding to sell their child into prostitution is obviously not acceptable. However, refusing medical treatment is not illegal, except in certain cases as outlined by the courts, which I’ve alluded to).

And the reason why parents are allowed to make decisions for their children is because “children” are deemed not competent to make those decisions for themselves. Therefore, the conundrum is with “teenagers”, some of whom are more competent than others, and the difficulty of determining which teenager is capable of making such decisions, and which teenagers are not.

I’m no fan of organized religion either. Which is why I don’t subscribe to them. But I’m not about to impose my views on someone else. Not for me to decide if someone wants to believe in this or that religion.

“One key difference is that Li Hongzhi had ambitions beyond religion.”
—how do his “ambitions” justify persecution of his followers?

February 16, 2011 @ 6:51 am | Comment

Anything that maims or kills the child should be illegal. Denying them medicine when they need it is really no different from denying them food and water for “religious reasons”. It’s child abuse or negligent homicide at least, but there is always a temptation to tiptoe around fanatics because their belief systems are somehow more “sacred” than others.

how do his “ambitions” justify persecution of his followers?

For one, Falun Gong’s claims are challenged even by the likes of Wu Hongda. So before this continues, you will have to pick a side- the “laogai” issue or “Falun Gong”. That said, they were getting too powerful and influential, especially for a religion that is so hostile to the outside world.

February 16, 2011 @ 7:07 am | Comment

@ecodelta: “That would explain why they were able to pull that sudden stunt of mass seat down which really scared shit less the CCP top rank.

Hard to understand how in a so controlled society such mass movement could have gone undetected. Now I understand better, in a way it was sort of integrated in the system.”

These other mass Qigong movements were not FLG, but FLG developed out of them. For a period there was a whole industry of Grandmasters appearing after having gone into the mountains and discovered new divine secrets revealed only to them, with extraordinary powers they would set about setting up a Charismatic religious movement and become rich.

February 16, 2011 @ 7:25 am | Comment

@“Has Li Hongzhi allowed people inside his circle to criticize on his claims? As far as I know, there’s hardly any criticism on this cult within the FLG community….” pretty much characterises my confusion. I think you can see where I am coming from

No, actually I don’t. I read an article about a professor that is an Uighur ethnicity in China that is still aligns with CCP that criticize CCP iron fist on his ethnicity. I also read an article about a Politburo that ratting out 2 members in the Politburo that botched and lead to Henan AIV epidemic.

Nice try.

February 16, 2011 @ 11:21 am | Comment

“No, actually I don’t”

It shows, my dear boy, it shows….

February 16, 2011 @ 12:11 pm | Comment

“Anything that maims or kills the child should be illegal.”
—that’s actually way too broad a criterion, even though it might sound nice. For example, if a parent enrolls their child in a skiing program, and the child loses an edge, crashes into a tree, and dies, is the parent culpable since he/she enrolled the child in the first place? Surely not. I’m no lawyer, but for “negligence”, you need things like proximate cause and foreseeability.

But I do agree, it seems much more proximate and foreseeable that, if you withhold medical care from a sick child, and that child dies, the refusing of care led directly to the child’s demise.

Here, my mistake for not being sufficiently clear. The “conundrum” refers to ‘teenagers’, as I said earlier, where it becomes a little less clear whether they are competent to refuse medical care (or in the JW case, blood products) themselves. In Canada at least, I believe it is legally accepted that ‘young children’ will be given blood if they need it, regardless of parental JW beliefs. But as I said earlier, I haven’t heard of any such legal challenges in Scientology or FLG families in Canada.

If the CCP is really concerned about the plight of ‘young children’, then she can make similar legal stipulations that supercede parental religious wishes when the child’s health is at stake. I don’t know how that justifies persecution.

“Falun Gong’s claims are challenged even by the likes of Wu Hongda.”
—so there were differences of opinion. How does that justify persecution?

Dear Jason:
let me help you out with what Mike is trying to say.

You’ve essentially said that, because the head of FLG doesn’t allow people in his “circle” to criticize him, this makes FLG ‘bad’.

I presume you think the CCP is ‘good’ (do correct me if I’m wrong).

So Mike pointed out deftly that the head of the CCP doesn’t allow people in his ‘circle’ to criticize him either, which means you find a behaviour ‘bad’ in one case, yet the same behaviour to be ‘good’ in another. Hence his confusion.

Your response is about some Uyghur CCP member criticizing ethnic policies of the CCP, and some Politburo member throwing 2 fellow members under the bus. Those guys could certainly be argued to be in ‘the circle’. But they’re not chewing out Hu. So your examples don’t measure up to the principles you had earlier employed. Which is why it seems clear that you in fact don’t understand Mike’s earlier point.

February 16, 2011 @ 2:33 pm | Comment

Richard offers a balanced and reasoned perspective on the Falun Dafa.

February 16, 2011 @ 2:38 pm | Comment

CCP’s prosecution of FLG is totally political and has nothing to do with what FLG practices. However, it was FLG first pushed itself onto political stage by using its power to pressure the media and later the government. Before that, FLG was allowed if not even condoned by CCP. Personally I think FLG is indeed dangerous based on what happened to one of my collegemates. He went insane, period…. He disowned his family and became very antisoicial. He was badly injuried during one of the protests he participated and hosptialized till now. It is westen culture that all religion should be tolerated no matter how creepy it might be. I respect that. However, I think Chinese culture has a different take on that due to the fact that Chinese society is not and has never been religious. That’s why it is widely accepted by Chinese people that cults shoud be outlawed even though a lot of people are disgusted by CCP’s over-reaction and unconstituional prosecution of FLG.

February 17, 2011 @ 3:00 am | Comment

FLG in the US appears to have more money than any other overseas Chinese dissent groups. I think someone saw some value in FLG and invested.

February 17, 2011 @ 3:07 am | Comment

To CNLST #54:
well said. The laws of the land should reflect the values of the people. If certain edicts of FLG run contrary to the accepted cultural values of Chinese society, then it seems justifiable to formulate laws to forbid those edicts.

But as you say, it appears that the CCP response goes beyond mere law enforcement.

February 17, 2011 @ 3:48 am | Comment

“It is westen culture that all religion should be tolerated no matter how creepy it might be. I respect that. However, I think Chinese culture has a different take on that due to the fact that Chinese society is not and has never been religious.”
Number 1, it is not western culture to be tolerant, never mind the creepiness. Think the religious wars, the persecution of Jews over the ages (and you know what that culminated in), the Northern Irish issue, the angst over Islam in Europe….need I go on? Hardly the epitome of tolerance, I think you’ll find.
Number 2, the peopple in China are religious and always have been. Every society is religious. Most Chinese I know are hugely superstitious (see, I can throw in huge generalisations too)- and superstition is the bed-fellow of religion. What was the Boxer rebellion but a religious one? How many Catholics are there in China (just Catholics, never mind the other Christian denominations) and I mean all, not the CCP-Catholics? And that’s not even an indigenous religion. Mind you, neither is Buddhism…and China is not really lacking in them either, eh? And finally, there;s the deification of Mao. My wife was taught to love him – really love him, like they try and teach us cultural Christians to love Jesus. That, old boy, is religion.
Most people accept cults should be outlawed because they are taught to do that. The CCP tells the children in schools and it gets ingrained – just as religions do.

People generally do as they are told because that is what they have been taught from birth.

February 17, 2011 @ 5:21 am | Comment

@So your examples don’t measure up to the principles you had earlier employed. Which is why it seems clear that you in fact don’t understand Mike’s earlier point.

What you don’t understand is that Chinese government doesn’t have checks and balances and the two examples I show is clear examples of pinning Hu Jintao’s failure of address the issues.

February 17, 2011 @ 6:10 am | Comment

Mike,
I see your point. I was talking about the main stream modern day Western societies that advocate religious tolerance. Yes, there are wide spread superstition in Chinese society but the main cultural stream – Confuciansm is naturalist if not Atheist. The movements you mentioned in Chinese history are considered anormaly in Chinese society, not the main stream. There were multiple accasions in Chinese history in which “cults” were outlawed by the rulers and even prosecuted. Main stream Chinese especially the educated ones have very negative view over cults and this negative view is generated by Confucious PHilosophy not CCP indoctrination.

February 17, 2011 @ 6:58 am | Comment

“you don’t understand is that Chinese government doesn’t have checks and balances …”
—oh no, that is well understood. It’s one of the reasons why i find the present day Chinese government to be such a fantastic outfit worthy of universal admiration.

“two examples I show is clear examples of pinning Hu Jintao’s failure of address the issues”
—he’s certainly failed to address some issues. One wonders if he had the “merits” for the job. However, your examples don’t show people calling him out on his shortcomings. You argue that FLG is “bad” in part because no one calls out their fearless leader. At the same time, you haven’t shown an example of anyone calling out the CCP’s fearless leader, yet somehow you find the CCP “good” (I presume). So again, as Mike alluded to in #30, you are not applying your principles consistently, or you are adjusting your principles as you go to allow you to remain true to your preferred conclusions.

To Mike:
that’s an interesting point. Are “Chinese cultural values” the naturally-evolved values of Chinese people, or are they simply the ones that have been “instilled” into Chinese people over 62 years? That might segue back into the discussion FOARP and JR have been having about authoritarian vs totalitarian. Due to confounders, there is no way to definitively answer that question, i don’t think. One surrogate assessment might be to compare the views of HK Chinese, vs Taiwan Chinese, vs PRC Chinese. It might at least show how those values may or may not have evolved differently, in the presence vs the absence of totalo-authoritarianism.

February 17, 2011 @ 7:30 am | Comment

@ You argue that FLG is “bad” in part because no one calls out their fearless leader.

That wasn’t my argument and it was just a rebuttal to Mike. My original argument was FLG is bad because of non-secular stance on medicine and Li Hongzhi unwillingness to make any exceptions on its teachings.

February 17, 2011 @ 2:19 pm | Comment

“That wasn’t my argument”
—ok

“it was just a rebuttal to Mike”
—sure. But in that rebuttal, you introduce the principle that not allowing criticism of the fearless leader, and/or not having anyone dare to do it, is a bad thing. Which is what Mike went with to illustrate your contrasting principles wrt FLG vs CCP. And that’s what I’ve been trying to explain to you…though obviously with limited success.

“FLG is bad because of non-secular stance on medicine and Li Hongzhi unwillingness to make any exceptions on its teachings.”
—ok, let’s again take that at face value. Do you think that justifies persecution of FLG practitioners? Having a religious belief towards medicine and listening to a guy who is rather rigid in his ways buys you CCP special treatment?

February 17, 2011 @ 2:40 pm | Comment

I guess it’s worth re-iterating: FLG wasn’t banned until Li Hong Zhi decided to stage a show of force in Beijing. The CCP was quite happy to leave FLG alone before this. All this talk of FLG being harmful is therefore post facto rationalisation, and somewhat specious to boot.

February 17, 2011 @ 7:57 pm | Comment

Oh, the good old Falun Gong debate.
I must say that anyone who swallows FLG claims whole is not really thinking things through well enough.
But on the other hand, anyone who thinks that the CCP’s treatment of FLG is reasonable or even slightly justifiable… well, you have to be a total idiot to think that.

February 18, 2011 @ 3:12 am | Comment

@you introduce the principle that not allowing criticism of the fearless leader, and/or not having anyone dare to do it, is a bad thing.

Not allowing criticism of Li Hongzhi’s “religion”, not the leader himself. If you turn this in to CCP analogy, “religion” is ideology not Hu Jintao which the two examples I gave were about.

@Do you think that justifies persecution of FLG practitioners?

Yeah, I think of equating medicine, this broad of trying to alleviate human existence (cold or any kinds of medicine) with religion is criminal offense and should be abolished.

February 18, 2011 @ 4:25 am | Comment

Yeah, I think of equating medicine, this broad of trying to alleviate human existence (cold or any kinds of medicine) with religion is criminal offense and should be abolished.

You’re really hard-wired, aren’t you? So many hideous crimes being committed in China that should be abolished. The belief of a few million FLG practitioners about what kind of medical help they want, if any, is such a teensy-tiny problem, and we all know it’s simply an excuse – and a very feeble one – for political persecution against what is seen as a political threat. People should really be criminalized for choosing not to seek medical help? Tortured? Killed? You are a shill for the CCP, Jason. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but if the shoe fits….

February 18, 2011 @ 4:42 am | Comment

Its a tag team thing. Jason, yourfriend and the nuttier member of the crew HongJiang.

February 18, 2011 @ 5:30 am | Comment

“If you turn this in to CCP analogy, “religion” is ideology not Hu Jintao”
—ok. So is someone in the CCP ‘circle’ allowed to criticize CCP ideology? Your examples were of some Uyghur professor criticizing CCP ethnic policy. Is he part of the ‘circle’? Is CCP ethnic policy at the core of CCP ideology? The other was one Politburo member tossing two others under the bus for mishandling a situation. That’s certainly not criticizing CCP ideology. So you’re still a little short in trying to justify your divergent views of the FLG vs CCP on the basis of your ‘ability to criticize ideology’ principle.

“this broad of trying to alleviate human existence (cold or any kinds of medicine) with religion is criminal offense and should be abolished.”
—so something you don’t agree with should be a criminal offense and deserves to be abolished? Did someone just anoint you….as Hu Jintao II? And when this one aspect of the religion bothers you, the solution is to immediately do away with that religion entirely? Do miners dying in mining accidents bother you too? Where’s the call to persecute mining executives who still operate dangerous/deadly mines? Besides, if it’s innocent kids dying that bothers you (which is certainly fair enough), make a law so that FLG practitioners whose children die as a result of lack of medical treatment are culpable for their deaths. Why are you and the CCP prosecuting, and persecuting, the FLG practitioners who don’t have kids, or whose kids haven’t died? As Richard says, it’s a lame excuse for trying to silence them. I’m surprised that the CCP would bother with a charade that should be obvious to all but the most indoctrinated.

February 18, 2011 @ 5:37 am | Comment

Li Hongzhi mostly plagiarized his “philosophy” from other works, but IPR theft is practically hallowed state policy in the PRC.

Where I fault him and whatever FLG leadership was involved back in 1999 was silence and seclusion after leading so many lambs to slaughter at the hands of police. That April 25 1999 protest and the follow-on protests and petitions effectively signed a death warrant for thousands of grannies and wide-eyed younger acolytes, who ended up being tortured to death in grim holding pens and police cells in Shandong, Liaoning and other rustbelt regions.

My work in China from that period brought me invitations to numerous protests and clandestine gatherings of the FLG and my feeling on meeting these ordinary followers was shock at how naive they were about what brutality the Party and police had in store for them. They did not display a desire for martyrdom, but thought they could somehow convince their jailers of the motto in the photo atop this post and everything would be all right. Their blood is chiefly on the hands of the party and police, but where was Li Hongzhi in all this? He had to know how China works.

February 18, 2011 @ 6:33 am | Comment

@People should really be criminalized for choosing not to seek medical help? Tortured? Killed?

Tortured? Killed? Haha. Even US Justice Dept and other independent researchers (CCP orchestrated tour and tour without CCP hovering over them) that has debunked this heinous lie that has being repeated and repeated so it becomes a fact.

If this is so true, what did two Canadian researchers who was obviously paid by FLG propagandist inflate numbers that is beyond ridiculous even a Chinese dissident laughed out loud.

To have this belief on the most secular part of society should be criminalized for this jargon. I’m pretty sure that CCP had urged FLG to change on some of the issues that should have been secular to society And FLG didn’t budge and the relationship became good to sour.

February 18, 2011 @ 6:42 am | Comment

As I said, we all know you’re a party shill.

I’m pretty sure that CCP had urged FLG to change on some of the issues that should have been secular to society And FLG didn’t budge and the relationship became good to sour.

Yes, I’m sure the upper echelons of the CCP confided in you when it came to their policy toward the FLG.

February 18, 2011 @ 7:52 am | Comment

Leaving aside the relative worth of any system/organization of belief for a second, does anybody else see a pattern here? One that predates the CCP?

It seems to me — and hey what do I know about Chinese history? — that various Chinese governments (Imperial, Communist, and Neo-Authoritarian) seem to run the same play out of the same playbook when confronted by a sect/religious group they deem to be heterodox or dangerous…with roughly the same result, like the football coach who on 1st and goal runs the same play three times and then ends up kicking a field goal.

Basically it’s this:

Odd/quirky/bizarre/popular religious sect forms around charismatic leader(s), attracts a large following from all walks of life. Becomes an issue for local leaders who kick the problem up the chain of command and/or the organization starts spreading geographically and so catches the attention of the central government.

Central government, after some hemming/hawing or after an “incident,” declares the group an illegal organization/heterodox sect.

The “normal people” (to use the FLG as an example, Ma and Pa Wang who like to do their deep breathing exercises in the park with other people) don’t want to cause trouble/aren’t used to breaking the law stop their association with the group.

Which has the effect of…wait for it…leaving a hard core group of committed followers around a charismatic leader who has just been declared an outlaw.

If you, as the central government, didn’t have a problem before, you SURE AS HELL have one now.

Understood that circumstances/events differ with each case, but speaking in broad generalities, the basic structure of this little comic-tragedy can be found in — you pick em: 白莲教,8 Trigrams, 太平天国, FLG…to name just a very few recent examples.

In essence, trying to “define Orthodoxy”, and doing so with repressive measures, tends to create more problems with heterodoxy than it often solves.

Ok, I’m done…back to the archives.

February 18, 2011 @ 11:05 am | Comment

“To have this belief on the most secular part of society should be criminalized for this jargon.”
—I presume, when you say “this belief”, you’re referring to the bit about forgoing medicine. So merely “having” such a belief is a criminal act? You don’t even need to ‘act’ on the belief (ie actually forgo medicine when you might need it) before it becomes criminal? There doesn’t need to be a negative consequence (ie someone dying needlessly) before the ‘actions’ based on this ‘belief’ become of a criminal nature? Well, I guess you just explained the model for how the CCP thought police works. You don’t need to ‘do’ something to be found guilty. You can be found guilty just for “thinking” it. Unless “thinking” ceases to qualify as a human right, you can see how the CCP doesn’t do well in the protection thereof.

Like Richard, I enjoyed your speculation about some kind of negotiation. Cuz that’s just how the CCP rolls when she feels threatened by something…she negotiates. I think even the CCP would LOL at that suggestion. It’s amusing watching you play a lonely game of Twister to try to justify CCP actions.

February 18, 2011 @ 1:04 pm | Comment

Whether a cultish movement succeeds in China ultimately depends on the attitude of the gentry class Confucius scholars. Most of the time such a movement cannot win support from the gentry class and eventually fails. This is what happened to the Zhang brothers near the end of the Eastern Han dynasty and the Taiping rebellion more recently. One exception is the rebellion at the end of the Yuan dynasty. Zhu Yuanzhang was clever enough to enlist the support of the intellectuals and established his dynasty.

As to Li Hongzhi, well, Chinese intellectuals avoid him like a plague. After all FLG became an issue only after Li decided to punish a certain physics professor who had written a critical essay about FLG in a little known popular science magazine.

February 18, 2011 @ 1:07 pm | Comment

Jeremiah,
I think you’ve been reading Chinese history from CCP books with a anti-establishment mentality. The funny thing is that CCP is the only Chinese government in Chinese history that I know of that is sympthetic to these movements, i.e. taiping. CCP history books all paint these movements in positive lights. However, if you read the pre-CCP official or unofficial local or naitonal history books writen by Chinese intellectuals. They overwhelmingly wrote negtively about this movements. Taiping movement itself was put down not by Qing Dynasty armies but voluntary armies raised by Han noblemen.

Regarding the prosecution of FLG by CCP, I fully understand the fury of the westerners. What CCP has done to FLG is no surprise to me considering the nature of the government and its history. However, I think the international discussion regarding this issue is overly one sided just like any other issues involving CCP and an opposite group. First, the notion of FLG is a group of people who only minds their own religious business and does meditation is completely false. FLG kind of brought this whole ordeal onto itself by interfering with the secular establishment. Second, the resist of the FLG to government crack down hasn’t been strong and sometimes fierce. I know this from the college classmate I mentioned before. During past 10 years after college, all he did was protesting, fighting with police, and in and out of jail. Some of the cruel control tactices of the local police was partially caused by this resistance. There were several quasi-religious groups being banned before FLG, e.g. Xiang Gong. None of them fought back like FLG. In Xiang Gong incident, once the government achieved the goal of stopping the practitioners from organizing, they don’t really care about what the individuals does. Third, based on my observation, FLG in the US has more money that any other dissent groups. FLg has its own TV station and news paper has the widest circulation among the Chinese newspapers and is given out for free! Considering the practitioners of FLG are mostly poor people in China, it makes me wonder who is pouring this kind of money into FLG and why. Could it be that this foreign support made FLG more dangerous in CCP’s eye and thus make FLG practitioners suffer more?

February 18, 2011 @ 11:54 pm | Comment

Jeremian,
There is an important typo in my post above. I meant to say “Second, the resist of FLG to government crack down has been fierce…”.

February 18, 2011 @ 11:57 pm | Comment

Considering FLG used its organized power to pressure media and government before its downfall, I personally think it is indeed harmful to Chinese society and should be banned and most of the Chinese around me agree to this. Regarding CCP’s prosecution of FLG, its a typically authoritarian government approach as usual. As long as the current government form persists, this type things will keep happening and it is not unique to China. I have a feeling that even if the current Chinese government was democratically elected, it’s dealings with FLG type won’t make the West especially the liberals happy.

February 19, 2011 @ 1:42 am | Comment

CNLST, thanks for stating the obvious. Of course FLG is more than a peaceful exercise group, and they are not routinely portrayed as such in the Western media (though sometimes they are). Note that I refer to them in my own post as a somewhat creepy cult. Of course most Chinese people agree with you that FLG should be banned. They also all believe Taiwan is like a lost child who needs to return to its mother’s arms, and that the TS massacre was an unfortunate but ultimately good thing for China. You’re simply toeing the party line, my friend, and repeating its well-ingrained propaganda points.

February 19, 2011 @ 3:03 am | Comment

To CNLST:
“FLG kind of brought this whole ordeal onto itself by interfering with the secular establishment.”
—that may be so. But it doesn’t mean the “ordeal” was deserved, or justified. If FLG tried to “interfere with the secular establishment”, this interference and the views that FLG aimed to propose can certainly be rejected. Yet rejection needn’t be in the form of persecution.

“the resist of FLG to government crack down has been fierce…”
—if you already accept that the ‘crackdown’ was justified, then yes, resistance to that crackdown might justify an even more intense crackdown. But the point is that the crackdown was not justified in the first place. Can you blame people for resisting an unjust crackdown?

“Could it be that this foreign support made FLG more dangerous in CCP’s eye”
—sure, the CCP over-reacted out of self-preservation to begin with, and among the things the CCP is good at, exaggerating ‘dangers’ in order to try to justify their actions is a basic formation in their playbook.

How is pressuring the media and government “harmful” to Chinese society?

Yes, the CCP actions are standard fare for an authoritarian government. Their actions are explanable. But that doesn’t make them justifiable or excusable.

February 19, 2011 @ 3:38 am | Comment

I consider myself as anti-ccp but I guess one is not anti-ccp unless you are completely onesided. Richard, yes, FLG is rountinely portrayed as such and I chanllenge you to show me one main stream source that stated otherwise. Your comments regarding Tainwan and Tiannanmen Square are borderline childish and I guess you got your impression from online forums debating with some 16 year old Chinese teenagers. Specifically regarding taiwan, it was “lost” because of the interference of the US not for the “freedom” or ” democracy” but for its own global influence since the then nationlist government represented neither of them. Most of the Chinese people are resentful of this interference but most of the adults I know of are very reserved on taking Taiwan back with force. Communism was indeed a failure but that was the choice of Chinese people and it has no fucking business with the West. Today’s Chinese people are informed to a point that I don’t believe your arguement of CCP’s complete brainwash.

February 19, 2011 @ 4:50 am | Comment

“Most of the Chinese people are resentful of this interference”
—I don’t subscribe to the idea of there having been systematic, methodical, clinical “brainwashing” either. On the other hand, moreso with the CCP than with most governments, one wonders if “Chinese people are resentful” because that’s how they feel of their own accord, or because they’ve been told to feel that way since time immemorial…or in the CCP case, 1949. Again, while imperfect, one wonders if non PRC Chinese who haven’t had the same doses of CCP teaching would feel the same way.

“Communism was indeed a failure but that was the choice of Chinese people”
—indeed. And the last time they had choice was 1949. Communism’s gone, replaced by a free-market economy. I wonder when it will be time for the CCP’s system of governance to also exit stage left.

I do agree PRC citizens are better informed now, the best efforts of the CCP notwithstanding.

February 19, 2011 @ 5:16 am | Comment

S.K. Cheung
“that may be so. But it doesn’t mean the “ordeal” was deserved, or justified. If FLG tried to “interfere with the secular establishment”, this interference and the views that FLG aimed to propose can certainly be rejected. Yet rejection needn’t be in the form of persecution.”
I never said FLG deserved the prosecution. I just want to point out the situation isn’t as black and white as portrayed in the Western media. It looks like you don’t know what I was talking about. I was not saying FLG brought this ordeal onto itself by it “view”. They brought it onto themselves by their “actions”. They mobilized thousands to surround newspaper office to demand retraction of an article criticizing FLG. Later they mobilized tens of thousands to surround the central government office in Beijing to apply pressure. These are the actions I was talking about. They would face crackdown even if this happened in the US. Hope you know about Davidian incident in Texas.

“the resist of FLG to government crack down has been fierce…”
—if you already accept that the ‘crackdown’ was justified, then yes, resistance to that crackdown might justify an even more intense crackdown. But the point is that the crackdown was not justified in the first place. Can you blame people for resisting an unjust crackdown?
Again, you are talking without any true knowledge about the event. CCP didn’t send out police to round up and beat up FLGers at the beginning. If FLGers disbanded like the other banned qasi-religious groups, there wouldn’t be any crackdown. So the resisting precedes the crackdown. If a banned group start protesting and blockaging infront the government offices in the US, police would sure to intervene and people would be beaten and throw into jail. There is no justification for the extreme method employed by Chinese police but that’s the reality of Chinese society and it was only amplified in FLG incident. You have to ask yourself that why there have been many groups banned before FLG but none of them escalated to this level.

“sure, the CCP over-reacted out of self-preservation to begin with, and among the things the CCP is good at, exaggerating ‘dangers’ in order to try to justify their actions is a basic formation in their playbook.”
I was talking about my own observations on FLG’s foreign finance. If you disagree, please state some facts. Your statement above is as bad as any CCP propaganda piece.

“How is pressuring the media and government “harmful” to Chinese society?”
Against, you don’t know the facts. If someone wrote an article criticizing a group, then the group mobilize thousands to surroudn the newspaper to demand a retraction, I consider that as harmful to the society. I don’t think it works this way in the US either.

“Yes, the CCP actions are standard fare for an authoritarian government. Their actions are explanable. But that doesn’t make them justifiable or excusable.”

Well, if you have to paint it with a black and white brush, then I have to say it is not justfiable. But my concern is the post-crackdown behaviors of FLG and the perceived foreign support are lending justification to the CCP actions. If you pay attention to the oppinions of overseas Chinese on FLG, it evolved from sympathetic, to indifferent, and now to disgust.

Westerners like Richard are so self assuming that when they see a difference in oppinion in Chinese people and themselves, they quickly blame on CCP brainwash.

February 19, 2011 @ 5:17 am | Comment

S.K. Cheung
Personally, I wish China turned democratic yesterday or 100 years agao. However, we still have to work with the reality. No matter how beautiful the message one preach, if it has lies, I resent it. Before I left China for the US, I was very resentful of CCP. Magically, 10 years of life in the US made me much resentful of CCP. Why, because every dicussion on China is so onesided against CCP and truth doesn’t look matter anymore. For Chinese people who love their country, our purpose is better our country and not replacing certain government. We need truth. It pains me that people use lies to fight CCP and it makes wonder what they are up to anyway.

February 19, 2011 @ 5:26 am | Comment

Crap, typo again. I meant to say “much less resentful of CCP”.

February 19, 2011 @ 5:27 am | Comment

Westerners like Richard are so self assuming that when they see a difference in oppinion in Chinese people and themselves, they quickly blame on CCP brainwash.

I’m not self-assuming. I lived in China for some years and saw the CCP scripts repeated verbatim myself. There are many, many splendid people in China, people who are creative and who can think for themselves. I love China. I love the Chinese people. I appreciate their viewpoint of their government, which is largely positive. But those scripts I referred to are very real, and you can find them repeated constantly in the comments here, as I heard them repeated many times in my offices in Beijing.

February 19, 2011 @ 5:48 am | Comment

Richard,
Does it ever occur to you that these “scripts” may have certain merrits from Chinese perspective? Could it be possible that the reason of some of the CCP “brain wash” scripts seemingly worked while others had no impact or even back fired is that these one worked might have resonated with what the Chinese people truely felt?

Why can’t the people of a nation feel that a piece of land separated after a civil war largely by foreign force as dually being part of their country?

February 19, 2011 @ 6:11 am | Comment

You are using the term brainwash, not me.

I understand why people want Taiwan united with China, whether they’re right or wrong (and that’s a whole other topic). I get suspicious, however, when many use the exact same phrase to express this wish, just as I get suspicious when Republicans denounce Obama in the exact same words based on daily talking points. Even my closest Chinese friends used these scripts, and I don’t hold it against them and I understand why they use them. But no one can deny that there are a lot of scripts the Chinese follow, whether it’s that the Dalai Lama is a jackal or that Liu Xiaobo is a criminal or that the FLG is a dangerous cult that should be banned or that democracy would lead to chaos as it did in Russia. Remarkably similar language across the board.

February 19, 2011 @ 6:28 am | Comment

But no one can deny that there are a lot of scripts the Chinese follow, whether it’s that the Dalai Lama is a jackal or that Liu Xiaobo is a criminal or that the FLG is a dangerous cult that should be banned or that democracy would lead to chaos as it did in Russia. Remarkably similar language across the board.

Yep. I’m lucky that the Chinese people I’ve been closest to haven’t fallen into that trap, but I’ve been friends with ones who have. It’s sad, but it happens too frequently.

February 19, 2011 @ 6:36 am | Comment

“They mobilized thousands to surround newspaper office to demand retraction of an article criticizing FLG. Later they mobilized tens of thousands to surround the central government office in Beijing to apply pressure.”
—is it illegal to protest? Is it illegal to demand a retraction of a story? Is it illegal to “pressure” the government? Now, it is illegal to protest in China without a permit, so the mere act of congregating for purposes of protest could be viewed as illegal on its face. That’s a whole other discussion about whether CCP laws are “just”. So those protesters had broken the law by mere virtue of protesting, and should be punished as the laws allow. Does the fact that some members who believe in a certain religion engaged in a illegal protest mean that the religion itself is illegal, and all other practitioners (who weren’t protesting) be tarred with the same brush?

Waco was because of what people in the compound were allegely doing, not because of what they believed. The CCP’s current response to FLG is no longer about what they’re doing, but apparently based on what they believe (well, that’s the party line, and if you believe that, there are bridges you might be interested in buying. The real reason is that, seeing what some believers can do, they want to clamp down on all believers to prevent others from trying to do it).

“There is no justification for the extreme method employed by Chinese police but that’s the reality of Chinese society”
—I’m glad you at least acknowledge that much. This is the CCP reality, but Chinese society needn’t be confined to CCP reality…at least hopefully not in the future.

“Your statement above is as bad as any CCP propaganda piece”
—you don’t think the CCP overstates her case when it suits her? In order to prevent protest, or deters others, is it necessary to act upon people who weren’t even protesting? All in the name of “stability”, as they say, and that word in the CCP lexicon is threadbare from extreme overuse.

“If someone wrote an article criticizing a group, then the group mobilize thousands to surroudn the newspaper to demand a retraction, I consider that as harmful to the society.”
—in what way is that harmful to society? Is it the “surround the newspaper” part that’s harmful? Or the “demand a retraction” part? If it’s the latter, you’ll have to explain. If it’s the former, again, arrest those who broke the law. Why harass those who haven’t?

“if you have to paint it with a black and white brush”
—I’m not painting anything. I don’t think it’s justifiable, but if you do, feel free to say so. If you feel it’s kinda sorta maybe a teensy bit justifiable, be my guest as well.

“perceived foreign support are lending justification to the CCP actions.”
—that foreigners might be sympathetic to their plight at the hands of the CCP serves to embolden the CCP’s own stance? Again, besides those who actually engaged in protest, what are FLG practitioners actually guilty of?

February 19, 2011 @ 7:05 am | Comment

@SKC

So merely “having” such a belief is a criminal act?

The views had been talked between FLG groups and CCP members and the talks of changing these views were not successful.

Here’s how I come to this point: there’s always govt involvement on any approved religion in China (regarding text and ownership)+FLG’s propaganda of saying they are just doing qiqong or Tai chi(concepts of FLG)+FLG’s motto and propaganda “Falun Dafa is Good” which derives from Li Hongzhi’s medicine beliefs (riff on a specific belief that CCP and FLG doesn’t come in terms with)=a huge disagreement is being made between that specific belief.

Since the agreement never comes through, then it becomes a criminal act.

February 19, 2011 @ 7:28 am | Comment

S.K. Cheung
I don’t feel you are reasoning anymore. Have you ever seen thousands mobilized by a group to surround a media outlet to demand a retraction of an article in the US? I guess freedom of speech only applies to ones opposting CCP. This is not “protesting”. It is “intimidating”. It is blindsighted for you to claim the prosecution of FLg was because what they belive not what they did. FLG enjoyed years of freedom and support of some key CCP officials before the incidents.

I don’t know why I became the CCP’s representative here. When did I even imply the justification of CCP’s prosecution of FLG. I am just trying to say something that balances out the onesided reporting in the West regarding this issue. All the FLG practitioners who were imprisoned were all participated in protests after the ban. If you know someone who just practiced it at home and got imprisoned, please let me know.

One point I have to emphasize is that what has been exposed during the FLG crack down is the dirty and brutal treatment of prisoners in Chinese prison. A protestor arrested in the US will most likely get released unharmed but a tour in a Chinese prison will make one pay. I don’t doubt all those reported beating and abusing of FLG pratitionors since I know that’s how it is in Chinese prison. China is a work-in-progress in so many aspects and FLG incidents is just a tip of iceburg. I think we all need patience. I don’t even think the overthrow of CCP would resolve half of China’s issues. I prefer changes happen slowly.

February 19, 2011 @ 7:48 am | Comment

Jason

there’s always govt involvement on any approved religion in China

What if tomorrow the government says anyone not feeding their children “Happy Communist milk powder” is committing a criminal offence? Maybe they say that only this brand is definitely safe and can’t be copied because of special hologram labels on the side.

Does that make their interference in people’s lives ok?

February 19, 2011 @ 8:16 am | Comment

“The views had been talked between FLG groups and CCP members and the talks of changing these views were not successful.”
“Since the agreement never comes through, then it becomes a criminal act.”
—there’s no issue with people disagreeing with the beliefs of others. But how does this rise to the level of a criminal act? Usually, in most law-abiding countries, a criminal act is something that breaches the criminal code. Is there something about FLG that breaches such a code, apart from the fact that the CCP disagrees with it? Governments may disagree with something, but that doesn’t make it illegal or criminal, unless you’re talking about China and the CCP.

The fact that the CCP has to ‘approve’ religion in China is a special joke of the CCP’s making anyway. But even if you accept that the CCP is within her rights to approve religion; that she can disapprove of FLG teachings; that such disapproval somehow equates to it being ‘criminal’, you’re still invoking mind police to find someone guilty just by ‘having’ FLG beliefs. You’re still making someone a criminal based solely on their thoughts. That is certainly a special bonus you get for living in a CCP-controlled society. What’s not to like about that, eh?

February 19, 2011 @ 8:16 am | Comment

To CNLST:
I can say with certainty that you are not reading anymore, or not comprehending what you’ve read anymore.

“This is not “protesting”. It is “intimidating”. It is blindsighted for you to claim the prosecution of FLg was because what they belive not what they did.”
—I wrote this in #89: (“Does the fact that some members who believe in a certain religion engaged in a illegal protest mean that the religion itself is illegal, and all other practitioners (who weren’t protesting) be tarred with the same brush?”). What is it with you people and the selective reading?

Have you seen thousands of people marching in the US in protest of all sorts of things? Have you seen them stop at a site that is deemed a symbol of the thing they’re protesting? Maybe you have, eh? Have you seen pro-lifers set up shop outside abortion clinics? Hey, maybe you’ve seen that too. Yes, it may be intimidating. Yes, that may be the objective. And no, there’s actually nothing illegal about it. Now, if those FLG protesters threw stuff at the building, prevented people from freely coming or going, or physically jostled employees, then that certainly would be illegal even in a lawful society. But if they’re just there being loud, then your attempt to invoke comparison to the US legal system has been done poorly.

However, even if the protesters did do something illegal, or even if it was somehow conveniently deemed illegal by the CCP, that should only affect those who were actually protesting. Arrest them, if the CCP must. But as I suggested in #89, how does that justify criminalization of a belief system, or of individuals who share that belief system but were not protesting?

Also, in the US and elsewhere, you don’t get arrested just for “protesting”. Unless those arrested actually committed violent acts, then it’s yet another idiosyncracy of the CCP’s special ‘justice’ system.

I assume you’re suggesting FLG prisoners didn’t get ‘special treatment’ because all Chinese prisoners are abused similarly. All the more reason to really hope that you only go to prison if you’ve done something wrong. But there’s not much luck on that front in China either.

February 19, 2011 @ 8:37 am | Comment

As I have said before Richard, I love reading your blog, but I have to say I can see where CNLST is coming from here. I think you don’t realize you are doing it, but you often create an unfair and inaccurate caricature of the “average Chinese person” in your blog posts.

For example, your typical post may read like this:

Introduction of subject controversial in China (always a pleasure to read)

Introduction to someone else’s take on the subject (interesting)

Your take on said subject (again, almost always a pleasure to read)

Now this is where you should stop. But you often then go on to say:

I have learned not to talk about this subject with Chinese people because they are incapable of thinking/talking rationally about it (what you say in this post), are brainwashed (what you say in your “why can’t we all just move on from the Old Summer Palace” post), etc.

As you say here and many other places you love the Chinese people and culture, and I completely believe you, but I think the way you write some of your posts creates a bad caricature of the “average Chinese person”, which is unfortunate because your blog is so popular. I have found that by listening to Chinese people talk about controversial issues, they have a very informed and complex view in most cases, and I wish that you would encourage your readers to find this out for themselves as well rather than suggesting that it is fruitless to talk to the average Zhang about these kinds of things.

Anyway, my 2 cents

February 19, 2011 @ 9:33 am | Comment

Jeff, I can’t please everyone. I really do love China and its people, while I find there really are certain topics that are, with many of them, non-discussable, such as the legitimacy of Mao and the other topics I named a few times earlier in the thread and in the post itself. This is not entirely unique to the Chinese. I come from a Jewish family, and I simply cannot discuss the legitimacy of Islam with some of my relatives. Not because they are stupid, but because of cultural conditioning. This cultural conditioning can be very, very powerful, and is responsible for many of our prejudices and unalterable beliefs. Again, this is not unique to China, but due to several factors – educational system, a culture of not questioning authority, a monolithic press, etc. – there’s more of it there and it’s harder to break through it.

February 19, 2011 @ 11:00 am | Comment

I’m not saying you should please everyone. I am saying you shouldn’t use words like “brainwashed” and incapable of “rational discussion” in reference to all Chinese people or the typical Chinese person that pops up occasionally in your blog. There will always be people we cannot have discussions with, I agree. You say that you cannot have discussions with “some of your relatives”, though and this is different from saying you cannot have discussions with anyone Jewish about Islam.

I’m just trying to give you a reader’s view of this kind of one-dimensional image of the Chinese person you portray in your blog that you probably don’t really mean to portray, and that might be the main reason the likes of Hongxing and others keep coming back to comment.

February 19, 2011 @ 11:32 am | Comment

Dude, I never said the Chinese were brainwashed.

February 19, 2011 @ 11:37 am | Comment

I was referring to this thread. But I never used the term brainwashing there, either, except in the tag, which was quite tongue-in-cheek; it was the one and only time I used that tag. Here’s what I said in that post:

The looting of the Summer Palace is one of those third-rail topics that I learned long ago to avoid at all costs. It’s one where I’m tempted

    to use the “b” word (it rhymes with “train quash”), and this show confirms it’s justified. The looting was a shameful thing. But to carry that much anger in their breasts nearly a century and a half after the fact is bizarre. But it’s not bizarre – it’s cultivated at a young age when kids are at their most impressionable, and it perpetuates the stereotype of victimhood and keeps it fresh and raw. A friend of mine once talked about it to me with tears in her eyes, as if it happened last week. I just listened, knowing there was nothing I could say except that I understand and sympathize.

Aside form that, I believe in the entire history of this blog I only used the term “brainwashed” in regard to the Chinese people once, and that was in regard to the anti-Japanese riots of 2005.

February 19, 2011 @ 11:55 am | Comment

From my email box just now:

hahahahahahha now I understand. Busy body fucking hook nosed Juden. Your behavioru is so typical of Judens!!!!

hahahaha

Hey man. this is the greatest symphony in history….

psssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

pssss psssssssss psssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

pssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss psss psss pssssssssss!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fuck out of China you fucking hook nosed rat!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mongol Warrior, no doubt.]

February 19, 2011 @ 11:58 am | Comment

To S.K. Cheung,
yah, I was a little ticked off by your accusational tone. I think when we talk about national issues in China such as FLG, we all have some unspoken belief system behind our views and arguements. I am often surprised to see myself defending CCP 10 years after I left China with anger and dispointment. China is indeed different from the US in many ways. After seeing how it is done in the US, I started to reject the practice of judging China using US standards. The material abundance in the US is the decisive factor in making the behavior and thinking of average Chinese fundmentally different from the average american. We overseas Chinese have been debating among ourselves about the present and future of China. Most of us agreed that the future of the China isn’t the total Americanization. It is simply because China can borrow the shape of America but never the essence. By judging China using US standard, I lost the debate before it started. Give you the bad news. Most of the oversea Chinese I know agree with me that despite the problems with CCP, at the present time, it is still the more positive force in China relative to other alternatives. It may change in the future. We’d rather wait and see.

February 19, 2011 @ 12:05 pm | Comment

Hi, I am an international student in Hong Kong and I have found your blog on several occasions already, lastly today because of last year’s post on Shaun Rein and his view on the Google-China issue (I am doing a linguistic research on that issue at the moment). In fact I am sill a newbie when it comes to any issues regarding China.. but I do believe your blog is quite interesting.
Concerning that Special Edition of the Epoch Times with the Nine Commentaries: I have picked up that same paper a few months ago (!), distributed at the Star Ferry Pier here in Hong Kong. I just scanned over it… but it’s still on my bookshelf ^^.

February 19, 2011 @ 12:33 pm | Comment

To CNLST:
There is no problem with you having your own belief system. But I’d ask why you would prevent FLG practitioners from having theirs. Sure, their belief system may be distasteful to you. It doesn’t do much for me either. But I’d at least tolerate and recognize their right to have it.

China will not become the US. I’ve certainly never suggested or believed that Chinese political progression should target the US system as its goal. However, I don’t think tolerance of divergent views/beliefs is a unique US attribute. At least it shouldn’t be.

Despite what you and your overseas Chinese brethren might think, the future of China should be shaped by the people of China (ie those who are there). Similarly, whether the CCP remains a positive force in China, and more importantly, whether the CCP should remain the sole political force, or even the guiding political force, are also decisions that should be left up to PRC citizens.

February 19, 2011 @ 2:49 pm | Comment

To Richard:
apparently, the irony of being an immigrant Chinese racist in America is lost on some blowhards. Language like that reflects poorly on them, and on their parents.

February 19, 2011 @ 2:55 pm | Comment

Shit, this is pathetic.
Every spring I head to my local botanical garden (Mt Cootha Gardens} to photograph my favourite tree in blossom – microcitrus australis – an indigeneous lime tree unrelated to the Tahitian and other four lime trees. This is a Saturday morning. Always, in the corner of the frame, there are about twelve or so Chinese middle aged FG types practicing their zen balance stuff.

All pretty harmless, and unrelated to the 9 commentaries which I have read.

Children.

Something like eight countries in the Middle East ready to fight the power – Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Iran, Algeria, Djibouti, and Bahrain.

Lets have some predictions. Is the PRC resistant to this type of pissed off citizenry during 2011?

February 19, 2011 @ 4:05 pm | Comment

Re: Mongol Warrior’s hate drivel. Was in Westlake Park one Sunday for the weekend market. Tell the truth. Adding to my flick knife collection, when I saw a copy of Mein Kamf (sic) in Mandarin. Obviously, a highly abridged version since it was not so thick in the page dept, unlike the original.

February 19, 2011 @ 4:34 pm | Comment

@KT – “That’s not a knife . . .”

@Viola – I wouldn’t have thought there would be a linguistic aspect to the Google dispute, but I guess that shows that I don’t know much.

@Richard – MongolWarrior, AKA Wayne Lo, may not even be of Chinese descent. At any rate, I do not think it is going to far to say that aspects of mainland Chinese education and government control of the media do include political indoctrination. Not everyone is taken in by this indoctrination, but a good number of people are. I do not think there is anything extremely controversial about this, indeed, it is exactly what the government says it is doing through “patriotic education” – an example of which was the “SACO” prison described in Xujun’s recent pieces.

February 19, 2011 @ 5:39 pm | Comment

@Richard – I guess it’s also worth mentioning that various agencies of the Chinese government still occasionally use the word “brainwash” in a positive sense to describe their activities. Here’s a few examples cited by Mutant Palm in an article back in 2008:

“In contemporary China, “xinao” is a bit of a curious word. It is often used precisely as we would use it in the West, right now across the Internet in reference to CNN, or more loosely when author Wang Shuo called the 80s generation brainwashed by Hong Kong and Taiwan pop culture. Numerous stories appear talking about pyramid schemes “brainwashing” people into scams. But then there are the political campaigns mentioned online, such as “City and Rural Party Branches Hand in Hand”, which says that in tackling rural poverty, material donations are not enough but city and rural party members must go to each others areas to “brainwash” and “liberate their thinking”. [突出抓好思想共建。共建不能只是停留在给钱给物的层面上,更要抓好党的建设,解放思想,要组织城市党员进村入户,组织结对村党员进城洗脑,按“一加一模式”结对帮扶贫困党员和贫困户。]

Other instances often use the term brainwash positively (and in quotation marks suggesting its sorta slang) when referring to educating cadres, human resources (no quotation marks), public anti-corruption campaigns and to describe (again, positively) the controversial remarks of Professor Zheng Qiang (郑强), who railed against defects in the Chinese education in a speech in Jiangsu, saying “the higher your test scores, the more disabled you are”, early education overloads students, English education at a university level leads to students who only understands “English with a Sichuan accent”, and other thought provoking stuff.”

You can read the rest of the article here:

http://www.mutantpalm.org/2008/04/20/brainwashing-in-china-then-and-now.html

So does the Chinese Communist Party still engage in “brainwashing”? At least based on what they say about their own activities, the answer is yes.

February 19, 2011 @ 6:09 pm | Comment

Good points about the word “brainwash,” FOARP. I only try to avoid it because it’s a bit strong, implying Manchurian Candidate-like conspiracy. In my old post, Interview with a 1989 Demonstrator, the fellow freely admits, “we were brainwashed.”

February 19, 2011 @ 10:42 pm | Comment

To S.K. Cheung and Richard,
No overseas Chinese would call him/herself a “mongol warrior” if you know anything about Chinese view on “mongol warriors”. It must be some red neck who still can’t tell the difference between a mongol and a chinese 200 years after Chinese labor arrived at the US. I remember seeing some 19century local news paper call the Chinese labors “mongols”. Old ghost die hard.

Cheung, I am still running circles with you. You are still not facing the fact that FLG was allowed and even encouraged to exist before they took the actions. It may be OK to you to mass thousands to surround a newspaper but not to most of the Chinese, at lease the ones I know of. Talking about the Chinese in China, they will definately disappoint you in terms of your libral view.

February 20, 2011 @ 3:40 am | Comment

Mongol Warrior is a Chinese troll living in the US who has shit upon many Western blogs in recent years using a variety of pseudonyms.

Maybe it was uncool of the FLG to amass the crowds around the newspaper. But surely the government could have taken a gentler approach, as opposed to brutally trying to wipe them out, thus ensuring their continuity.

February 20, 2011 @ 3:46 am | Comment

On CCP’s brainwash and average Chinese view on national affairs:

First, CCP’s biggest strength is “propaganda” or “brainwash” if you like since it is a party built itself on and later succeeded from an ideology, at least used to be. It is still trying its best to do the same.

Second, CCP’s Propoganda department is the most despised department by Chinese that I know of. Everything CCP says is taken with a big grain of salt. So I think CCP propoganda has very little effect on the educated Chinese. However, based on my contact with less educated Chinese peseants, I think they are influenced by CCP indoctrination far more than city dewellers.

Third, considering the US considering China at best a “competitor” and at worst an “enemy” and poll shows most Americans see China as the “enemy”, I think it would be unusual and even foolish for Chinese to have the same view on China’s affairs as the Americans. It is natural to have different view on affairs from your enemy, right?

February 20, 2011 @ 3:52 am | Comment

Richard,
I agree with you on that. CCP’s reaction on FLG is excessive and in certain sense created a monster against itself.

I still can’t believe a true Chinese call himself “mongol warrior”. China’s rule under mongol was a national shame. I never met a Chinese during my 35 years of life who associated himself in any way with “mongol”.

February 20, 2011 @ 3:55 am | Comment

You don’t know Mongol Warrior. Chances are he chose the name to throw people off. He’s smart, in a deranged kind of way, and is the only commenter I would describe as truly evil, and I don’t say that lightly.

February 20, 2011 @ 4:55 am | Comment

@Governments may disagree with something, but that doesn’t make it illegal or criminal, unless you’re talking about China and the CCP.

Yes I am talking about the laws in China regarding religion.

@The fact that the CCP has to ‘approve’ religion in China is a special joke of the CCP’s making anyway.

Hey, that’s your opinion but what I think is you and Raj are too PC. If these approaches of gaining approval from the state has create no incidences of pedophile priests, adults marrying minors, has chemical attacks, guns/weapons, preaching on hate, and brainwash practitioners that their words on the words of God and do something heinous, then the practice from CCP could be more justifiable than you think. I admit that there’s “cons” on it but so does “freedom of religion” countries as well.

February 20, 2011 @ 7:15 am | Comment

To CNLST:
“You are still not facing the fact that FLG was allowed and even encouraged to exist before they took the actions.”
—first off, you should tell that to Jason, who seems to think that the FLG were punished for their religious beliefs. It seems we agree that that is not the case. Their religious/medical views didn’t change, so if the CCP initially tolerated them, their subsequent crack-down was not due to religious beliefs.

So what was it due to then? As you say, there was “protesting”. They surrounded a building. Now, were there any a priori statutes that make such behaviour “illegal”? If there wasn’t, then on what basis were people arrested and worse…did the CCP make up the laws as they went? If there were laws in place and the CCP was merely enforcing them, go for them. BUt then why punish/target/propagandize against FLG practitioners who weren’t there? You have yet to address this point.

I don’t know how many Chinese you know. But I’m pretty sure you don’t know “most” of them. Even if we set aside the spectre of CCP “teaching”, societal mores are determined by society at large, not by the cohort of you and some of your buddies.

I never pretend to know what Chinese in China think, or want. Similarly, I have little faith in what overseas Chinese claim to know in that regard as well.

February 20, 2011 @ 8:33 am | Comment

“Yes I am talking about the laws in China regarding religion.”
—and I’m talking about how the laws in China reflect the edict of the CCP, and not the will of Chinese people.

Of course, you have yet to address how people can be guilty of merely “thinking” something, without actually engaging in criminal acts. Like I said, you, the CCP, and your ‘thought’ police.

You might also want to factor in what CNLST has been saying. The FLG wasn’t ‘illegal’ initially. Only when they tried their comeuppance did they suddenly become ‘illegal’. Quite a coincidence, wouldn’t you say? Gee, sure looks like they were persecuted not so much because of their religious beliefs, or some moral indignation about their views on medicine after all. Looks like it was more out of CCP political expedience, or self-preservation. No big surprise there.

You’re right, China does not have pedophile priests (that we know of), or polygamy (that I know of). Sadly, there’s a good chance that there are pedophiles and adulterers nonetheless. Freedom of religion means you have a right to your beliefs, but it doesn’t mean you’re immune to the law. So the pedophiles, ‘chemical attackers’, ‘hate-mongers’, etc still have to face the law for their actions (but not their thoughts). So yes, by all means, arrest those who DO something heinous. But unlike you, I don’t try to justify the CCP arresting people for their ‘thoughts’…which, as CNLST tells us, is just a ruse anyhow.

February 20, 2011 @ 12:23 pm | Comment

The CCP does by and large what is good for the CCP (though sometimes they’re collectively too stupid to understand what that is). A lot of party members seem to have decided over the past couple of decades that helping the general population strengthens their position too, so… they’re now trying to develop China apparently (as opposed to just shooting random people in the head like their forebears did).

That’s all there is. The CCP is not good at arguments because critical thinking and intellectual honesty were never encouraged in its ranks. (Quite the opposite.) Its propaganda is utter crap as well for the same reasons.

So when talk comes around about them, what’s the point of arguing arcane points of political philosophy? They’re a criminal organization writ large: nothing more, nothing less. Sure, I agree, they’re providing services that otherwise (in case of sudden democratization or, I don’t know, alien invasion) might not exist. Therefore an argument about how fast we get rid of them is valid. An argument about ‘whether’ we should get rid of them is ‘not’ valid. Of course the CCP should go. It should never have been in power in the first place: they have exactly the same legitimacy as Congo warlords and their rape gangs.

China is kind of like if the Ku Klux Klan had taken control of the US back in the days when they were strong and had kept it until now…

(Think about it. In the 1920s about 20% of Americans were members of the KKK and their discourse, all about patriotism and family values, sure was persuasive… Lindbergh could have gotten elected… minorities given the Guomindang treatment of summary execution… and a short Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution and ’90s Revival later, the US could be… right where China is now. I’m guessing right about now Rush Limbaugh would be president and the Americans would parade in the streets, celebrating their overtake of Morocco in terms of per capita income. Yay!)

February 20, 2011 @ 5:19 pm | Comment

The FLG wasn’t ‘illegal’ initially because it was still in development and still premature. After a year or two, reports came out of mental disorder, killings of family members, depression and death of practitioners that was caused by not taking medication even the simplest.

February 21, 2011 @ 2:41 am | Comment

SK Cheung
and I’m talking about how the laws in China reflect the edict of the CCP, and not the will of Chinese people.

What makes you think that the “Chinese people” want proselytizers running around ruining their country?

February 21, 2011 @ 2:43 am | Comment

The FLG wasn’t ‘illegal’ initially because it was still in development and still premature. After a year or two, reports came out of mental disorder, killings of family members, depression and death of practitioners that was caused by not taking medication even the simplest.

Cry me a fucking river. As if the CCP suddenly found this burst of compassion for this tiny number of its citizens? How do you even know about these “reports”? As we’ve said before, thousands times more Chinese were dying from environmental factors and unsafe labor conditions than were ever killed by FLG practices, yet the government scarcely reacted. Now they’re suddenly so concerned about the well-being of a handful of FLG practitioners that they exert a monumental effort to crush the entire movement? Give me a fucking break.

They get reports every day about fingers being cut off in Dongguan factories and of hundreds dying in coal mines every year, and of thousands of kids being born with birth defects caused by lead poisoning but they don’t get all hysterical and call for abolishing the mines or factories.

We all know this had nothing to do with oozing compassion for a few dead religious fanatics, if there ever really were any. This was about the CCP having the living shit scared out of them by a group that could assemble thousands of protesters overnight, before they even had Facebook or Twitter. This had nothing to do with any reports about illness or death, and you know it.

February 21, 2011 @ 3:23 am | Comment

@yourfriend -

“What makes you think that the “Chinese people” want proselytizers running around ruining their country?”

What makes you think they don’t? Especially when the ones that do come make so many converts?

When I was studying Chinese at South East University in Nanjing back in 2004/05, it was well known that the majority of the American students studying Chinese were there as missionaries for the LDS, and I met more than a few of their converts randomly both on and off campus. I may not agree with these people’s faith, but this doesn’t mean that I think it should be illegal.

And if even if you want to attack organisations like the LDS and FLG as agents of foreign influence, how does this justify the banning of groups which are totally harmless, leaderless, and peaceful, like the Society of Friends?

February 21, 2011 @ 4:39 am | Comment

Apparently taking photographs of flowers is now serious enough to lead to you being questioned by the Police and having your property siezed.

http://tinyurl.com/67bx7t8

Of course, the CCP remains supremely confident of its position and does not resort to taking hasty or disproportionate action out of paranoia…

February 21, 2011 @ 6:09 am | Comment

“What makes you think that the “Chinese people” want proselytizers running around ruining their country?”
—first off, that’s a rather prejudicial way to frame the question, is it not? Is that your only coping mechanism for reconciling what the CCP does?

The underlying concept in the question is not entirely out of line. In more neutral terms, one might phrase it this way: “what makes you think that the “Chinese people” want the freedom to decide upon what they choose to believe in?

The answer: nothing. Because the question has yet to be asked. But as I’ve said many times before, if you want to know what “Chinese people” want, the best way is to ask them. I would like to know, which is why I’m in favour of asking them (and letting them answer, and actually respecting that answer…but baby steps, one thing at a time for you folks).

So the real question you need to ask yourself is this: do you want to know?

To 120:
“The FLG wasn’t ‘illegal’ initially because it was still in development and still premature.”
—gimme a freakin break. You’re really contorting yourself into a pretzel now. Your contention is that their ideas were the cause for objection, remember? So are you now saying that Mr. Li was revising his teachings as he went? What exactly about FLG beliefs was “in development” and “premature”? Are you suggesting that the CCP didn’t do their due diligence, and didn’t do their homework in determining whether FLG concepts were “acceptable”, even within the CCP’s narrow vision and grasp of the concept? Cuz then that goes toward CCP competence, which is obviously another ball of wax.

If FLG teaching is “don’t take medicine”, and if it’s foreseeable that this would lead to unnecessary deaths, then why did the CCP take “a year or two” before realizing what they should’ve foresaw? Besides, the only objectionable area is with kids. If an adult chooses to forgo medicine, that’s his/her choice.

You really should be commended for trying so hard. The CCP should give you a gold star or shiny sticker or something. But if the CCP failed to foresee something here, it was the FLG ability to mobilize large masses of people for a cause. And it’s CCP genetic make-up to feel nauseous when people are mobilized for any causes other than their own. That’s when and why they had their awakening. The ruse about objecting to their religious beliefs would be amusing were it not so pathetic.

February 21, 2011 @ 6:32 am | Comment

@ Resident Poet. The KKK was not specific to south of the Mason-Dixon line. In the ’20 they had a total lock on all aspects of govt in Indiana, until the head pointy head was caught in bed with a dead boy or something very similar.

People. If you want some up-to-date fun, Al Jazeera tweets on Libya – one incredibly fast moving story.

Bet the Poliburo is trying to digest it all for future reference, whilst secretly moving their funds to Venezuela. Nothing like a bit of rat line pre-planning.

February 21, 2011 @ 8:13 am | Comment

@Your contention is that their ideas were the cause for objection, remember?

I did say FLG and CCP were getting along in the beginning before so I’m not sure how my contention changed, in your mind. What I meant of in development and premature is that practitioners were in their early practices and were not as much as affected by the medicine belief because the popularity of is the word of mouth not the belief.

February 21, 2011 @ 8:34 am | Comment

@Richard…from a wee while ago
“Dude, I never said the Chinese were brainwashed.”
Oddly, my wife had a think once and came to the conclusion that she was brainwashed, in a sense. She used to say she loved Mao…she was taught to.

As for whether or not one can hate the CCP or otherwise (this to CNLST) – most people I know who hate them (and there’s really not that many) are fresh from China – they mellow out after a few years. Guess they see the grass looking greener from that side and when they step off the plane, it becomes apparent, as usual, that there’s some shit keeping that grass looking green.

Me personally – religions are a poison. Even atheist ones – just because you replace a mythical being with a person doesn’t make the shit smell any nicer. FLG are up there with Scientology, Catholicism, Hinduism and all other mind-altering “spiritual” things.

I see the powers that be in China were a little rattled recently…

February 21, 2011 @ 10:16 am | Comment

With regards to brainwashing – we all are, to a greater or lesser extent. That’s how societies work. We in the west all believe our version of democracy is better than the other versions (and sometimes, they are!). We get all our stuff from the MSM and generally we don’t bother to look deeper into what we are told. In open societies like mine, there are different viewpoints put across by media of different political persuasions….but who reads the opposition? A Telegraph reader probably wouldn’t touch the Socialist Worker, the Mail reader would never even bother glancing in the Sun (well, maybe at work…but not his paper, you know).
In authoritarian societies, you get this done for you – the CCP runs all the papers, for example. Makes the dissemination of information easier because you can’t always trust all people to be as lazy as the majority =>brainwashing made easier.

February 21, 2011 @ 10:45 am | Comment

I don’t think Chinese were being ‘brainwashed’ if Chinese language forum is deemed one represented and trusted indicative. Their hostility toward CCP is many times go beyond what I read here. The reason why they give more concession toward CCP in an English blog is either due to nationalistic, or they believe you guys were brainwashed by your ‘Western’ media.

February 21, 2011 @ 11:36 am | Comment

“I did say FLG and CCP were getting along in the beginning”
—so once again (asking it a different way for the umpteenth time in the faint hope that you might see the light), what changed? Did their beliefs change? Or was it maybe their ability to amass large numbers of people for their cause that represented “the change”? And again, when the CCP decided to crack down, was it a fundamental shift in the belief system that served as the trigger, or was it the crowds? One imagines that you can only bury your head in the sand for so long before you need to come up for air.

“were in their early practices and were not as much as affected by the medicine belief”
—OK, so “the belief” didn’t change after all, but they just started so they hadn’t had time to harm themselves through avoidance of medicine. Great. BUt it was foreseeable, was it not? Why didn’t the CCP foresee the natural consequence of avoidance of medication? Here’s the other thing. There are chronic medical conditions where avoidance of medication may not bring about harm for some time (maybe even years). But there are also acute medical conditions where such avoidance can lead to death much more rapidly. LIke certain bacterial infections, for instance. So what took the CCP so long? If they objected to people dying needlessly, they could’ve done so sooner. Yet they waited until after the display with the crowds. Now I wonder why that is. And as Richard says, (and as I’ve also said), if it’s needless deaths that the CCP objects to, she has many areas where she can act, with much more potential benefit in terms of lives saved. So she doesn’t mind blood on her hands in a host of other areas, but dedicates herself to shutting down FLG because she’s concerned about her people. Yeah right. If you believe that, then in addition to being a bunch of other things, you’re incredibly gullible.

“because the popularity of is the word of mouth not the belief.”
—I don’t understand what you’re saying here. Are you now suggesting that avoidance of medicine is actually NOT a FLG belief, but simply something the cooler members of the FLG crowd were into? If that’s the case, this further disembowels your attempt to contend that the CCP was cracking down on a dangerous religious practice for the safety of her people…since it wasn’t even a religious practice to begin with. Well, it was a religious practice, so I would have no idea where you’re going with this. But I would have to give you credit for originality. You’ve graduated to merely making stuff up as you go so as to make the CCP look less culpable in any way. Nothing like having a principled position to argue from.

February 21, 2011 @ 11:49 am | Comment

FOARP
When I was studying Chinese at South East University in Nanjing back in 2004/05, it was well known that the majority of the American students studying Chinese were there as missionaries for the LDS, and I met more than a few of their converts randomly both on and off campus. I may not agree with these people’s faith, but this doesn’t mean that I think it should be illegal.

The LDS uses dirty tactics like bribing converts in developing nations with material goods. Of course there will be successful- they pulled the same tricks in Taiwan. Because of how much money Christian organizations have they will be able to buy lots of believers. It’s sickening. There are enough Christians, China (and Japan) is a bastion of secularism in this world increasingly occupied by the crazies. I don’t get it, will people not be satisfied until the whole world is 80% Christian and Muslim?

And if even if you want to attack organisations like the LDS and FLG as agents of foreign influence, how does this justify the banning of groups which are totally harmless, leaderless, and peaceful, like the Society of Friends?

I don’t know the Society of Friends, but baby polar bears are pretty harmless too.

February 21, 2011 @ 12:44 pm | Comment

they*

February 21, 2011 @ 12:57 pm | Comment

Secular does not, and need not, mean ‘without religion’. It simply means society is not run according to or based on religion, and there is separation of church and state. Canada and the US are secular. Heck, Turkey is secular. So there is no reason why China can’t remain secular, while tolerating freedom of religion.

February 21, 2011 @ 1:06 pm | Comment

@Yourfriend –

“The LDS uses dirty tactics like bribing converts in developing nations with material goods. Of course there will be successful- they pulled the same tricks in Taiwan.”

If you knew Taiwan, which you obviously don’t, you’d know that the LDS are quite open about their activities there. You can’t barely walk the street without running into a couple of white-bread corn-fed Utah saints riding around on bikes and wearing the same white shirt/black trousers/black tie/black helmet get-up, wearing badges identifying the men as “Elder So-and-So” and the women as “Sister Such-and-Such”. They especially like to try to convert the foreign folks they meet (mainly ’cause their Mandarin usually sucks).

And you’d also know that most of their converts are old spinsters who hang out with them because they think they’re handsome, and they have almost no luck making conversions in the cities. In the countryside it might look like they make slightly more conversions, but a lot of their “converts” are actually just trying to learn English from them.

“China (and Japan) is a bastion of secularism . . .”

Except that:

1) Both China and Japan have native superstitions which are widely followed.

2) Japan allows foreign missionaries, even the LDS – I’ve seen them trying to convert people in the Kyobashi station in Osaka, and not having much luck.

3) China’s system actually creates people who are relatively easily swayed by the missionaries who do come, since it actually teaches them nothing about religion per se. When I met young converts (almost always girls, for some reason those “Saints” love to try to convert pretty females) the biggest impression I had was that for them, LDS was just another layer of the kind of brainwashing which the CCP-controlled education in China leaves people especially susceptible to. Chinese education does not concentrate on developing people’s critical faculties, because the last thing that the CCP wants if for people to start being critical.

“I don’t get it”

Obviously.

“I don’t know the Society of Friends”

Also obviously.

February 21, 2011 @ 2:49 pm | Comment

“China’s system actually creates people who are relatively easily swayed by the missionaries who do come,”

I have also found the same. Mainland Chinese migrants to the West get hooked into charismatic and evangelical type religious groups very quickly. For them there is no questioning of whether the Genesis account of the creation of the universe is meant in a literally or metaphorically, of the evidence for and against the bodily resurrection of Christ, or for whether one can or cannot believe in evolution while at the same time remaining a Christian. It is just swallow whatever they have been told by someone else hook, line, and sinker.

“Now they’re suddenly so concerned about the well-being of a handful of FLG practitioners that they exert a monumental effort to crush the entire movement? Give me a fucking break.”

I kind of understand the motives behind the smashing down of Falun Gong. China has historically suffered hugely from the actions of millenarian sects such as Falun Gong. You don’t wait until things get out of hand before taking action. Because by then it would be far too late. Precisely because China’s population is gullible and susceptible to all sorts of crazed beliefs, it is understandable that the government wants to put a cork on this type of thing.

(Africa suffers from similar problems – the Lords Resistance Army being just one example).

And China is not unique in proscribing the activities certain religious groups. The Germans have all sorts of restrictions on Scientology, and we all know the fate of David Koresh along with 76 followers (20 of them children) at the hands of the US government.

February 21, 2011 @ 4:54 pm | Comment

With regards to brainwashing – we all are, to a greater or lesser extent.

True. In any Western society we are incessantly bombarded with billboards, print and electronic advertising which tells us we should look a certain way, aspire to certain things, and to be even a certain race, in order to be considered to have ‘made it.’ Commercial manipulation preys on peoples self-doubt, self-image, and of course promotes a rampant materialism.

In China there is also brainwashing – the ubiquitousness of Westerners in advertising, the use of Western icons such as the Marlborough Man, – with the result that millions of Asian women whiten their skin, resort to eyelid surgery, and nose shaping operations to appear more Caucasian – and the adulation of Westerners in China – surely that is as unhealthy a phenomena as that brought about by political manipulation of the masses? After all, Mao portraits were of a Chinese man who looked like most of the people living in China. What the heck does David Beckham or the Marlborough Man or Brad Pitt have in common with the average Chinese?

February 21, 2011 @ 5:06 pm | Comment

To M. Clifton,
“Precisely because China’s population is gullible…”
—but they were made to be gullible by the CCP’s methods. A bit chicken/egg, I suppose. But it becomes a circular thing where, since the CCP promoted and promotes an environment that breeds gullibility to begin with, the CCP needs to continue to do what it does to protect Chinese people from their inherent said resultant gullibility. It’s certainly convenient for the CCP to create a perceived ongoing need for itself. If the CCP promoted people thinking for themselves, they wouldn’t need to be worried that people wouldn’t be able to do so.

I don’t think “restrictions” (as apparently on Scientology) are comparable to persecuting based on religious beliefs.

The Koresh issue started because they refused to allow execution of a search warrant and were suspected to have been stockpiling weapons; not because of their religious beliefs.

The b-word is over-used, and gratuitously at that. But in China, it is not only western commercial interests that are appealing to Chinese hearts and minds. I think the CCP does a ubiquitous sell-job as well.

February 22, 2011 @ 2:43 am | Comment

@And again, when the CCP decided to crack down, was it a fundamental shift in the belief system that served as the trigger, or was it the crowds? One imagines that you can only bury your head in the sand for so long before you need to come up for air.

A shift in the media regarding qiqong which lead to in depth criticism of Li Hongzhi and his beliefs.

February 22, 2011 @ 3:28 am | Comment

“A shift in the media regarding qiqong which lead to in depth criticism of Li Hongzhi and his beliefs.”
—so the media, part of which the CCP controls, was the trigger for the CCP crackdown? How convenient. I can see it now. The CCP doesn’t like the FLG, for god knows what reason…maybe it was the crowds. It tells her media outlets to be critical of FLG. When that criticism materializes, bingo, the CCP jumps on it with both feet. Great system.

But still, it had nothing to do with the belief system itself. Now you’re saying the criticism was what led to the crackdown. Forget about ‘dangerous’ religious beliefs. You just need beliefs that others are critical of in order to trigger a crackdown, apparently.

Now, i wonder if there have been other issues for which there has been media criticism in China. Oh, I don’t know…maybe some explosions in coal mines, maybe some cases of funny milk…I wonder how quickly and efficiently the CCP has cracked down on those situations.

I must say I’m very impressed by your creativity in dreaming up different ways to try to make the CCP look good…or at least less bad.

February 22, 2011 @ 5:31 am | Comment

“There are enough Christians, China (and Japan) is a bastion of secularism in this world increasingly occupied by the crazies.”

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/MA12Ad01.html
“The historic graphs in the Statistical Data Book of Taiwan’s Ministry of the Interior speak volumes. Recorded from the 1950s on, birth rates in Taiwan have been clearly influenced by the ancient Chinese zodiac’s 12 animal signs. The years in which Taiwanese couples decided to give birth most often came in the Year of the Dragon: 1952, 1964, 1976, 1988 and 2000.”

Not that any other culture is any better. Look at the recent US presidential candidates (luckily not elected). Look at the number of people who flock to a large building on a Sunday to sing dirges and mumble stuff to some imaginary thing… All these superstitions makes us easily manipulated by the right people, unfortunately.

@M Clifton, #137
Yes, but that’s advertising. No government involved there, that’s just people convincing you to part with your hard earned cash for something you are told you need. My brainwashing is the insidious one by societies in general to make sure you conform. It is useful – better everyone thinking the same that having some loose cannon going off attacking everyone. But it does mean that the comprehension between societies is blunted. This can, in some ways, be dealt with by interaction with one another – but look how things generally end up – strident comments with some people seemingly hell bent on asserting that the regime they have left is the best and others not fully understanding how the other society can’t see their views on democracy etc.

Of course, given the recent (say, last 50 years) of popular dissatisfaction with authoriatarian rule and the popular acceptance with democratic rule (proper democracy – not authoritarianism behind a mask) tends to suggest one or two things to me….

February 22, 2011 @ 5:35 am | Comment

FOARP
If you knew Taiwan, which you obviously don’t, you’d know that the LDS are quite open about their activities there. You can’t barely walk the street without running into a couple of white-bread corn-fed Utah saints riding around on bikes.

First off, I was talking about when Taiwan was developing. Hence the “developing nations” bit I expressly mentioned. Second, in all my years in Taiwan I barely ever saw any Mormons but that’s beside the point.

1) Both China and Japan have native superstitions which are widely followed.

Have you ever heard of a Taoist terrorist? Regardless, they are nothing like organized “big religions”. They don’t have territorial ambitions (at least in China).

2) Japan allows foreign missionaries, even the LDS – I’ve seen them trying to convert people in the Kyobashi station in Osaka, and not having much luck.

All I do is look at their demographics and count the % Muslim or Christian. Japan is 99% neither, which is why they score the highest on all those silly secularism surveys.

3) China’s system actually creates people who are relatively easily swayed by the missionaries who do come, since it actually teaches them nothing about religion per se.

Agree- the CCP creates a sterile environment, and thus the people are susceptible to infection. There should be a very strong secular emphasis on secularism in schools and big organized religions (you know which ones…) should be socially persecuted like secularism is in countries dominated by religious majorities.

When I met young converts (almost always girls, for some reason those “Saints” love to try to convert pretty females)

What do you expect from your standard “Asian fetish” white male, really.

February 22, 2011 @ 7:41 am | Comment

obvious redundancy in the schools sentence.

February 22, 2011 @ 7:56 am | Comment

@SKC

Not just the media. When the media started to criticize qiqong, it didn’t actually rat out FLG, specifically but as qiqong as a whole. It also were anti-supernatural critics, Buddhists journals, ex-FLG who felt rejected by Li Hongzhi on ex-FLG ideas of expanding on the religion, and other secular qiqong groups.

February 22, 2011 @ 10:37 am | Comment

Again, people started to criticize the FLG in some way, be it about the exercises, or the beliefs; and be they “the media”, practitioners of other religions, or people who had a falling-out with Mr. Li. Still, how does this justify suddenly trying to proclaim FLG to be somehow illegal? How does this justify throwing practitioners in jail, or worse? How does this justify an attempt to wipe out FLG altogether?

It’s one thing to find religious beliefs bizarre, illogical, or even repugnant. But unless someone has committed a crime, there should be no prohibition from thinking it, or practicing it. Besides, you have done nothing to dispel the notion that this was all just a ruse anyhow. The FLG was able to organize crowds. In a hurry. For a cause the CCP didn’t necessarily approve of. Therefore the FLG became a threat. And so the FLG must go. The rest of the stuff you’re trying to float out there is just a side-show, and not a very engaging or convincing one.

But as I’ve said, you’re certainly one to give it the ol’ college try.

February 22, 2011 @ 2:11 pm | Comment

@SKC

Well, the assumptions or claims by the critics (pretty much most of them are independent) were revealed as true so it made it criminal act through records.

To say that CCP fear FLG crowds is bogus. CCP were well-aware that FLG is getting popular, heck even CCP encourage Li Hongzhi to go overseas and spread his religion as well as CCP propaganda.

February 23, 2011 @ 6:06 am | Comment

While we are debating religion etc, have a heart and see if you can help out
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10708187
List of places where donations can be made.

Sorry posting this – just appealing to the good humanity.

February 23, 2011 @ 7:15 am | Comment

Falun Dafa is better than anything, guys.

February 23, 2011 @ 7:52 am | Comment

You guys should read the lectures and do the exercises. Its really good. Honestly.

February 23, 2011 @ 7:53 am | Comment

Owen, from everything I’ve read, the FLG exercises are quite beneficial and enjoyable. It’s the loons at the top and their kamikaze-like attacks on the CCP that I find creepy, and they’re the ones who’ve made it seem like a cult and a distasteful organization. If it were just about breathing there’s be no problem.

February 23, 2011 @ 9:42 am | Comment

To 146:
“…were revealed as true so it made it criminal act through records.”
—huh? What made “it”? “It” made what? Even if the “critics” were right, what were they right about, and how does their being right about something make that something suddenly illegal?

Listen, after all your contortions, you still have no answer for: (a) unless someone died from those religious practices, where’s the crime? (b) even if someone died, it’s not necessarily a crime since adults can choose for themselves…so we’re only talking about kids dying where adults choose for them; (c) if the beliefs were “illegal” but hadn’t changed, then why the sudden crackdown AFTER they amassed the crowds? (d) even if the critics brought some controversies into the light, what is it about these controversies that made them illegal?

I could go on, but right off the bat, you’ve got a bunch of questions that your little theory has failed to address.

Of course the CCP doesn’t fear crowds. We know what she can do to crowds. However, we also know how much grief she’s gotten in the past for the way she’s handled certain crowds in certain places, and that can’t be an experience she savours. So while she may not fear crowds, she does have reason to not want to have to deal with them. Besides, fearing it is one thing. Taking a great dislike to anyone or anything that is able to drum up such crowds on short notice is a different thing altogether. After all, they might start by blockading a newspaper. Who knows where they might blockade next. As you well know, the CCP doesn’t like stuff happening in China that she can’t control. So she threw down the hammer to get control of this one. Simple as that. But I appreciate your efforts in trying to give it some sort of justification. Quite amusing.

February 23, 2011 @ 2:28 pm | Comment

@Owen – I am a committed follower of FOARP Lun Da Sha Fa, which mainly consists of drinking well-mixed G&Ts* whilst sitting on a giant sofa and basking in my own magnificence.

*That is, using only London Dry Gin (Gordon’s, Beefeater, or Bombay Saffire at a pinch), real tonic water (the more bitter it is the better, and none of that saccarine nonsense), lemon and lime (why is this so hard?), rock ice, in a chilled glass with a good squeeze of lemon peel over the glass before serving. For the best results, get someone else to do it.

February 23, 2011 @ 6:12 pm | Comment

@Listen, after all your contortions, you still have no answer.

Guangming Daily attacked FLG because CCP were worried that qigong has been turned to quasi-religious cultivation from actual bodily techniques and went on this rant of banning the publications which never took in effect. Then there’s a few chain of events of pundits who were not a fan of superstition and pseudoscience criticized FLG. FLG went mad and Li Hongzhi criticize his practitioners for not speaking out. FLG protest, CCP fired one of their pundits. But that did not stop the critics of heating it up a notch, ex-FLGs and Buddhist sects, other secular qigong groups opened up a can of worms on cases of death that resulted in the practices.

Ultimately CCP had heard enough and took out FLG leaders who falsely implementing “science” to those now deceased victims and tried the leaders in court of claims without evidence.

February 24, 2011 @ 3:12 am | Comment

The CCP convicted them because they lacked scientific evidence for their religious beliefs? That may be what they said they were doing. And knowing you, I’m sure you’d buy that. But such an explanation is beyond hilarious. How do you impose a “scientific” standard on “religious” beliefs? It’s an oxymoron.

Why didn’t they act earlier? Why act only after the display with the crowds? Because this religious angle wasn’t their real reason for clamping down, but it gave them a flimsy excuse to sell to the gullible like you.

And even if they jailed “the leaders”, why continue to go after other practitioners? If someone knows a religious belief isn’t scientifically valid (and seriously, who doesn’t?) yet chooses to continue to believe in it nonetheless, how/why is that a crime?

February 24, 2011 @ 2:43 pm | Comment

Again not taking medicine (cold, etc) is NOT a religious belief. Playing your life with the fake healing powers of Li Hongzhi is NOT a religious belief.

@ Why didn’t they act earlier?

Because CCP were not suppose to print criticisms of qigong. But in 1994, 2 years after the founding of FLG, ex-FLG members started to open a can of worms. And in 1996, Guangming Renbao started to print criticisms of qigong.

@If someone knows a religious belief isn’t scientifically valid (and seriously, who doesn’t?) yet chooses to continue to believe in it nonetheless, how/why is that a crime?

Maybe FLG should follow Christianity at that time, having religious belief that a practitioners can and can’t believe without any effects on the body.

February 25, 2011 @ 4:51 pm | Comment

“Again not taking medicine (cold, etc) is NOT a religious belief.”
—pardon? Their belief, as part of their religion, is that you don’t need medicines to cure what ails you. How is that NOT a religious belief? It may be a foolish belief. It may be a scientifically invalid belief. But it is most certainly a religious belief. Your contention here is a non-starter.

“Because CCP were not suppose to print criticisms of qigong…”
—what happened to the CCP’s overriding concern for the health and welfare of her citizens? I thought you suggested they clamped down for their citizens’ own good? So again, it’s because of outside criticism that she clamped down instead? Since when did that become the standard for the CCP? Much more self-serving, and in keeping with CCP conduct, is that they clamped down on FLG after these guys showed an inordinate ability to organize, for a cause the CCP didn’t support. That is how the CCP rolls.

“Maybe FLG should follow Christianity at that time,…”
—you are once again concerned with the veracity of their beliefs. If you don’t buy into what they believe, you are certainly not obligated to do so. However, that doesn’t change their right to believe in what they want to believe in, should they so choose. That you don’t approve of their religious beliefs doesn’t change the fact that they are religious beliefs, and those people have a right to believe in them. And none of this had anything to do with the CCP persecution.

February 26, 2011 @ 7:07 am | Comment

Religious belief is something that science have not able to proof before and after. That’s why Christianity believers were not being shunned. Medicine has been proof by research and science and cases therefore FLG claims are not religious.

@Since when did that become the standard for the CCP?

Uh, it’s 1996. So these occurrences are somewhat new to tackle with.

February 26, 2011 @ 10:26 am | Comment

Can we please bring this conversation to a close? We’re just going around in circles at this point. Will it help if, as an impartial judge, I declare a winner? The winner is SKC, the loser is Jason, whose arguments have melted down into incoherence. Now can we call it a day?

February 26, 2011 @ 10:35 am | Comment

To Richard:
you know well by now how much I enjoy “conversing” with these Jason-types, who, with each successive round of pointed questioning, end up reaching for progressively more bizarre “logic”. It’s like a train-wreck unfolding before your eyes.

February 26, 2011 @ 1:16 pm | Comment

Well I find your logic as much bizarre. Even we are so polarly opposite, I still enjoy the back and forth chat we have around Fool’s Mountain and other places.

February 26, 2011 @ 1:38 pm | Comment

SKC, I do know – but this could go on for decades, and by now we’re just going in circles.

February 27, 2011 @ 1:30 am | Comment

“Medicine has been proof by research and science and cases therefore FLG claims are not religious.”
—here are some reasons why this statement is illogical:
1. religious beliefs do NOT need to subscribe to medical science
2. a belief that may be medically invalid can still very much be of a religious nature
3. that FLG claims have NOT been proven by medical science simply means that they don’t make for good medically-valid beliefs, but that has no bearing on their religious validity (for those who choose to subscribe to them)
4. so in your statement, it is true that medicine is research-based. However, it does NOT logically follow that FLG claims must “therefore” be “not religious”.

Here are some other things for you to ponder (and do take your time):
a. placebo effect is a well-recognized phenomenon
b. I am not aware of any studies that have actually scientifically tested the utility of FLG claims (ie a randomized controlled clinical trial)
c. the only way to show that FLG claims are invalid for any given medical condition would be to do a randomized controlled trial of “FLG belief” vs placebo, and find that FLG belief fails to demonstrate superiority over placebo for pre-defined clinical endpoints.
d. the only way to show that medicine is better than FLG claims is to similarly do a randomized controlled trial showing medicine to be superior to “FLG belief” for any given medical condition. I am not aware of there being any such trials, for any medical condition.
e. to my knowledge, there are no studies showing FLG claims to be clinically efficacious. However, lack of proof of efficacy is NOT the same as proof of lack of efficacy (you may want to read that statement about 20 times and really grasp what is being said there).

Oh, and BTW, you like talking about “cold medication”. A cold is caused by a virus…you don’t need medicines for that. Some other viruses, perhaps.

Hope that clears up some of your logical deficiencies.

February 27, 2011 @ 4:41 am | Comment

“Uh, it’s 1996.”
—then why still the propaganda efforts by the CCP in 2011?

February 27, 2011 @ 4:42 am | Comment

I am sorry but faith shouldn’t be mixed with science. You should read this: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/408068

February 27, 2011 @ 5:17 am | Comment

As again befits a CCP apologist, I have to ask (as I’ve asked many of your type): did you actually read the link you offered? Cuz I did, and it leaves me further shaking my head at your lack of ability to offer a logical argument.

It is fathomable that the title might play into what you’re trying to argue (even if we ignore that it was from over 10 years ago). However, if you actually read the article, you may have noticed this line: (“But religion doesn’t need medicine to validate itself. It doesn’t require scientific empiricism because it is based on faith.”). You might have noticed that that is what I’ve been trying to say.

Furthermore, the article argues that medical practitioners should focus on evidence-based interventions, and not dabble in the religious realm. It is offered from the perspective of what doctors should do, in the authors’ opinion. It is completely silent on what patients should do. It is completely silent on the realm of people who forsake medicine altogether, and choose to rely solely on their faith instead. In other words, it completely ignores the topic we’ve been talking about, since it wasn’t their intent to address it.

So really, all you’ve done is link a 10 year old article with the opinions of 2 people who are not speaking to what is being discussed here wrt the FLG, but who do say that religion does NOT require medical validation. So they’ve actually made my point for me, while doing nothing for yours. Uh, thanks for that link, I guess. Next time, think before you link, unless you’re looking for more ridicule.

February 27, 2011 @ 2:40 pm | Comment

You missed their point. The sentence after of what you presented is equally as important: “And when you mix faith with science, you serve neither and weaken both.”

Even when we didn’t discuss their point of getting rid of “their belief” of medicine off the table either physicians not bringing religious beliefs in clinics /hospitals or patients who shouldn’t take advise of their religious factions, it is still implied in our discussion.

February 28, 2011 @ 4:46 am | Comment

“The sentence after of what you presented is equally as important: “And when you mix faith with science, you serve neither and weaken both.””
—precisely. Which is why I’ve been saying that the FLG religious belief is a matter of faith, not of science or medicine. You’re the one who keeps mixing up the FLG religious belief with scientific and medical norms. If you feel that sentence is important, then you should really take that advice yourself. What FLG practitioners choose to believe is a matter of their faith; whether it conforms with medical/scientific beliefs is irrelevant. I’ve also been saying that for days, yet it’s not getting through your skull. At least now it seems you’ve read your own link….but maybe still not getting the point of it very well.

No idea about what you’re saying with your second paragraph. Your article is from the doctor’s perspective: doctors shouldn’t mix faith with their practise of medicine. Their practise should be guided by scientific and medical facts alone. That has never been the point of this discussion. We’re speaking only of FLG practitioners who choose not to believe doctors, based on the teachings of their religion. Maybe that’s your plan now: say something that’s indecipherable by English language norms, so that your “argument” can’t even be understood and therefore you can’t be criticized for using lousy logic. Good plan.

February 28, 2011 @ 7:31 am | Comment

How come FLG articles that were “written” by practitioners push the idea that it’s religion is an alternative science for illness and disease through the experience ie Hepatitis B? So FLG’s belief and deceptive marketing strategy on medicine is clearly science in their minds rather than a belief.

February 28, 2011 @ 8:16 am | Comment

Why are we even discussing this? We all know, the CCP repressed the FLG because they gathered 10,000 people in very little time and they all showed up at an official’s residence, a serious no-no in China. They were never repressed because of religious beliefs or their rejection of medicine. The CCP couldn’t care less about that. what they care about is a perceived political threat. And that’s the end of the story.

February 28, 2011 @ 8:24 am | Comment

“push the idea that it’s religion is an alternative science for illness and disease through the experience ie Hepatitis B”
—I guess that’s their religious belief. Doesn’t make their belief true or correct. But that also doesn’t change the fact that it is their belief. Again, you keep going back to questioning the veracity of their belief. Such is your right. But the fact that you don’t approve of their belief does NOT diminish their right to have it. That’s another concept you need to comprehend. Perhaps the paternalism training of the CCP is simply too hard to shake out of your system. We know the CCP does a good job of instilling it.

“So FLG’s belief and deceptive marketing strategy on medicine is clearly science in their minds rather than a belief.”
—huh? If they ‘believe’ it to be “science”…guess what that means??….Do you need more time?….That’s right, it’s their “belief”. You are definitely not the sharpest tool in the shed.

February 28, 2011 @ 8:35 am | Comment

To Richard:
Jason is still trying to tell us that it was the religious belief and not the perceived political threat that got them in trouble. Which is why he finds himself in the hole that he is in logically right now…yet he keeps digging. These guys have great perseverance. Sharp? Maybe not so much.

February 28, 2011 @ 8:38 am | Comment

I get it, but don’t you find it a tad tedious after a while? This has been going on for two weeks now!

February 28, 2011 @ 8:42 am | Comment

It isn’t intellectually-enriching. But if someone wants to explore just how illogical they can be, I enjoy helping them with said exploration.

February 28, 2011 @ 8:48 am | Comment

I criticize FLG’s belief of medicine because they promote it as “real science”/absolute fact without question asked and then trash modern science. How about Li Hongzhi have a loophole so practitioners have a choice, in writing?

February 28, 2011 @ 2:55 pm | Comment

“I criticize FLG’s belief of medicine because they promote it as “real science”/absolute fact without question asked and then trash modern science.”
—that’s fine. As I’ve said many times, no one asks whether/demands that/ or cares if – you accept their beliefs or not. If you don’t want to share those beliefs, that is certainly your prerogative. Just as it should be the prerogative of FLG practitioners if they choose to harbour those beliefs. Regardless, it does not diminish the religious nature of those beliefs. Nor does it justify CCP persecution. That said, their religious beliefs had nothing to do with the CCP clamp-down anyhow, as Richard and I have said all along.

Why do practitioners need a “loophole”? As FOARP suggested many moons ago on this thread, people aren’t being forced to “believe” with a gun at their head. Where is the stipulation, in any religion, anywhere in the world, that you need to offer written notification before you stop “believing”? You’ve gone beyond the sublime, and into the ridiculous.

March 1, 2011 @ 5:34 am | Comment

I’ll trust historians like Ownby, Palmer, Østergaard than expertise from bloggers. Thank you very much.

@As FOARP suggested many moons ago on this thread, people aren’t being forced to “believe” with a gun at their head.

And I guess FOARP is practicing FLG???

March 1, 2011 @ 10:36 am | Comment

“I’ll trust historians…”
—you can trust whoever you like. But that has no relevance to this discussion. What is relevant is that FLG practitioners should be able to believe whatever/whoever they like. You are constantly missing the point. Not to mention that their religious belief has no relevance to the CCP crackdown either. So I should actually say that you are constantly missing the pointS.

“And I guess FOARP is practicing FLG???”
—you’d have to ask him. But are you suggesting that, if he doesn’t practise FLG, he is in no position to assert that believers aren’t being threatened at gunpoint? OK, let’s take that “logic” for a second. Do you practice FLG? If not, then what position are you in to assert any of the things you’ve asserted? Better yet, do you have any basis to suggest that people are being threatened to persevere with their “belief” at gunpoint? If not, then what’s with the “loophole” nonsense? Listen, this isn’t complicated logic. But it does still require you to engage your brain, even if only a little bit.

March 1, 2011 @ 1:24 pm | Comment

@Not to mention that their religious belief has no relevance to the CCP crackdown either.

Read Article 36. Written in 1982.

@assert that believers aren’t being threatened at gunpoint

I don’t think leaders of FLG punish their members by violence. I meant it as figuratively which I think FOARP is suggesting. As Li Hongzhi claims, “gods” will destroy those he disapproves of and that his followers must practice his prescribed program of “spiritual cultivation” or risk obliteration.

March 1, 2011 @ 1:45 pm | Comment

“Read Article 36. Written in 1982.”
—first, the CCP constitution is worth less than the paper that it is written on. Second, unless there was a change in the constitution and/or some sudden compulsion by the CCP to actually uphold it (which would be odd since the CCP doesn’t seem to respect her own constitution anyway), that still does not account for why the crack-down occurred when it did (in case you still haven’t clued in, this is the main point of the discussion). None of this changes the fact that the CCP acted in response to the new-found ability of the FLG to assemble the masses for a cause of which the CCP did not approve. Your obfuscation about this somehow being a religious issue does not hold water.

“I don’t think leaders of FLG punish their members by violence.”
—that’s good to know. SOmetimes I wonder if there is any limit at all to the gratuitous things you are willing to say in defense of the CCP. I guess there is, surprisingly.

“Li Hongzhi claims, “gods” will destroy those he disapproves of and that his followers must practice his prescribed program of “spiritual cultivation” or risk obliteration.”
—That’s nice. What does that have to do with anything? If you’re an FLG practitioner and choose to believe that, good for you. If you’re not, or choose not to believe that, good for you. Besides, Christians are taught to believe in/fear God or face eternal damnation, so the concept is hardly unique…for those who choose to believe in that sort of thing. It still has nothing to do with any need for “loopholes”. Is there some written legally-binding contract that FLG practitioners enter into with Mr. Li, such that they require some contractually-stipulated escape clause so that they won’t be sued for breach of contract if they stop believing in FLG teachings? What planet are you on? You don’t seem to be arguing from any logical position. You just throw stuff out there randomly, and hope something sticks. So far, no luck. Too bad for you.

March 2, 2011 @ 2:17 am | Comment

“The state protects normal religious activities. No one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the state.”

@which would be odd since the CCP doesn’t seem to respect her own constitution anyway

Odd how? The Chinese constitution has always stipulated that CCP interests are first and citizens second.

@If you’re not, or choose not to believe that, good for you.

FLG members does not have that option. Former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative, or even seen as “evil.” While they may appear to be free to leave they often fear the consequences.

March 2, 2011 @ 6:31 am | Comment

. Former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative, or even seen as “evil.” While they may appear to be free to leave they often fear the consequences.

Source? Example?

March 2, 2011 @ 9:51 am | Comment

@ Richard

The book warns people, however, to not turn away from Falun Dafa because of temporary tribulations.

Example? I guess the people are being brainwashed effectively. If outsiders who are critical of FLG, they are being repeatedly subjected to personal attacks, threats of litigation and frivolous lawsuits. Now imagine the shame and humiliation of practitioners leaving and being critical of FLG?

March 2, 2011 @ 11:06 am | Comment

Have any former Falun Dafa members ever complained that they were living in “fear of the consequences” of leaving, as you say? No, of course not. You simply made this up. If not, where is your evidence? Who has experienced this “pain and humiliation”? If you read Peter Hessler’s Country Driving, which describes people who dropped the practice, you’d learn that many went on to do very well, and never experienced the slightest fear or shame. Not one drop. At most, they felt sad that the movement was banned, but then they adjusted. So what are you talking about? Don’t be theoretical (“they MUST feel shame”) – who feels shame? Who feels fear? What are your sources? I don’t care what the book says. Who has suffered this shame and fear?

March 2, 2011 @ 11:14 am | Comment

“The Chinese constitution has always stipulated that CCP interests are first and citizens second.”
—that’s why it’s better to call it the “CCP constitution”, as I have. It is a misnomer to call it the Chinese constitution, since it’s not really written for the benefit of CHinese people.

BTW, did you take note of this line in the CCP constitution that you quoted: (“No one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order”)? So even from the horse’s mouth, it’s not the religion or the beliefs that would get FLG in trouble. It’s their ability to incite crowds that would get them in trouble. And yet you are still unable to acknowledge such a basic fact, written into the constitution that you just quoted from. Do you ever engage your brain? If you think the CCP respects her constitution, then you just answered the question yourself. And this time, you’d be wrong, in black and white.

“FLG members does not have that option. Former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative, or even seen as “evil.” While they may appear to be free to leave they often fear the consequences.”
—what on earth are you talking about? If someone stops believing in FLG teachings and wants to “leave”, why would they care if the remaining followers thought they were wrong to do so? They were leaving, remember? And if they no longer believe in the greatness of Mr. Li, why would they fear consequences that only exist as a product of that belief? They stopped believing already, remember? Gosh, your grasp of logic seems to be on the wane with each passing day.

“Now imagine the shame and humiliation of practitioners leaving and being critical of FLG?”
—umm, they’d be the same as those “outsiders”. And if you no longer believe, then who cares what current FLG think? You’re trying to create bogeymen out of thin air, to what purpose I’m not sure. I guess you’re still dithering with that “loophole” nonsense you spewed earlier. Some people are extremely slow on the uptake.

If you had any self-respect left after this recent display, you might show some by taking up Richard’s challenge. This I’d like to see.

March 2, 2011 @ 11:36 am | Comment

Don’t hold your breath, SKC.

March 2, 2011 @ 12:32 pm | Comment

@If you read Peter Hessler’s Country Driving, which describes people who dropped the practice, you’d learn that many went on to do very well, and never experienced the slightest fear or shame. Not one drop.

Okay? Hessler is talking about FLG practitioners who dropped out because of CCP crackdown on the leaders and the religion. So without any leaders present and no religious rhetoric, obviously ex-FLG practioners were able to go on with their lives without shame and humiliation.

Even a Quebec Superior Court justice Jeannine Rousseau who ruled the defamation suit said “It is a controversial movement, which does not accept criticism.”

@So even from the horse’s mouth, it’s not the religion or the beliefs that would get FLG in trouble.

That’s great but it isn’t one of the charges. And the charges were of illicit engagement to impair the health of citizen.

@—umm, they’d be the same as those “outsiders”.

You are correct. FLG will launch personal attacks and trauma will late kick in.

March 3, 2011 @ 12:56 am | Comment

“That’s great but it isn’t one of the charges. And the charges were of illicit engagement to impair the health of citizen.”
—good grief, now what are you talking about? The CCP constitution (you know, the one that puts Chinese citizens second) that you quoted from explicitly stated that it’s not the religious belief, but the public disorder, that might get someone in trouble. You clearly didn’t get the memo from headquarters, cuz you’re still trying to argue that the FLG crackdown was triggered by their religious beliefs. Richard and I have told you that you’re nuts. Your CCP constitution confirms that you’re nuts. I’m not sure what you’re obfuscating about now. The only real question (if you decide to engage your brain)is to try to reconcile the FLG amassing crowds in protest, with the CCP prohibition against the “use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order”. Granted, it’s a continuum, and at some point any protest potentially disrupts public order. But the CCP threshold, of course, would be much lower, if not zero. Again, whatever serves their purposes, right?

If the “charge” was impairment of health, then which cases were cited in which actual citizens had their health actually impaired? In most legal systems, (the CCP version is obviously an exception) you need to have committed a crime before you can be convicted of it. And of course, that still doesn’t explain the crackdown and propaganda against the FLG to this day, if the initial proponents of those beliefs were jailed already.

FLG will launch personal attacks and trauma will late kick in.”
—what “trauma”? Like Richard says, you’re just making up stuff at this point. Good thing I wasn’t holding my breath.

What does a Canadian provincial court judge have anything to do with any of this? If there is one thing I can say about “shame”, it’s that you do seem impervious to it.

March 3, 2011 @ 8:18 am | Comment

@then which cases were cited in which actual citizens had their health actually impaired?

Maybe you haven’t read it but FLG propaganda machine clearwisdom.net has try to repudiate badly on every case on practitioners that had died under the “ban on medicine” rhetoric. But don’t tell them, they have no records of people dying. They don’t even acknowledge several modern day FLG leader’s death of this ban on medicine. No funeral service, no praise, just nothing. The person who died doesn’t even exist to them.

@what “trauma”? Like Richard says, you’re just making up stuff at this point. Good thing I wasn’t holding my breath

Not making it up. Dr. Margaret Singer, a famous clinical psychologist (God rest her soul) has spoken to Falun Gong members and their forced disconnect with their families and has made research that the “trauma” of trying to disaffiliate with the cult is too much to handle.

@What does a Canadian provincial court judge have anything to do with any of this?

It’s actually several examples (frivolous lawsuits and litigations) of being critical of FLG from outsiders. Even people having a balance of being critical of FLG and CCP gets “served” by FLG. Imagine that this is applied to FLG practitioners. No wonder they can’t have a voice of critique.

March 3, 2011 @ 10:00 am | Comment

Listen, if one happens to subscribe to a religion whereupon adherence to that faith is supposed to cure all that ails you, but it doesn’t work in your case and you get sick or die, then it is conceivable that the infirm themselves might get blamed for not keeping the faith enough (ie you would have been “saved” if only you had been a more devout ‘believer’). Without a doubt, it is an asinine position to take. No complaint from me if you find that sort of thing revolting. But again, those who subscribe to the belief should been well aware of what it is they’re subscribing to…it’s caveat emptor/buyer beware. If you know what you’re getting into, and choose to get into it anyway, then you reap what you sow. However, people should be able to make that decision for themselves. It might not be for you or me, but if it floats somebody’s boat, good for them.

I’m not sure what the expectation is on FLG towards members who die. Maybe they’re not as deferential as you might like. On top of everything else, that might be a turn-off for you. And that’s fine. But that still does not diminish the rights of people who do want to subscribe to that sort of thing. And it’s certainly not criminal, nor worthy of continued CCP propaganda. You constantly confuse what you do and don’t like, with what others should be allowed to choose for themselves. It’s a common affliction among your type.

The point of this was never about whether FLG was “right”, or whether FLG was a good fit for you, me, or Dupree. Like I said, I think they’re quacks. But the point is that if people choose to be quacks, then that’s their choice. You’re still of the CCP paternalistic mindset of ‘father/CCP knows best’. Clearly, FLG members would disagree. As is their right to do so.

“trauma” of trying to disassociate with the FLG? Gimme a break. It’s probably not super easy. But it’s probably no worse than quitting smoking, or any other addiction. So people should just suck it up and grow a pair. If you have good reason to leave FLG, after you’ve weighed the pros and cons, then man up and do it. Who cares if you get ostracized by a group that you no longer want to be a part of anyway? All of that notwithstanding, how is that justification for persecution of believers, or of ongoing CCP propaganda?

Lawsuits are lawsuits. There’s nothing preventing someone from filing one. Winning it when the claim is frivolous, now that’s another matter. Besides, this is NOT a discussion about misuse of the legal system. If FLG wants to sue people without cause, is that a reason for persecuting them?

Despite your recurring need to go off on tangents, I’m here to remind you to focus on what we’ve actually been discussing, which is the CCP’s lack of justification for going after the FLG on religious grounds, which further highlights that their crackdown was purely politically-motivated. And seriously, with the CCP, would you expect anything less?

March 3, 2011 @ 12:18 pm | Comment

Aw, yes being aware. But shouldn’t Falun Gong publications be aware of themselves and write as a sidebar of “it varies” and not pushing their marketing strategy as 100% successful rhetoric of banning of medicine.

@ But the point is that if people choose to be quacks, then that’s their choice. You’re still of the CCP paternalistic mindset of ‘father/CCP knows best’. Clearly, FLG members would disagree. As is their right to do so.

No wonder Jehovah’s Witnesses isn’t in the list of CCP “normal” religion list.

@CCP’s lack of justification for going after the FLG on religious grounds, which further highlights that their crackdown was purely politically-motivated. And seriously, with the CCP, would you expect anything less

Didn’t I just tell you that clearwisdom has been repudiate the dead practitioners during the mid to late 90s from a Chinese list as psychological idiots and brain-damaged?

March 3, 2011 @ 1:45 pm | Comment

“But shouldn’t Falun Gong publications be aware of themselves …”
—umm, it’s called “BUYER beware” for a reason. In case the logic escapes you, FLG would be the SELLERS in this case. Come on, it’s not that difficult. If someone wants to believe that FLG beliefs are 100% medically effective, that’s their problem. But it’s a problem they should be allowed to have, should they so choose.

“list of CCP “normal” religion list.”
—but this discussion is not about whether they’re quacks. That they’re quacks is probably the one thing you and I agree on. But the CCP somehow feels the need to tell people what they can or can’t believe. Well, I suppose that’s entirely consistent with their character and motivations. Of course, you also have “CCP catholics”, who aren’t really even Catholics (the upper and lower case letters are used intentionally, btw). So what the CCP considers “normal” really isn’t, either.

“clearwisdom has been repudiate the dead practitioners during the mid to late 90s from a Chinese list as psychological idiots and brain-damaged?”
—so what? So this site somehow bad-mouths dead people. Rather uncool, I agree. But hardly worthy of government crackdown and persecution. If you’re trying to justify the CCP crackdown and continued propaganda to this day against FLG based on a website that says mean things about dead people, well, that’s pretty lame.

March 4, 2011 @ 9:18 am | Comment

@so what? So this site somehow bad-mouths dead people. Rather uncool, I agree. But hardly worthy of government crackdown and persecution. If you’re trying to justify the CCP crackdown and continued propaganda to this day against FLG based on a website that says mean things about dead people, well, that’s pretty lame

Wait a minute. I thought you said you want proof of why the Chinese court banned the religion because of cases from mid 90s to late 90s were cited in which actual citizens had their health actually impaired.

Clearwisdom has try to repudiate but the people on the cases were real people at least Clearwisdom acknowledged that.

March 4, 2011 @ 3:51 pm | Comment

Those may have been cases where FLG members died. But unless they were minors, there’s no crime there. Are you trying to tell me that the CCP banned the entire religion because some practitioners of that religion died? You’re kidding, right?

The mere fact that some FLG members died does not in any way prove that their deaths served as the motivation for the CCP crackdown. Or more specifically, to explain why the CCP crackdown occurred when it did. Let me put it another way: quite probably, some FLG members died well BEFORE the CCP came down with the persecution. So how do you account for why the CCP persecution occurred when it did, on the basis of some FLG members dying? The answer is you can’t.

Why is it that basic application of logic is so elusive to those who like to apologize for the CCP? Could it be that suspending logic is to only way to defend the CCP? Gosh, it sure seems that way more and more.

March 5, 2011 @ 8:47 am | Comment

How do you account this as “minor” when this happens as a string of incidents: young FLG practitioners or no where near their deathbed has health problems, even minor ones leads to death? This is exactly why China does not accept religion with this rhetorics, JW and Scientology.

@explain why the CCP crackdown occurred when it did

Like I said, 1993 was the year when ex-FLG members who were not happy about Li Hongzhi refusal on their strategy to expand on the religion so they started out slamming Li Hongzhi’s fake birth day and fake this and fake that. So it brought some attention but the attention exploded in 1996 when Guangming Renbao brought the issue back.

March 5, 2011 @ 11:53 am | Comment

I didn’t say the incidents were ” minor”; i said if they were ” minorS” ie under the age of majority ie not adults. I’ve already stipulated long ago that parents cannot withhold medical care from ” minor” ie non-adult children who are not yet competent to make medical decisions for themselves. Btw, refusing medical care as an adult is as legitimate a medical decision as accepting medical care, as long as you understand the risks and benefits of treatment, and the risks of non- treatment.

Were there children who died because parents refused to give them medical care? If so, prosecute those parents. that’s not justification to persecute the entire religion.

So if the government issue was with the religious ” fake this fake that”, why not crack down in 1993? Why only crack down in 1996 after the newspaper incident? Precisely because it had nothing to do with the religion itself, and everything to do with their ability to amass a crowd for purposes that the CCP did not approve of. you’ve again made my point for me.

March 6, 2011 @ 12:12 am | Comment

@everything to do with their ability to amass a crowd for purposes that the CCP did not approve of. you’ve again made my point for me.

If that is the case, why today CCP doesn’t approve Jehovah Witness and Scientology? Because it is the exact reason on FLG that if religion as a medicine is an alternative to real medicine, it isn’t allowed in China period. It has nothing to do was the masses.

March 6, 2011 @ 7:34 am | Comment

I know at least one Christian Science practitioner in China. The government could care less. There has never been a concentrated effort to imprison, beat and harass Christian Scientists or Jehovah’s Witnesses. Keep on denying the fundamental truth: the minute Christian Scientists can bring thousands of people together without the permission of the government they, too, will be suppressed. Until then, the government couldn’t care one fen. The medical reason you use to justify the persecution is literally hilarious. It’s nonsense. It’s irrelevant and laughable. The government could care less. They have much bigger health issues to address in the country, like millions with AIDS, mainly infected by their greedy local governments in seedy blood-donation operations, or thousands dying of lead poisoning. They couldn’t care less about the minuscule number – if there are any at all – of FLG practitioners who refused medicine and got sicker or died. That is so silly, I can’t believe you’re still arguing it. And you know it, Jason – you know it’s pure nonsense.

March 6, 2011 @ 7:44 am | Comment

“why today CCP doesn’t approve Jehovah Witness and Scientology?”
—not approve of them is one thing. Have JW’s and Scientologists been persecuted in China? Have those religions been subjected to a propaganda assault by the CCP? No and no. Have those religions used their influence to amass crowds in protest against something without CCP approval? No. Hmmm, do we see a pattern here…? Once again, you are making my point for me. The cheque is in the mail, as they say.

If there’s one thing you can say here, it’s that a religion refuting medical science in China buys you CCP disapproval. But it takes mobilizing the masses without CCP consent to induce the CCP to drop the hammer. Which is what Richard and I have said all along.

But keep arguing it. It spurs me to come up with new and novel ways to call you ridiculous. That’s about the only challenge that remains when it comes to disposing with your “argument”.

March 6, 2011 @ 8:56 am | Comment

@Have JW’s and Scientologists been persecuted in China?

Actually JW practitioners in China particular in Henan has been detained and arrested for prayer, claims a Associate Director, International Affairs, of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Canada in 2000.

@Richard

You do know that Christian Science believers on science and medicine is more balanced than FLG one-sided views, right?

March 6, 2011 @ 10:08 am | Comment

Darling, YOU were the one who brought Christian Scientists into the conversation, drawing a comparison with the FLG:

If that is the case, why today CCP doesn’t approve Jehovah Witness and Scientology? Because it is the exact reason on FLG that if religion as a medicine is an alternative to real medicine, it isn’t allowed in China period.

Is this going to go on forever?

March 6, 2011 @ 10:13 am | Comment

“JW practitioners in China particular in Henan has been detained and arrested for prayer, claims a Associate Director, International Affairs, of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Canada in 2000.”
—that’s nice. Have they been FLG’d? Simple question. Your answer? If not, then you don’t have a leg to stand on with your “point”. This is not a new development. Your “point” has been dead in the water from the first time you uttered it. But some people come to that realization more slowly than others, evidently.

“You do know that Christian Science believers on science and medicine is more balanced than FLG one-sided views, right?”
—It’s laughable watching you change your argument when you’re cornered. And it’s pathetic that you dance around rather than acknowledge the errors in your argument. LIke I said, it reflects on upbringing. In any event, if they’re “more balanced”, then why doesn’t the CCP “approve” of them? Look, you are in a logical quandary. If you say Christian Scientists are kooks because of their medical views, and the CCP disapproves of them just like they disapprove of FLG, then you have yet to explain why FLG is persecuted and propagandized against while Scientologists aren’t, when their religious beliefs are similarly unacceptable. If you say Scientologists are more acceptable than the FLG, then you still haven’t established your argument, because they may be escaping persecution EITHER because their beliefs are more acceptable OR because they haven’t amassed crowds without CCP approval. So it still gets you nowhere. If there’s one thing about which you are consistent, it’s that all your arguments lack logic and get you nowhere.

Besides, Scientologists seem every bit as kooky as FLG. Pretty lame when you have to resort to “they’re less crazy” as your argument. But you do what you gotta do.

March 6, 2011 @ 10:31 am | Comment

Scientology and Christian Science are the same religion? I didn’t know that.

@In any event, if they’re “more balanced”, then why doesn’t the CCP “approve” of them?

They have approved Christian Science not Tom Cruise crazy religion Scientology.

March 6, 2011 @ 10:55 am | Comment

My God, arguing with you is such an exercise in banging one’s head against the wall. YOU were the one who brought up Scientology and Christian Science in one sentence. I give up.

March 6, 2011 @ 11:55 am | Comment

Of all the issues I raised in #201 with your logic deficiencies, you come back basically with “Christian Science is not the same as Scientology”? You give ” lame” a bad name. Well, any time you feel the urge to address the issues in logic with your ” argument” , you go right ahead.

What is it with Ccp apologists who can’t sustain a logical argument, and who lack the depth of character to acknowledge as much? Shameful.

March 6, 2011 @ 12:48 pm | Comment

@YOU were the one who brought up Scientology and Christian Science in one sentence.

I brought up JW and Scientology. You brought up Christian science.

@Of all the issues I raised in #201 with your logic deficiencies, you come back basically with “Christian Science is not the same as Scientology”

Actually no. I said CCP did approved Christian Science (which Richard thinks they have the same views of science and medicine of FLG which he THINKS CCP doesn’t share the views of Christian Science).

I disagree with that assertion because Christian Science practitioners can be allowed medical treatment if they wanted to. That can’t be said on FLG practationers.

March 6, 2011 @ 2:13 pm | Comment

You’re right, Jason, I misread it. But I do disagree that FLG members cannot be allowed medical treatment. They may not be supposed to, but is there someone stopping them if they choose to?

March 6, 2011 @ 10:48 pm | Comment

“Actually no. I said CCP did approved Christian Science”
—-that’s nice. But that in no way addresses your logic deficiencies that were posed to you in #201. If JW practitioners were previously arrested in 2000, and Ccp disapproved of their views, then have they been persecuted and propagandized against like FLG? If not then clearly Ccp disapproval is NOT sufficient to trigger a crackdown. It took the FLG amassing crowds to bring down the hammer, which I’ve said all along.

If Christian scientists are approved, then clearly they are not comparable with FLG.

If scientologists are similarly disapproved of by the Ccp, like FLG, then why haven’t they been persecuted and propagandized against, like FLG? simple. Because they haven’t amassed crowds without Ccp approval.

The logic here is not complicated. If two groups with a similarity ( ie religious diapproval by the Ccp) are treated dissimilarly ( one persecuted, the other not), then that similarity ( ie religious disapproval) cannot be the underlying reason for persecution. So what has FLG done that scientologists haven’t? Oh, that’s right, amass crowds. You take your time.

March 7, 2011 @ 3:15 am | Comment

@If JW practitioners were previously arrested in 2000, and Ccp disapproved of their views, then have they been persecuted and propagandized against like FLG? If not then clearly Ccp disapproval is NOT sufficient to trigger a crackdown. It took the FLG amassing crowds to bring down the hammer, which I’ve said all along.

But the point is that both JW and FLG are banned from China and practicing it, is illegal.

@The logic here is not complicated. If two groups with a similarity ( ie religious diapproval by the Ccp) are treated dissimilarly ( one persecuted, the other not), then that similarity ( ie religious disapproval) cannot be the underlying reason for persecution. So what has FLG done that scientologists haven’t?

Actually the logic is if two groups with different concepts (more lenient of medicine and approve science nonetheless v restrict, by the book or else…) are treated differently (approving and persecuted), then the difference can be the underlying reason for persecution. (If you apply it from the Chinese constitution, article 36)

March 7, 2011 @ 6:30 am | Comment

“But the point is that both JW and FLG are banned from China and practicing it, is illegal.”
—again, how nice. But that’s not the point, nor is it my question. My question is that, if they’re both “illegal” on religious grounds, then why was one persecuted and propagandized against, and the other not? The answer, once again, is because the FLG had the temerity to amass crowds without CCP approval. Not only do you have no answers for a simple question, but you repeatedly ignore the question. Quite an impressive display.

“Actually the logic is if two groups with different concepts (more lenient of medicine and approve science nonetheless v restrict, by the book or else…) are treated differently (approving and persecuted), then the difference can be the underlying reason for persecution.”
—once again, you have got to be kidding me.
In 202 you said this: “They have approved Christian Science not Tom Cruise crazy religion Scientology.”
In 208 you said this: “both JW and FLG are banned”
Therefore, Scientology, JW, and FLG are all banned/not approved. So when you say some “are treated differently (approving…)”, what the heck are you talking about? There is no “approving”; none of them are approved. You already said so. Whatever the specific differences in religious beliefs exist among those religions, they are all disapproved nonetheless. So whether one is “more lenient of medicine” or not does NOT matter. You should really not invoke the concept of “logic”, since you clearly have no grasp of it whatsoever. Here it is again, to help you out: for various religious reasons, all 3 religions are disapproved. However, only 1 of the 3 has been persecuted and propagandized against. So their suffering persecution and propaganda attacks CANNOT be based on their religious disapproval, since 2 other religions with such disapproval have not met with the same fate. I don’t know how much more clearly I need to draw out the intestines for you…clearly you’re not the sharpest tool in the shed…although you most certainly are a tool.

Listen, here’s your problem…well, one of them anyhow. You might try to think that the CCP does things for ethical reasons, or moral reasons, or logical reasons, or legal reasons. But that’s not the case. The CCP’s first and foremost priority is the CCP (even you said so with her constitution). She cares most about keeping power, and keeping her people in a subservient posture. Everything else is secondary. So when the FLG draw huge crowds for a purpose not controlled by the CCP, naturally she is fearful that similar influence could be used against the CCP herself. Also naturally, that cannot be tolerated. And you see the results. One would not expect anything less from the CCP. The CCP does things for the CCP, and she needn’t have any ethical, moral, legal, or logical reason for it. THis is why, when you try to justify her actions on any other basis than a self-serving one, your arguments get beaten like a drum as they have here.

March 7, 2011 @ 1:15 pm | Comment

@why was one persecuted and propagandized against, and the other not

I just cited a Associate Director of the Watch Tower Bible that said JW practitioners were detained and arrested. But wouldn’t CCP assertion be that they don’t like JW because they don’t like their views so they banned it the same rhetoric (you call it propaganda) as FLG?

@what the heck are you talking about?

Talking about the approved Christian Science.

@ You might try to think….

If you think a religion that create mass amount of people protesting against the government for whatever reason, and the result is that the government completely shutdown the religion, then why is Christianity not shutdown since in 2006, around 3000 protesters protested the CCP of a eviction notice on their church.

March 7, 2011 @ 2:56 pm | Comment

“I just cited a Associate Director of the Watch Tower Bible”
—can you read? Can you follow the logic from one comment to the next, much like the progression in a conversation? Yes, you cited that before. Here’s what I had said in response to that, in #201: “that’s nice. Have they been FLG’d? Simple question. Your answer?”. It’s like Groundhog Day with you. Must we reiterate our points every time, with every single comment? Are you not capable of recalling the parts of the conversation that came before? Seriously, you have so many issues.

“CCP assertion be that they don’t like JW because they don’t like their views so they banned it the same rhetoric (you call it propaganda) as FLG?”
—they can say all of that. But their treatment of JW or Scientologists does NOT match their treatment of FLG. So why did FLG get special treatment above and beyond being “banned”? Oh, that’s right, because FLG called up an angry crowd of people in protest without CCP consent.

“Talking about the approved Christian Science.”
—but you already pointed out to Richard that Christian Science is not the same as Scientology. I’ve already stipulated that I’m talking about JW, Scientology, and FLG as the comparison group. So who cares if CCP “approved” Christian Science? It’s not relevant. We’re trying to determine why disapproved religions (ie JW, FLG, Scientology) are treated differently (ie 1 persecuted, the other 2 not). Pointing out that there is an approved religion that is not persecuted is completely irrelevant to that discussion. Beyond a lack of grasp of logic, you now exhibit a lack of grasp of the concept of relevance.

“why is Christianity not shutdown since in 2006, around 3000 protesters protested the CCP of a eviction notice on their church.”
—for that, you’d have to ask the CCP. Perhaps from the mid 1990s to 2006, they became somewhat minimally more enlightened. Perhaps these protesters weren’t as aggressive as the FLG protesters. Perhaps the CCP could “understand” and accept why these people protested, and cut them some slack. Perhaps the CCP felt threatened by the FLG but not by “Christians”. Perhaps there are many more Christians than there are FLG in China, and the CCP didn’t figure to face serious general opposition to the targeting of a small group, but was reticent to target a larger one. Who knows. What they did with the “Christians” doesn’t change what they did to FLG.

March 8, 2011 @ 3:31 am | Comment

This thread was over around comment 18. Accept that the core facts are not on your side here, Jason, and the long written record shows that even when you fudge the facts, lack of logic dooms your arguments.

March 8, 2011 @ 5:09 am | Comment

@“that’s nice. Have they been FLG’d? Simple question. Your answer?”.

What exactly is FLGed? From my perspective, a religion getting banned for life and rhetoric of “We don’t like your beliefs so you not suppose to practice it. If you do, we will arrest you.”

@—they can say all of that. But their treatment of JW or Scientologists does NOT match their treatment of FLG. So why did FLG get special treatment above and beyond being “banned”? Oh, that’s right, because FLG called up an angry crowd of people in protest without CCP consent.

What difference does it make? Both JW and FLG are getting roughed up in custody.

@but you already pointed out to Richard that Christian Science… concept of relevance.

When I read your logic of being approved/disapproved by CCP on a religion and I talked about Christian Science getting approved, I thought you are talking about Christian Science v FLG/JW/Scientology.

@Oh, that’s right, because FLG called up an angry crowd of people in protest without CCP consent.

Then how come Zhong Gong, Cebei Gong, two qiqong-based sects was banned the SAME year as Falun Gong? Both didn’t need to bring crowds in and they were banned. It just shows that CCP were targeting specifically qigong sects who were quasi-religious cultivation rather actual bodily techniques.

March 8, 2011 @ 7:10 am | Comment

“What exactly is FLGed?”
—y’know, the persecution. And the ongoing CCP propaganda. The kinda stuff JW’s and Scientologists don’t face. How many times do you need to be told that before it starts to sink in? I’ll say one thing…you persevere…either that or you’re a really slow learner. Maybe you’re both.

“What difference does it make? Both JW and FLG are getting roughed up in custody.”
—yes, we know, everyone gets roughed up in the CCP “justice” system, such as it were. The difference is that the CCP treats FLG differently than JW or Scientology, despite disapproving of the religious teachings of all of them, precisely because FLG had the added temerity to amass crowds in protest without CCP approval. That, in case you’re wondering, would be the “difference”.

“I thought you are talking about Christian Science v FLG/JW/Scientology.”
—oh really?
Here’s what I said in #209: “Therefore, Scientology, JW, and FLG are all banned/not approved. So when you say some “are treated differently (approving…)”, what the heck are you talking about?”
So if you’re keeping track, (a) you read wrong, and (b) you thought wrong. Anytime you’re ready, feel free to do something right for a change. It’s another project for you, to go along with grasping the concepts of logic, and relevance.

“Then how come Zhong Gong, Cebei Gong, two qiqong-based sects was banned the SAME year as Falun Gong? Both didn’t need to bring crowds in and they were banned.”
—that’s nice, but once again, irrelevant. Here’s what I said in #211: “But their treatment of JW or Scientologists does NOT match their treatment of FLG. So why did FLG get special treatment above and beyond being “banned”. So sure, religions/sects can be banned for their religious beliefs. But that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about the additional persecution and propaganda targeting FLG, above and beyond simply being banned. You’re right…you don’t need to bring in crowds to get banned; but you do need to bring in crowds to deserve the extra stuff, above and beyond being banned. Once again, you have made my point for me. WHat impresses me is that, more than once, you make a debating mistake and make my point for me and completely destroy your own argument, then simply ignore it and try to start all over again. I guess it is Groundhog Day for you. The only difference is that the ending seems to be the same. Have fun getting used to it.

March 8, 2011 @ 1:32 pm | Comment

@y’know, the persecution. And the ongoing CCP propaganda. The kinda stuff JW’s and Scientologists don’t face.

Religious persecution means the State views a particular religious group as a threat to its interests. In the case of FLG, the qigong practices turned to uasi-religious cultivation rather than actual bodily techniques. In the case of JW, I don’t know what but the fact that they are detained means that are being persecuted.

The ongoing CCP rhetoric is not due to the masses. Is has to due with US help to create a voice for FLG: the Epoch Times, the clearwisdoms, the propaganda New Year performances, NDTVs, and the NED-funded Friends of Falun Gong.

The fact that Zhong Gong and Cebei Gong doesn’t have the luxury of soft power even though they are being persecuted and propagandized makes them un-attractable for media attention.

The fact that Scientology and JW are being ridiculed and laugh in other part of the world makes them un-attractable for media attention on their perseuction in China.

March 8, 2011 @ 2:21 pm | Comment

“Religious persecution means the State views a particular religious group as a threat to its interests.”
—exactly. It’s not the FLG religious beliefs that pose a threat to CCP interests. It was her ability to mobilize people that posed a potential threat to the CCP one-party autocratic power structure. And I say “potential threat”, because the CCP wasn’t even the target of FLG protests. BUt presumably, the CCP concern was that she could one day become the target, and she wasn’t about to let that happen.

What the heck is “quasi-religious cultivation”? Is that CCP code for something? And once again, that is you admitting it wasn’t a religious basis for the persecution. You’re admitting it was a “quasi-religious” one. And the “quasi” part was their ability to mobilize the masses. You’re again making my point for me. You certainly have an interesting debating style…very accommodating.

“In the case of JW, I don’t know what but the fact that they are detained means that are being persecuted.”
—ummm, nope. IF you don’t know what they were detained for, how can you say it was “persecution”? They could’ve been detained for any number of reasons. Logic, my friend. Try it sometime.

“The ongoing CCP rhetoric is not due to the masses. Is has to due with US help to create a voice”
—I disagree, but you know, you could be right. It’s not the masses; it’s the foreign support. But do you know what that means: it still had nothing to do with the religious beliefs itself. Do you ever consider the logic of your “argument” before you make it? Cuz it sure doesn’t seem like you do. Think before you speak…that’s my life lesson to you for the day.

“The fact that Scientology and JW are being ridiculed and laugh in other part of the world makes them un-attractable for media attention on their perseuction in China.”
—oh, so now “media attention” is the key? They’re being persecuted but because they’re quacks, media ignores them? But I thought FLG were quacks too. Why do media apparently love them? Oh, because they have foreign support. But did you ever think about why they have this support? OH, that’s right, because they were persecuted and propagandized against by the CCP. If it weren’t for all the CCP targeted efforts for more than a decade, we wouldn’t be hearing nearly so much about FLG. The FLG weren’t targeted by CCP because they were internationally renowned; they gained their international renown in part because of the CCP targeting. You have it all backwards. And the CCP targeting was because of their “quasi-religious” potential, as you said yourself. I am impressed by your ability to make my arguments for me, just as I am impressed by your inability to make or sustain any logical arguments on your own behalf.

March 9, 2011 @ 2:24 am | Comment

@CCP interests?/quasi-religion

For this particular case, the CCP interests are that not wanting quasi-religious groups tampering with qigong. Must be in it’s ORIGINAL FORM without religious factors of superstition and pseudoscience. Hence the suppression of qigong cults was instigated.

@it still had nothing to do with the religious beliefs itself.

I said with the soft power they have now AFTER (is that what “ongoing” implies) the crackdown have turned it to political rather than religious. If a FLG practitioner who doesn’t support Li Hongzhi political views and supports CCP views, would this practitioner be supported by CCP? IMHO, no, CCP will still suppress his religious rights.

@Why do media apparently love them?

Because FLG spread overseas (hardly any ridicule there on their views) before 1999.

March 9, 2011 @ 5:03 am | Comment

“CCP interests are that not wanting quasi-religious groups tampering with qigong.”
—are you serious? The core motivating interest here is that the CCP was keen on preserving the integrity of breathing exercises and to remove religious connotations from that practice? You have got to be kidding me. Do you really say this BS with a straight face? Wanna try and tell me why the integrity of breathing exercises would be of such importance to the CCP? THis I gotta hear! And how were the breathing exercises being “tampered” with by these religious groups? Were they preaching the practice of breathing exercises in some evil manner? DId they co-opt the exercises, such that non-believers of FLG could no longer practice the breathing exercises without buying into the whole belief set? No really, I wanna know, cuz that’s just how funny you are.
Now, even on its face, if we somehow believe that the CCP objected to the religious use of breathing exercises (which in and of itself is a ridiculous assertion, but I’ve come to expect this sort of thing from you), that might explain why the religion is banned. But that still doesn’t explain the added persecution and the propaganda. So your argument is yet again a few bricks short of a load.

“I said with the soft power they have now AFTER (is that what “ongoing” implies) the crackdown have turned it to political rather than religious”
—notice that the statement you copied came after “I disagree”. What part of “I disagree” do you not understand? Besides, you are again stating that the “ongoing” crackdown is NOT due to religious reasons. This is what I’ve been saying all along…I have repeatedly referred to the CCP persecution and ONGOING CCP propaganda. You’ve again made my point for me, and again not even realized it. You are quite something.

“Why do media apparently love them?

Because FLG spread overseas”
—ummm, just because FLG (or anything else, for that matter) “spreads overseas” doesn’t mean the media will love them. That’s ridiculous logic, even by your lowly standards.

March 9, 2011 @ 9:21 am | Comment

The fact that Guangming Daily which attacked Zhuan Falun II as a “pseudo-scientific book propagating feudal superstitions” and Sima Nan, the outspoken critic of pseudoscience and supernatural phenomena in qigong sects and He Zuoxiu in 1998 was also a critic of “fake qigong” which lead a CCTV reporter getting axed, so I am serious about CCP efforts to ban qigong sects that were in this nature.

@Besides, you are again stating that the “ongoing” crackdown is… something.

You said ongoing “propaganda” before. Not crackdown. There’s huge difference.

@ummm, just because FLG (or anything else, for that matter) “spreads overseas” doesn’t mean the media will love them. That’s ridiculous logic, even by your lowly standards.

Tibetans
Uighurs
Chinese dissidents

Can you see a pattern here? Need I say more?

March 9, 2011 @ 1:18 pm | Comment

“…, so I am serious about CCP efforts to ban qigong sects that were in this nature.”
—-listen, can you start to talk about the same thing? Being “banned” is not the point. Many religions are banned, as have been listed multiple times already. The FLG were unique in that they were banned, but also persecuted unlike any other, and subjected to ongoing propaganda. The reason for this uniqueness has nothing to do with their religious beliefs, since other beliefs were similarly banned, but NOT similarly targeted in other ways. So the reason for this uniqueness is what they did, but which other religions did NOT do. That, in case you still haven’t caught on, was their ability to rally the masses. You can avoid it all you like, since that is your only available option. But it does not go unnoticed that you have not once addressed the disparity between a religious ban and all the ancillary activities reserved for the FLG. Those activities, btw, blow your silly argument to bits. Always have, always will.

“You said ongoing “propaganda” before. Not crackdown. There’s huge difference.”
—-umm, they are different things. But part and parcel of the same Ccp operation.

March 9, 2011 @ 3:28 pm | Comment

“Tibetans
Uighurs
Chinese dissidents

.Can you see a pattern here? Need I say more?”
—-absolutely. The pattern is that all those groups have been the subject of Ccp propaganda, and to varying degrees, on the receiving end of oppression and mockery of basic rights. Those things do indeed tend to attract media attention. You might also note that dissidents like Liu Xiaobo aren’t exactly rotting in an ” overseas” prison, yet garner some media attention nonetheless. So no, being overseas itself is meaningless. It’s when the ccp singles you out for special treatment that gets you noticed. Besides, by belaboring this point, you are actually acknowledging that the religious aspects play no role in the FLG case in comparison to other aspects. You’re floating foreign media coverage as justification for their treatment. It’s ridiculous, because, as I said, the coverage resulted from their treatment, rather than having caused that treatment. Maybe the logic of that point is too difficult for you. In any event, it’s nothing to do with religion, which was my point. The only logical answer in looking at the timeline of events is that the response was to their attracting the protest crowds. If your coping mechanism genetically prevents you from conceding that, then you can continue to float illogical suggestions of ” foreign media attention” to your heart’s content, and I’ll be happy to hit them out of the park for you.

March 9, 2011 @ 3:53 pm | Comment

@you have not once addressed the disparity between a religious ban and all the ancillary activities reserved for the FLG.

The problem with this comment is that YOU disagree of my comment on the massive help of gaining soft power that resulted the ongoing battle of insults between FLG and CCP.

FLG isn’t the only one who has this kind of soft power that resulted in a propaganda war with CCP. The pattern is there, too bad you just can’t see it.

March 9, 2011 @ 4:06 pm | Comment

Still at it? You guys should get a room or something.

March 9, 2011 @ 10:39 pm | Comment

“YOU disagree of my comment on the massive help of gaining soft power that resulted the ongoing battle of insults between FLG and CCP.”
—I pretty much disagree with everything you say, so no big surprise. But what does your comment have to do with anything? So the “ongoing” conflict between FLG and CCP gave FLG “soft power”, whatever that is. But we’re talking about both the initial FLG persecution and ongoing CCP propaganda against them. And you were laughably trying to suggest that this targeting was based on FLG religious beliefs. But since then, you’ve brought in wingnut points like “foreign media attention” and “soft power”. So which one is it? My assertions have been consistent. You can’t even seem to decide what it is you’re arguing for, and randomly throw up asinine points. Not surprisingly, none of them stick.

“FLG isn’t the only one who has this kind of soft power that resulted in a propaganda war with CCP. ”
—we’re not talking about what RESULTED from their dispute; we’re talking about what CAUSED the CCP to act in the first place. How slow can a guy like you be? It never ceases to amaze me, the amount of poor logic and argumentative irrelevance that can reside in one CCP apologist.

March 10, 2011 @ 4:14 am | Comment

@ But we’re talking about both the initial FLG persecution and ongoing CCP propaganda against them.

I brought up Cebei and Zhong Gong and JW (religious concepts) on the pattern of FLG perseuction. I brought up the amount of soft power to the likes of Tibetans and Uighurs and Chinese dissidents to the same ongoing CCP propaganda and implied that if Cebei and Zhong Gong have the luxury of that soft power, they will also be in the same company of FLG.

But you disagree, you said it’s the “masses” that makes FLG so special. So that’s our one month debate.

@You might also note that dissidents like Liu Xiaobo aren’t exactly rotting in an ” overseas” prison, yet garner some media attention nonetheless.

You have to understand that other dissidents overseas made Liu Xiaobo a name for himself.

March 10, 2011 @ 4:36 am | Comment

To SUMMARIZE:

1. SK Cheung and some others CORRECTLY stated that FLG’s troubles stem from their defining act of political defiance: the 4/25/99 human circle around Zhongnanhai, and he demonstrated in about 100 ways that what FLGers were believing, reading, teaching, eating, not eating, etc had and has zero connection to their violent persecution.

2. Jason made about 150 oblique, confusing and ineffectual attempts to … I’m not sure what, but I’ll guess … to derail the conversation? to revive the CCP’s untenable post hoc line on the FLG killings? .. to practice his English?

This “debate” was a slam dunk for SKC, because the core issue here was not really debatable. Any controversy that exists exists only in Jason’s mind.

March 10, 2011 @ 7:31 am | Comment

@slim

Being a partisan hack you are, your comment doesn’t surprise me. The fact that you COMPLETELY ignored Zhong Gong and Cebei Gong, 2 qigong sects were persecuted and banned without any big protest THE SAME year as Falun Gong of CCP’s crackdown on qigong sects, only make your argument foolish.

March 10, 2011 @ 8:25 am | Comment

“I brought up Cebei and Zhong Gong and JW (religious concepts) on the pattern of FLG perseuction”
—you’ve brought up other religions that have been banned. But there is no other religion that has been subjected to the type of persecution as the FLG. So your comparisons aren’t comparable. Do you understand that concept?

“I brought up the amount of soft power to the likes of Tibetans and Uighurs and Chinese dissidents to the same ongoing CCP propaganda”
—and I’ve repeatedly pointed out that those groups have this “soft power” as a RESULT of the ongoing CCP propaganda. But this “soft power” was NOT THE CAUSE of CCP propaganda, since “the power” wasn’t there until CCP started targeting them. Do you understand that concept?

“Cebei and Zhong Gong have the luxury of that soft power, they will also be in the same company of FLG.”
—if those other groups did what the FLG did in drumming up the masses, then they too might find themselves in the same boat as the FLG, in which case “soft power” might then be coming their way. Do you understand that concept?

“But you disagree,”
—of course I do. This is you we’re talking about. But I’ve disagreed while also pointing out the myriad flaws in your arguments and your logic, for which you clearly have no response, yet of which you have yet to have the decency to acknowledge. Do you understand that concept?

The FLG did something no other religious group has done. For their trouble, they have been treated like no other religious group has been. The logical conclusion is that the unique thing they did explains their subsequent unique treatment. That “unique thing”, in case you’re still clueless, was the amassing of the crowds. Do you understand that concept?

So by my count, there are 5 concepts here that await your grasp. Good luck.

“You have to understand that other dissidents overseas made Liu Xiaobo a name for himself.”
—LOL, you must be kidding. Are you taking a page out of International Women’s Day? Some women achieved great things back in the day when women doing great things was a rarity. Those women are seen as forging a path that has improved the lot of all women. Are you now trying to channel the same concept? Some dissidents went overseas and made a name for themselves, and Liu is following in their footsteps? No, Liu made a name for himself based on what he wrote; not based on what some dissidents may or may not have done before him. There is no limit on how ridiculous a CCP apologist will get in an attempt to salvage their pathetic arguments.

March 10, 2011 @ 8:41 am | Comment

@you’ve brought up other religions that have been banned. But there is no other religion that has been subjected to the type of persecution as the FLG.

If you are talking about initial crackdown (1999), see my comments above yours.

If you are talking about ongoing crackdown (2000-present), I completely disagree with you of being a revenge against their protest in 1999. The fact is that FLG disbursed into other countries and makes them relevant with all the soft power they got. While back home (China), those who still follow Li Hongzhi went underground but the communication of their “leader” to their practitioners wasn’t lost. The fact that they practices a religion that was banned of being religious and superstition and pseudoscience to qigong practices, they were bound to be persecuted if CCP found where they are.

@But this “soft power” was NOT THE CAUSE of CCP propaganda, since “the power” wasn’t there until CCP started targeting them. Do you understand that concept?

This is not what you said. You said CCP “ongoing propaganda” (2000 and onwards) against FLG is due to the masses. Since you admit “soft power” was the cause of CCP propaganda ONWARDS, you just made my point.

Since you change base of your argument to persecuting in 1999 because of the masses, Cebei Gong and Zhong Gong and qigong sects has also being propagandized and persecuted of being fake qigong (qigong but with separate religious factors). They don’t need the masses to be persecuted and banned. So FLG is hardly the lone one of being persecuted and propagandized.

March 10, 2011 @ 11:03 am | Comment

“see my comments above yours.”
—they may have been banned. But they weren’t persecuted like the FLG.

“I completely disagree with you of being a revenge against their protest in 1999.”
—since when did I say it was “revenge”? Once the FLG showed their capacity to incite crowds, as far as the CCP is concerned, they had to be eliminated preemptively to prevent them from ever directing their powers of motivation against the CCP itself. It wasn’t just the protest itself, but the capacity that the FLG showed in putting together that protest that the CCP couldn’t tolerate. That’s not revenge; that’s akin to a decapitation strike, where the CCP wanted to take out the FLG before the FLG had a chance to target the CCP. The ongoing efforts are simply to prevent them for ever gathering momentum again. The CCP is treating the FLG like a forest fire: first you put it out, then you keep pouring water on it to prevent the embers from re-igniting again. And none of it has anything to do with the religious beliefs.

“This is not what you said.”
—how is that, since I just said it!

“You said CCP “ongoing propaganda” (2000 and onwards) against FLG is due to the masses.”
—I’ve reiterated my point many times. Take, for example, this in #151: (“Of course the CCP doesn’t fear crowds. We know what she can do to crowds. However, we also know how much grief she’s gotten in the past for the way she’s handled certain crowds in certain places, and that can’t be an experience she savours. So while she may not fear crowds, she does have reason to not want to have to deal with them. Besides, fearing it is one thing. Taking a great dislike to anyone or anything that is able to drum up such crowds on short notice is a different thing altogether. After all, they might start by blockading a newspaper. Who knows where they might blockade next. As you well know, the CCP doesn’t like stuff happening in China that she can’t control. So she threw down the hammer to get control of this one. Simple as that.”)
The ongoing propaganda is not due to the masses from 12 years ago. It is to ensure that the capacity of FLG to again gather crowds en masse is eliminated forever.

“Since you admit “soft power” was the cause of CCP propaganda ONWARDS”
—excuse me, but can you read? Cuz this is what I said: (“this “soft power” was NOT THE CAUSE of CCP propaganda…”). I even said it in CAPS: NOT THE CAUSE. So you ignore the “NOT”, then insert “ONWARDS”, which I didn’t even say. So (a) you certainly didn’t grasp the concept that was posed to you, and (b) you’ve resorted to misrepresenting and misquoting what I have said, and what I haven’t said. Not only do you lack logic and grasp of relevance, but you’ve shot past disingenuous and gone to outright lying to try to make your point. I hope your CCP handlers are proud of the display that they’re paying for. Also, you should define this “soft power” nonsense of yours. I’m taking it to mean “ability to attract media attention”. No idea what you mean, but it’s your phrase.

“So FLG is hardly the lone one of being persecuted and propagandized.”
—wrong again. Other sects have been banned. But FLG is unique in their receipt of persecution and propaganda from the CCP. Just as they were unique in their ability to incite crowds. The display of that ability led to the crackdown initially, and is the motivation for the propaganda that continues to this day.

March 10, 2011 @ 2:00 pm | Comment

@But they weren’t persecuted like the FLG.

Wrong. Zhong Gong and Cibei Gong were being persecuted just like any qigong sect. Does this sound familiar: “In 1996, under the pressure of higher authorities, the Educational Committee of Chongqing Municipality banned the training base of Zhong Gong cadres—the International University of Life Sciences in Chongqing.

In October, 1996, according to inside information from the People’s Health Publishing Agency and People’s China Publishing Agency, “Beijing is going to move against ‘Kylin Culture’ and Zhang Hongbao’s articles are not allowed to be published”, “The highest authorities give instructions that nothing relating to Zhang Hongbao is allowed to be published.”

or On February 5, 1997, in the No. 39 document of the Zhejiang Provincial Public Security Department which was titled as “Notice About Further Investigating and Controlling the Activities of Zhong Gong Organizations in our Province” mentioned that “Since June 1996, the organs of public security of all levels of our province have carried out investigation and feeling out ‘Zhong Gong’ organizations in accordance with the arrangement of the Ministry of Public Security (MPS).” It was also mentioned in the document that “In consideration of the fact that Zhong Gong organization is a kind of feudal secret society or reactionary superstition sect, which takes Qigong as its carrier and such profit-making economic entities, including enterprises, training schools, etc., as a source of income. It is a group of pseudo-science and pseudo-Qigong with reactionary colors and fraudulent acts. If we let it run its own course, the public order will be jeopardized and the political power of people’s democratic dictatorship may further be harmed. Consequently, the organs of public security at all levels should heighten their understanding of staff, adopt powerful measures and conscientiously enhance the mastering and restricting Zhong Gong organizations.”

There you have it. Zhong Gong and Cibei Gong does have the same amount of persecution than Falun Gong over religious views and hardly needs a crowd like FLG to be shut down for good.

March 10, 2011 @ 2:46 pm | Comment

“In 1996, … Municipality BANNED the training base of Zhong Gong cadres…”
—what is your reading/reasoning/use of logic impediment. Yes, some were BANNED. But none were persecuted like the FLG.

“articles are not allowed to be published”
—oh dear, they can’t publish articles. Woe is them! What on earth are those poor folks to do?

“feeling out ‘Zhong Gong’ organizations”
—by gosh, those organizations got felt up. What an indignity?

“political power of people’s democratic dictatorship may further be harmed”
—now this part might be the first honest thing you or the CCP have said in quite some time. Looks like those other sects weren’t “banned” for religious reasons either. Once again, it was the politics of power at play for the CCP. So the FLG amassed crowds, showing not only the ability to do so, but also suggesting their potential ability to do so again in the future, which certainly drew the ire of the CCP, as we’ve since seen. But perhaps some of these other groups were also deemed to have “reactionary colours” which the CCP may have feared would develop into something more threatening down the road. And since only pro-CCP colours are allowed, maybe that got them into some political trouble as well.

Not only have you done nothing to dispel the notion that CCP actions against FLG then and now were for purely self-serving political purposes, you’ve also shot yourself in the foot and shown that her actions against other breathing-exercises groups were likely politically motivated rather than simply religious disapproval. You’ve bolstered my point (not that I needed it) while furthering messing with what’s left of yours. Good work. You definitely get a gold star from me. Not sure what the CCP will give you for that, unfortunately.

Here’s a hint, since you’re too slow to grasp the concept yourself. Don’t just focus on the crowds (as I said in #151, and repeated for you in #230). Think of what the crowds represent (at least to the paranoid self-serving folks in the CCP). Again, you take your time in trying to grasp that concept, since you’re not very good with concepts, have very little grasp of anything, and are kinda slow.

March 10, 2011 @ 3:29 pm | Comment

@looks like those other sects weren’t “banned” for religious reasons either.

That fact that you took the sentence out of context and used into your own argument without any regards on CCP slamming these qigong sects as feudal secret society or reactionary superstition sect and pseudo-science and pseudo-Qigong with reactionary colors and fraudulent acts (religious concepts of the sects), shows your desperation.

March 10, 2011 @ 11:36 pm | Comment

Out of context? You don’t know what “out of context” means. I used the statement after the paragraph of CCP hogwash you were just talking about. So even after this Ministry of Public BS took “in consideration” all of the secret fedual-this, and pseudo-science-that, their assessment is that “If we let it run its own course, the public order will be jeopardized and the political power of people’s democratic dictatorship may further be harmed.” That’s how sentences and paragraphs work. They start with their silly window-dressing excuses. But at the end, the real reasons and “justifications” come out.

So while the pseudo-religious talk fools idiots like you who don’t understand what you read, or who don’t read through to the end of paragraphs, the real reason why they clamped down (not just on FLG it seems, but on all the other sects you paraded around) was the perceived threat on the CCP way of life. It is further hilarious that they used “people’s democratic dictatorship”. That’s the best oxymoron I’ve heard in a while.

What this shows is that all those sects (not just the FLG anymore) were banned because of various perceived political threats that their mass appeal was thought to have posed. For the FLG, it was still the temerity to amass the crowds, showing not only the potential for inciting crowds, but actually doing it. Maybe that’s why they got the brunt of it. I don’t know what these other sects did to piss off the CCP, but because they didn’t actually act on their perceived potential to incite the masses, perhaps they got off more lightly. But at the end of the day, the religious beliefs were at best an excuse, yet the real reason for cracking down was ultimately to preserve CCP power. It’s in black and white, in the document YOU quoted. You should try reading it some time. Me, Richard, and others have been telling you this for weeks now. Recognizing that CCP apologists tend to be slow when it comes to grasping logical arguments, you are still slower than most.

March 11, 2011 @ 4:23 am | Comment

@You don’t know what “out of context” means. I used the statement after the paragraph of CCP hogwash you were just talking about.

Actually I do. If you actually know that CCP members practiced the qigong methods (not the separate religious factors) Zhong Gong and Falun Gong imposes before the exposé in Guangming Renbao in 1996 about the practices that has additional but separate from qigong aspects, you would know that CCP fear there will be conflicting opinions around circles about the religious factors of being superstitious and pseudoscience (making concessions or not) around their circles who was been already committed to the sect.

@the public order will be jeopardized

It is self-explanatory. CCP doesn’t want the people who practice it to get the religious jargon and qigong groups and focus on qigong only groups.

@Me, Richard, and others have been telling you this for weeks now.

That’s nice. Hardly a metric of who’s right.

March 11, 2011 @ 6:49 am | Comment

“If you actually know that CCP members practiced the qigong methods (not the separate religious factors) Zhong Gong and Falun Gong imposes before the exposé in Guangming Renbao in 1996 about the practices that has additional but separate from qigong aspects, you would know that CCP fear there will be conflicting opinions around circles about the religious factors of being superstitious and pseudoscience (making concessions or not) around their circles who was been already committed to the sect.”
—logic, my friend. Ever heard of it? Ever met him? What does it matter if CCP members practiced breathing exercises or not? Heck, what does it matter if some CCP members were actually FLG members or not? When the CCP decided that throwing down on the FLG was the right thing to do politically for the purposes of preserving CCP power, those folks would’ve had a choice – give up the practice and/or the FLG affiliation, or face the consequences like everyone else in FLG. Especially if they were CCP members, they should know what those consequences could look like, and it should have been an easy choice. It’s nice that the CCP was so considerate of her own members who might be caught in the crossfire…like I said, the CCP is good at looking after herself, and those who serve her too, it would appear. But if you’ve paid any attention at all, all of that stuff is irrelevant. Thanks to you, we’ve now discovered that the CCP’s motivation, both for persecuting the FLG and for banning other sects, is all political. Which is what I’ve been saying all along. Even in black and white, in the CCP’s own words, you refuse to accept the obvious truth. You are quite something…nothing worth having…but something nonetheless.

“public order will be jeopardized”
—hey, look who is going out of context now? You forgot this juicy bit (“and the political power of people’s democratic dictatorship may further be harmed.”). Game/set/match, dude. Besides, even if the CCP was so concerned only with the purity of the breathing exercises (in itself a ridiculous assertion, but there is no limit on how low you’ll stoop to salvage your pathetic argument), what does that have to do with “public order”? Concern for “public order” is not a religious concern; it is a concern about how these folks who share a religious affiliation might partake in causing public “disorder”…and they were understandably concerned since the FLG showed how they could amass crowds for a cause once already. At no point does any of this have anything to do with the religious aspects of FLG, which is what makes your argument so ridiculous. Yet here you are. Clearly you’re not a shy guy cuz you have no aversion to persisting with this argument and making a fool of yourself.

“That’s nice. Hardly a metric of who’s right.”
—very true. For that metric, one only need look at the CCP reports that YOU QUOTED to understand the CCP’s motivations, straight from the horse’s mouth. One skill you may need to acquire before you can adequately digest what the CCP is saying, quite evidently, is some measure of reading comprehension. Do you need me to highlight the relevant sentences for you again?

March 11, 2011 @ 7:58 am | Comment

@When the CCP decided that throwing down on the FLG was the right thing to do politically for the purposes of preserving CCP power, those folks would’ve had a choice – give up the practice and/or the FLG affiliation, or face the consequences like everyone else in FLG.

Right but what I’m saying to this is there were in fact some members who were not agreeing to the hard line stance over religious factors until 1999 over the chain of crackdown on qigong.

@both for persecuting the FLG and for banning other sects, is all political.

“all”? The fact that members of the CCP have conflicting opinion on how to deal with the religious overtones of the sects is NOT “all” political.

@Concern for “public order” is not a religious concern; it is a concern about how these folks who share a religious affiliation might partake in causing public “disorder”…and they were understandably concerned since the FLG showed how they could amass crowds for a cause once already. At no point does any of this have anything to do with the religious aspects of FLG, which is what makes your argument so ridiculous. Yet here you are. Clearly you’re not a shy guy cuz you have no aversion to persisting with this argument and making a fool of yourself.

Wrong. “Public order” is behavior that has been labeled criminal because it is contrary to shared norms, social values, and customs. CCP believes that these “fake qigong” religion doesn’t share their norms and values and custom of qigong.

@CCP reports that YOU QUOTED to understand the CCP’s motivation

That fact that you misinterpreted IS the problem for you at least.

March 11, 2011 @ 10:14 am | Comment

“but what I’m saying to this is there were in fact some members who were not agreeing to the hard line stance over religious factors until 1999 over the chain of crackdown on qigong.”
—so what? Great, some members maybe had reservations about screwing over FLG for political reasons. In the end, it happened anyway. So even if there was some hand wringing in some CCP quarters, it didn’t amount to much. Plus (and again, the issue with relevance for you) this has no relevance on the fact that the crackdown for politically expedient for the CCP, as opposed to being on any religious basis.

“The fact that members of the CCP have conflicting opinion on how to deal with the religious overtones of the sects is NOT “all” political.”
—good grief, are you an idiot, or do you just play one of PKD? THe CCP does NOT have to be unanimous in their decision for it to be “all political”. The “all” in this case refers to the motivation for the actions ie crackdown on FLG for purposes of preserving “the political power of people’s democratic dictatorship”. The “all” is NOT referring to the unanimity with which that decision was made. There is disingenuous, plain stupid, full on retarded….and then there’s you.

CCP believes that these “fake qigong” religion doesn’t share their norms and values and custom of qigong.”
—hey, do you mind telling me when the CCP became the “qigong police”? They persecuted the FLG, then continued for years to propagandize against them, because they didn’t like how qigong was being used as part of a religion? Are you sniffing glue when you write this stuff?

“criminal because it is contrary to shared norms, social values, and customs.”
—in most civilized countries, “criminal” is when you break the law. Now, a meathead like you will then say “well they were banned, so they were breaking the law”. However, they weren’t initially banned. So the law was changed to make them suddenly banned, and hence illegal. Now why was the law changed? Oh, that’s right, because they were becoming a threat to…you guessed it… “political power of people’s democratic dictatorship” (god I love that phrase). BTW, the CCP labelling something “criminal” does not make it a religious concern in and of itself, but that’s probably not a concept you’re capable of grasping. Everything that the CCP has ever done against FLG (and the other sects, as you’ve kindly shown us) was motivated by political self-preservation in the face of FLG’s perceived ability to potentially mobilize the masses against CCP. This is not news to anyone except you…the certified (and certifiable) CCP apologist.

” fact that you misinterpreted IS the problem for you at least”
—you know what, I’ll take my English skills, my ability to make an argument, my ability in logic, and my grasp of relevance, over yours any day of the week. Tell me how you would interpret the black and white phrases you’ve quoted, and I’d happily mock you some more.

March 11, 2011 @ 12:55 pm | Comment

@—hey, do you mind telling me when the CCP became the “qigong police”? They persecuted the FLG, then continued for years to propagandize against them, because they didn’t like how qigong was being used as part of a religion? Are you sniffing glue when you write this stuff?

1996. Guangming Renbao and then follow by 20 journals articles. Also the likes of Sima Nan.

Read the Tianjin incident where FLG protest He Zuoxiu, a critic of supernatural and “unscientific thinking”, denounced Falun Gong in an interview on Beijing Television in 1998 which lead a CCTV reporter getting axed.

In 1999 (before the massive protest), He Zuoxiu published an article in the Tianjin Normal University’s Youth Reader magazine, entitled “I Do Not Agree with Youth Practicing qigong,” and criticized all forms of “fake qigong”.

So after that, in April, FLG was furious about the critic and started to protest against the denunciation of their religion.

So your argument of CCP fear of crowds and that the crackdown is due to political ends doesn’t hold any water.

March 11, 2011 @ 2:43 pm | Comment

Hey, I made 5 points in #238. You only had the courage to respond to one of them. Well, I can see that you have no answer for the other 4. You CCP apologists are all so much alike. Respond (poorly) to what you can (which is the minority), and ignore and refuse to acknowledge what you have no answer for (which is the vast majority).

Speaking of responding poorly, we have #239. Let’s examine that, shall we?

Ok, so a bunch of articles were written. Mr. He was openly critical of FLG, and the FLG were not amused. So the FLG in turn protested against the criticism of their religion. Does that about sum up your “point”?

If it does, answer me this: so what? How is that relevant to what motivated the CCP to crackdown on FLG? Although these criticisms occurred before “the crowds”, what does that have to do with the CCP’s apparent fear (or lack of fear) of crowds? How does that diminish or contradict the government document (which you quoted) where it is specifically spelled out that actions against FLG and related sects are for the purposes of preserving “the political power of people’s democratic dictatorship”?

Here’s your chance to shine, Jason. Answer some questions, if you can. Cuz up till now, the logic you employ in your arguments would be of poor quality for a 5 year old.

Oh, here’s another tidbit of logic for you to chew on. If you’re saying that the FLG protests against the criticism of their religion is the reason for the CCP crackdown, then the crackdown was still NOT due to religion. It would’ve been due to the protests against the criticism thereof. Take your time, and see if you can even faintly begin to grasp the logic of that. Good luck. If you actually grasp that (I’m not very hopeful, but keep the faith, as they say…pun intended), then ask yourself this: why would the CCP punish a group that is protesting? Oh, here’s the answer: “the political power of people’s democratic dictatorship may further be harmed”.

March 11, 2011 @ 3:17 pm | Comment

@You only had the courage to respond to one of them. Well, I can see that you have no answer for the other 4.

All 5 of your arguments are the same and somewhat similar.

@How is that relevant to what motivated the CCP to crackdown on FLG?

It’s a continue chain of criticism on FLG starting with in 1993 of ex-FLG members, 1996 from Guangming Renbao, 20 journal articles that follow that, then Buddhist journals, Sima Nan, and then 1998 and 1999 from He Zuoxiu.

@How does that diminish or contradict the government document (which you quoted) where it is specifically spelled out that actions against FLG and related sects are for the purposes of preserving “the political power of people’s democratic dictatorship”?

Do you know what “own course” is implying? “Own course” implies that qigong sect’s feudal secret society or reactionary superstition will ruin people’s normal perceptions (public order) and politicians alike (political power of people’s democratic dictatorship).

March 11, 2011 @ 3:58 pm | Comment

“All 5 of your arguments are the same and somewhat similar.”
—well then you obviously can’t read, have no comprehension of what you do read, and lack the skills in logic to follow the arguments I wrote for you to read. One wonders if the CCP can do any better than someone like you to do their bidding.

“How is that relevant to what motivated the CCP to crackdown on FLG?…
–It’s a continue chain of criticism on FLG starting with…”
—say what? I asked you how it is relevant. Expanding on your list of the continuous chain of criticism does not answer the question of relevance. Do you know what relevance means? Here’s a hint: the answer to a question of relevance usually requires something more than a simple list of items. So try again, if you dare.

“Do you know what “own course” is implying?”
—LOL. FOr a guy who claims to know what it means to take something out of context, that’s quite a display when you try to weasel away using 2 words.

““Own course” implies that qigong sect’s feudal secret society or reactionary superstition will ruin people’s normal perceptions (public order)”
—LOL again. How does “people’s normal perceptions” equate to “public order”? How does the presence of some people who happen to partake in this supposed “feudal secret society” ruin OTHER PEOPLE’S NORMAL PERCEPTIONS? Do you ever think about what you write before you write it? It’s like you’ve given up all hope, and are just throwing words out there to offer some pitiful semblance of a response. You should know by now that that is not going to cut it.

“…and politicians alike (political power of people’s democratic dictatorship).”
—how will the beliefs of some people ruin politicians (or the politicians’ “normal perceptions”)? Were politicians being forced to accept and practice FLG beliefs? Listen, your illogical arguments might work in CCP training school (where, apparently, no one has any grasp of logic), but you’re in the real world now, buddy, and crappy logic like yours will get beaten like a drum, as it’s been here for several weeks now.

Allow me to take pity on you and help you with reading comprehension one more time: “If we let it run its own course, the public order will be jeopardized and the political power of people’s democratic dictatorship may further be harmed. Consequently, the organs of public security at all levels should heighten their understanding of staff, adopt powerful measures and conscientiously enhance the mastering and restricting Zhong Gong organizations.”
—regardless of whatever is being allowed to run its course (it could be bird-watching, spitting, having mistresses, corruption,… or practicing FLG), the areas the CCP is concerned about are public order and political power. “Consequently”, in order to preserve CCP order and CCP power, the CCP at all levels will do whatever it takes to screw with the FLG. It’s not that complicated.

March 11, 2011 @ 4:58 pm | Comment

@—say what? I asked you how it is relevant. Expanding on your list of the continuous chain of criticism does not answer the question of relevance. Do you know what relevance means? Here’s a hint: the answer to a question of relevance usually requires something more than a simple list of items. So try again, if you dare.

It is relevant because Guangming Renbao is state owned. It’s relevant because CCP allow pundits who were critics of superstition and pseudoscience to appear on state-owned TV. The list of events I pointed out is relevant to CCP views of the religious factor of those qigong sects.

@How does “people’s normal perceptions” equate to “public order”?

I should say CCP’s perspective of what’s people’s normal perception. My bad.

@Were politicians being forced to accept and practice FLG beliefs? Listen, your illogical arguments might work in CCP training school (where, apparently, no one has any grasp of logic),

No, silly. It was a direct warning on politicians to get rid of doubts how it would fare on the crackdown on fake qigong groups. So a majority members of the Politburo does has to agree on something before Jiang Zemin gets the last decision.

March 12, 2011 @ 1:12 am | Comment

“It is relevant because Guangming Renbao is state owned.”
—OK, so a list of state-owned groups propagated critical views of FLG. What does this mean? Well, let me explain that to you. Of course, it means that open criticism of FLG as a religion was tolerated by the CCP. Does this mean the CCP was similarly critical of FLG as a religion? Not necessarily. That she tolerated such criticism doesn’t mean she was actively critical of FLG to the same extent. However, even that is irrelevant. Wanna know why? Because this criticism occurred before the protest crowds, and before the crackdown. If CCP criticism of FLG as a religion was the cause of the crackdown, why not start in 1996, or even before? Simple. Because whatever the CCP’s objections to FLG as a religion were, they didn’t warrant any action until the protest crowds made the CCP think that the FLG might threaten the “political power of people’s democratic dictatorship”. Of course, that’s when the CCP acted…out of political expedience. That should surprise no one except you.

“I should say CCP’s perspective of what’s people’s normal perception. My bad.”
—hey, you actually allowed yourself to back-pedal from a stupid statement. That’s mildly encouraging…at least a good start. Now, why would these “feudal societies” ruin the CCP’s perspective of public order? Their religious beliefs will ruin public order? Of course not. But their ability to amass crowds in protest of a cause could certainly disturb the CCP’s version of public order (you know the one, enforced harmony, street cleaning in response to tweets about people going out for Sunday strolls). The CCP isn’t concerned about some guy who claims to be a transcendental healer. They’re concerned because this guy’s followers might threaten…you guessed it…the “political power of people’s democratic dictatorship”.

“It was a direct warning on politicians to get rid of doubt”
—again, who cares if the CCP was unanimous in their decision to get rid of FLG? We’re talking about why they got rid of FLG, NOT whether they were unaimous in their reasoning. Do you honestly think a CCP member would say: you know what, i don’t support what we’re doing, so I am going to quit the CCP and join the FLG instead. Are you nuts?

March 12, 2011 @ 2:51 am | Comment

@Because whatever the CCP’s objections to FLG as a religion were, they didn’t warrant any action.

Arresting FLG practitioners and/or leaders in front of the entrances of Buddhist temples and Tianjin who is protesting certain critics of FLG was a precursor of the protest in Zhongnanhai over the dissatisfaction over the arrests made in Tianjin and banning FLG publications which made FLG felt disenfranchised of practicing their religion in this hostile environment. So CCP clamp down on the Zhongnanhai protest of demanding on freeing the protesters from 1998 is still in part over religious views rather than political.

I going to say this one last time that “political power of people’s democratic dictatorship” here implies the Politburo members themselves who share a soft line approach of dealing with FLG over the claims of pseudoscience and superstition. In other words, the top dogs of CCP are calling their majority of comrades to agree on the hard line approach of banning the entire sect. It’s not about a CCP official saying he’ll join alliance of FLG because he doesn’t agree with CCP hardline approach.

@Now, why would these “feudal societies” ruin the CCP’s perspective of public order? Their religious beliefs will ruin public order?

Because CCP felt that qigong groups especially sects were too religious and not enough teaching on actual bodily techniques. So CCP fear that people in the sects would be in contrary to CCP’s public order (shared norms, social values, and customs) of qigong.

March 12, 2011 @ 6:06 am | Comment

“Arresting FLG practitioners and/or leaders in front of the entrances of Buddhist temples and Tianjin who is protesting…”
—read your sentence again. Ok, now read it again. Ready? Were those people arrested for their FLG beliefs? Or were they arrested for their protesting? Read your sentence again. Take your time. It’s taken you a month already, so no reason to rush things now. The irony is that you don’t even understand the points you are making. Really kinda sad to see an adult being reduced to this.

“which made FLG felt disenfranchised of practicing their religion in this hostile environment.”
—now this is probably true. From the FLG’s perspective, they likely felt that they were being picked on because of their religion. However, our discussion is NOT about why the FLG felt they were persecuted; it’s about why the CCP felt such persecution was necessary. Take your time to come to grips with that difference. It’s not a subtle difference, but then this is you we’re talking about.

“So CCP clamp down on the Zhongnanhai protest of demanding on freeing the protesters from 1998 is still in part over religious views rather than political.”
—as I’ve explained above, this statement is ridiculous. THe CCP clamped down because of the protesting. That the protest (in the minds of the protesters) was about religion doesn’t mean the clamp down was about the subject of the protest. The clamp down was simply due to the act of protesting.
Let me offer a theoretical example. A bunch of omelette-lovers surrounds Zhongnanhai in protest over the increasing price of eggs. If the CCP arrests those protesters, is it because they were protesting? Or is it because the CCP doesn’t like eggs, or disapproves of omelettes?

““political power of people’s democratic dictatorship” here implies …”
—ummm, sorry, that phrase doesn’t “imply” anything. It doesn’t have to. The phrase speaks clearly enough for itself. There is no hidden meaning. It is not in code. It spells out (quite succinctly, I might add) what motivates the CCP. When that fundamental motivation is threatened, the CCP acts. Which is what she did. End of story.

There is no mention of Politburo members. The statement is actionable in and of itself. CCP cadres are being told in no uncertain terms to “enhance the mastering and restricting Zhong Gong organizations.” This is not a genteel request to get with the program. This is not even “my way or the highway”, since CCP members should well know that the CCP way is the only way, period. Your suggestion that this is some nice request for members to fall into line is beyond ridiculous, especially when you consider that this is the CCP we’re talking about. You might as well be making things up rather than looking at what the CCP said, straight from the horse’s mouth. I understand you have no other way at this point to sustain your stupid theory, but your antics are pathetic nonetheless.

“qigong groups especially sects were too religious and not enough teaching on actual bodily techniques”
—LOL, another theory, I see. So now these religions aren’t teaching qigong well enough, and that’s what pissed off the CCP? So not only is the CCP supposedly the qigong police, but they are also the “qigong standards association”, tasked with monitoring the proper administration of qigong instruction? Will they next be awarding certification for accredited qigong instructors in their oversight capacity? Is there no limit to the stupid things you’ll say in a lame attempt to salvage what was a stupid theory of yours to begin with? Unbelievable!

“CCP’s public order (shared norms, social values, and customs) of qigong.”
—LOL again. ARe you saying that FLG would’ve escaped persecution, and could’ve continued to mount protests as she pleases, whenever, wherever, against whatever issue she saw fit, if only they had gotten some formal training from the CCP on how to teach qigong to FLG practitioners in a CCP-accredited fashion that is consistent with these “shared norms”? I asked you earlier: are you nuts? I now know the answer. You most certainly are. At the very least, you don’t mind sounding nuts in your capacity as a CCP apologist.

It is unfortunate that you choose to come off as an absolute buffoon in your lame defense of the CCP. But far be it for me to stop you. I look forward to your next illogical response that taxes the limits of human comprehension.

March 12, 2011 @ 2:14 pm | Comment

@Were those people arrested for their FLG beliefs? Or were they arrested for their protesting?//The clamp down (Zhongnanhai) was simply due to the act of protesting.

The fact that CCP is arresting the practitioners in Tianjin who were protesting the critics of their religion means you guess it it, they don’t agree on FLG religious beliefs. The fact that CCP is clamping down on the protesters in Zhongnanhai means they don’t agree with the protesters’ demands of opening up the FLG publication and freeing jailed FLG members that were protesting the critics on their religion in Tianjin.

@You might as well be making things up rather than looking at what the CCP said, straight from the horse’s mouth.

The statement said: Qigong sect’s feudal secret society or reactionary superstition (Zhong Gong’s course) will tamper with CCP’s perspective of people’s normal perceptions (public order) and politicians alike (political power of people’s democratic dictatorship). All the levels of CCP should listen to the big boys on how to deal with these organization.

Nothing about being political. All about the views of Zhong Gong.

@why the CCP felt such persecution was necessary.

Because they don’t like how qigong has changed overtime to religion rather than bodily techniques.

@ARe you saying that FLG would’ve escaped persecution, and could’ve continued to mount protests as she pleases, whenever, wherever, against whatever issue she saw fit, if only they had gotten some formal training from the CCP on how to teach qigong to FLG practitioners in a CCP-accredited fashion that is consistent with these “shared norms”?

If FLG dropped the religious side and focused on qigong, they would be the same category as other qigong groups that weren’t religious. If they dropped this, then CCP wouldn’t consider them illegal and hence they don’t even need to protest on the critics of their views.

@So not only is the CCP supposedly the qigong police, but they are also the “qigong standards association”, tasked with monitoring the proper administration of qigong instruction?

Qigong activity was regulated with the establishment of the China Qigong Scientific Research Association since 1980. Every qigong groups needs to register to this organization.

March 12, 2011 @ 4:30 pm | Comment

“The fact that CCP is arresting the practitioners in Tianjin who were protesting the critics of their religion means you guess it it, they don’t agree on FLG religious beliefs.”
—like I said above, it never ceases to amaze me how poorly you understand concepts, and logic. Yes, the CCP doesn’t agree with FLG religious beliefs. But we have never been talking about whether CCP agrees with those beliefs or not, since that’s irrelevant. We’re talking about why the CCP chose to persecute them, and continue to propagandize against them. The reason for that is because they were protesting, and had the temerity to amass crowds to do so. You’ve said as much yourself when you were too stupid to realize it, only to change your tune when I’ve called you on it. Cuz if there’s one thing stupid people can’t do, it’s to recognize their own stupidity.

“The fact that CCP is clamping down on the protesters in Zhongnanhai means they don’t agree with the protesters’ demands”
—sure, but those demands were NOT religious demands. Of course the CCP would refuse to release previously jailed protesters. BUt that’s NOT a statement of how the CCP feels about the FLG as a religion. That’s a statement about how the CCP feels about protesters in general. As I said in my example, if CCP jails people who are protesting the price of eggs, is it because they dislike protesters, or is it because they dislike eggs? It’s not a complicated concept unless one has their head completely up their butt like you.

“will tamper with CCP’s perspective of people’s normal perceptions (public order) and politicians alike (political power of people’s democratic dictatorship). All the levels of CCP should listen to the big boys on how to deal with these organization.”
—LOL yet again. That’s NOT the statement. That’s your understanding of their statement. We already know (as you’ve shown repeatedly) that you don’t understand what you read. And this is no different. Last time you tried to say the statement “implied” such and such. That got shot down in flames. Now you’re just gonna try to change the statement. Not very smooth. Shall I refresh your memory of the actual statement that you brought up to begin with (from the horse’s mouth)? “If we let it run its own course, the public order will be jeopardized and the political power of people’s democratic dictatorship may further be harmed. Consequently, the organs of public security at all levels should heighten their understanding of staff, adopt powerful measures and conscientiously enhance the mastering and restricting Zhong Gong organizations.” In other words, the CCP’s political power will be harmed, consequently the FLG type folks need to be royally screwed with. Pretty black and white. It’s a shame you have such poor reading comprehension, and choose to make a fool of yourself to simply support your argument in vain, in the face of words from the horse’s mouth.

“Nothing about being political.”
—it says “political power” right there in black and white. You are disingenuous, stupid, blind, or a combination thereof.

“Because they don’t like how qigong has changed overtime to religion rather than bodily techniques.”
—like I said, you do get a gold star for continuing with this charade. Your handlers must be proud of your effort. Hey, you never told me when the CCP became the “qigong police”. Do you know why the CCP didn’t like the change of qigong towards a religion? Because the practitioners displayed an uncanny ability to mobilize the masses in protest.

“hence they don’t even need to protest on the critics of their views.”
—yet another irrelevant argument. And a circular one. ‘if they weren’t religious, they wouldn’t need to protest critics of their religion’. Gee thanks, Sherlock. Heck, there wouldn’t even be critics, since there would’ve been no religious views to criticize. So none of this would ever have happened. Which may be true, except they are a religion, there were critics, and more importantly, they protested. Whether they had reason to protest, or would need to protest, is neither here nor there. THe fact is they did protest. The religion didn’t change. The CCP didn’t persecute the religion alone before the protests. The CCP did persecute the religion after the protest. Therefore, the religion had nothing to do with it. Furthermore, the thing that spurred the persecution was the protest. Now, it’s possible the CCP would NOT have persecuted them had the FLG NOT protested. But that’s moot now, and rather revisionist. And circular.

“Every qigong groups needs to register to this organization.”
—and that organization’s name is not the CCP.

I do wish that, one day, the CCP training center will arrive at the requisite sophistication to spit out apologists who have some grasp of logic, some degree of English comprehension, and some ability to make relevant arguments that aren’t so disingenuous, ridiculous, and circular all of the time. Maybe some day.

March 12, 2011 @ 5:30 pm | Comment

Your reasoning that CCP will clamp down on all protests despite that some protests are on the line are beneficial to CCP (domestic, foreign policies), is laughable.

So tell me why would CCP not clamp down on citizens when they protest against Japan? That’s right CCP agree on the citizens who are protesting because of same reasoning hence they are not clamping down on the protesters. Use this as the same logic for FLG. Case closed.

@if CCP jails people who are protesting the price of eggs, is it because they dislike protesters, or is it because they dislike eggs?

If they were, then the reason of jailing people is that CCP doesn’t agree on the protesters’ cons on the increase of prices on eggs.

@—and that organization’s name is not the CCP.

That organization is owned by CCP, Einstein.

March 13, 2011 @ 3:57 am | Comment

*(correction) all protests despite that some protests are on the line are beneficial to CCP (domestic, foreign policies) that were not clamp down,

March 13, 2011 @ 4:00 am | Comment

SKC, please don’t call Jason a “meathead.” This has been a civil discussion so far, so let’s keep it that way. Thanks a lot.

March 13, 2011 @ 9:46 am | Comment

“Your reasoning that CCP will clamp down on all protests despite that some protests are on the line are beneficial to CCP (domestic, foreign policies), is laughable.”
—umm, since when was that my “reasoning”? I’ve never said CCP would clamp down on “all protests”. I said that the CCP will clamp down on protesters who protest against causes that are not approved by the CCP. So when the FLG protest against a newspaper, without CCP approval, the CCP will not take kindly to that sort of display. On the other hand, when people protest against Japan, either with CCP’s tacit approval if not outright encouragement, it serves the CCP’s purpose by playing up nationalistic fervor. Naturally, when it serves CCP purposes, protest is wonderful. So yes, when CCP “agrees” with a protest, it is wonderful. When CCP disagrees with a protest, the protesters get persecuted. But disagreement with a protest need NOT be on a religious basis. If it is politically uncomfortable for the CCP, they will disagree with it…as in the case of the FLG.

You’re using the tried and true CCP apologist method of arguing against something I DIDN’T say. That’s not going to cut it.

“then the reason of jailing people is that CCP doesn’t agree on the protesters’ cons on the increase of prices on eggs.”
—analogies seem to be completely lost on simpletons like you. Remember that the FLG was protesting the critics of their religion, and the jailing of some of the protesters. Were they lying about the existence of such critics, or the occurrence of imprisonment of some protesters? In case you’re still clueless (which I suspect to be the case), “protesters’ cons on increase of price of eggs” would equate to lies about the existence of critics or the jailing of some protesters. Since you’ve brought up the presence of those things yourself, hopefully you will at least have the honesty to stipulate that those are not lies. If that is the case, then the parallel you’ve offered doesn’t fly. The protesters haven’t “lied” about the “price of eggs”, since critics of FLG do exist, and some protesters were jailed. So here’s the question for you again: do they dislike protesters, or do they dislike the price of eggs? If you extracted your head from where it currently resides, that might help you think more clearly.

“That organization is owned by CCP, Einstein.”
—then are you agreeing that “not only is the CCP supposedly the qigong police, but they are also the “qigong standards association”, tasked with monitoring the proper administration of qigong instruction”? Cuz if that’s the case (again, your poor grasp of logic doesn’t allow you to recognize the conundrums that you paint yourself into, which is quite amusing), then “FLG would’ve escaped persecution, and could’ve continued to mount protests as she pleases, whenever, wherever, against whatever issue she saw fit, if only they had gotten some formal training from the CCP on how to teach qigong to FLG practitioners in a CCP-accredited fashion” (as I had already said in #246), right? (oh, and forget about the scenario of FLG somehow dropping their religious component, since, as I told you in #248, that’s a useless circular argument.) From the standpoint of logic (I know, not something you’re familiar with), you can either drop your charade once and for all at this point, or you will have to agree with my last contention in quotations. Not great choices, but such is the life of a CCP apologist.

To Richard:
I’ll retract this statement from #238 without equivocation. (“Now, a meathead like you will then say “well they were banned, so they were breaking the law”.”)

March 13, 2011 @ 6:48 pm | Comment

@But disagreement with a protest need NOT be on a religious basis.

Since when has FLG protested politically (changing the entire CCP rule) before 1999? Certainly not in Tianjin (protested on their critics) and certainly not in Zhongnanhai (protested on the banning of FLG publications, practice freely on their religion, and freeing the jailed leaders of FLG who protested the critics), so where are the political basis on the protest?

You could reason with me that they losing control on their religious policies over the protests but hardly political policies.

@Were they lying about the existence of such critics, or the occurrence of imprisonment of some protesters?

‘Cons’ in pros and cons. So I’m saying that if CCP arrest the protesters who are protesting the price of eggs, then CCP doesn’t agree on the protesters’ position (against position) on how the price of eggs would affect them.

@they had gotten some formal training from the CCP

FLG refused the change after the expose from Guangming Renbao so China Qigong Scientific Research Association revoke FLG’s membership in 1996.

March 14, 2011 @ 10:14 am | Comment

“Since when has FLG protested politically (changing the entire CCP rule) before 1999…. so where are the political basis on the protest?”
—-it never ceases to amaze me, your inability to offer any semblance of a logical argument. We are talking about THE CCP’S DISAGREEMENT with the protest, NOT what the FLG disagreed with that led to them protesting. THe FLG could’ve been protesting anything, even ” the price of eggs”. What the Ccp found disagreeable wasn’t the subject of FLG’s protest ( the price of eggs, or whatever else). What Ccp found disagreeable was their temerity to mount a protest of any sort without Ccp consent, and showing the perceived capacity to mobilize crowds in a fashion that, you guessed it, could possibly one day be used to counter the ” political power of the people’s democratic dictatorship”. In other words, the Ccp was threatened by the FLG’s capacity to mount renegade protests, rather than anything remotely to do with FLG religious beliefs.

” ‘Cons’ in pros and cons. So I’m saying that if CCP arrest the protesters who are protesting the price of eggs, then CCP doesn’t agree on the protesters’ position (against position) on how the price of eggs would affect them.”
—ok, so the Ccp doesn’t agree with the protesters’ position, and they arrest them. But the FLG protesters were NOT protesting about religion. They were protesting about their critics, and the jailing of other protesters. Once again, even by your own logic, FLG religious beliefs had NOTHING to do with the arrests. I’ve lost count of how many times you’ve shot yourself in the foot, and made my point for me without even realizing it. Now, if you had the intellectual capacity, you would ask yourself why Ccp would arrest protesters simply because they disagree with the protesters’ position. The obvious answer is that the mere capacity to protest without Ccp approval is frowned upon, and groups who engage in such activity are to be punished. Why, you ask? Because anything that might threaten ” the political power of the people’s democratic dictatorship” is naturally frowned upon.

“FLG refused the change after the expose from Guangming Renbao so China Qigong Scientific Research Association revoke FLG’s membership in 1996.”
—that’s entirely unresponsive to my point. As i said, By your logic, all they had to do is get recertified in how to teach qigong, then the Ccp would happily let them protest anything they want, whenever they want, wherever they want. You are bound to have to agree with this, if there is any semblance of consistency in your ” logic”. I will reserve my derisive laughter until you have the honesty to admit this. When you do, I will have another hearty laugh at your expense.

March 14, 2011 @ 11:10 am | Comment

@ What Ccp found disagreeable was their temerity to mount a protest of any sort

Even if FLG didn’t protest, they would still be outcast.

@counter the ” political power of the people’s democratic dictatorship”.

Yes, their religious views (their course) of qigong will counter CCP.

@ By your logic, all they had to do is get recertified in how to teach qigong, then the Ccp would happily let them protest anything they want, whenever they want, wherever they want.

Yes and that’s why other qigong groups are not being clamp down and they don’t need to protest since they are free of religious concepts.

March 14, 2011 @ 12:22 pm | Comment

“Even if FLG didn’t protest, they would still be outcast.”
—for the umpteenth time, relevance, for Pete’s sake. We’re not talking about them being “outcasts”, “shunned”, “weird”, or “quacks”. We’re talking about them being persecuted and also targeted for ongoing CCP propaganda. And also for the umpteenth time, as I’ve shown and as you’ve agreed with me without realizing it, that had and has nothing to do with their religious beliefs, and everything to do with their perceived political power, and more importantly still, their perceived threat to the CCP’s political power.

“Yes, their religious views (their course) of qigong will counter CCP.”
—for the umpteenth plus one time, relevance. Perhaps their views of qigong aren’t the same as the CCP. But that was already the case before 1996. The CCP didn’t do anything then. After the crowds and the display of inciting them, that’s when the CCP acted. So whatever disagreement the CCP had with how FLG administered qigong, that wasn’t the reason for the persecution. It was at best an excuse, and a lousy one, though obviously sufficient to fool the easily confused folks like you.

“Yes and that’s why other qigong groups are not being clamp down and they don’t need to protest since they are free of religious concepts.”
—truly absolutely ROFL now! Once again, relevance. THe fact that other groups “don’t need to protest” is irrelevant. What you’ve done here is agreed that those other groups could protest against whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted, wherever they wanted, and they’d be fine to do so simply because they are teaching qigong in a manner approved by the CCP. That is the singularly most ridiculous suggestion I’ve have heard in 3 years of commenting on China blogs. I’m not sure your handlers will be happy with your suggestion, nor necessarily agree with or condone it. You should probably check with them first. And if you truly believe your own suggestion, then I have quite a number of bridges I would like to sell you. And I think a Nigerian prince might soon be emailing you to get your help in transferring millions of dollars overseas, and is willing to share half of it with you. I totally set you up, and you walked right into that one. More easily than I would’ve expected, too. As I’ve said before, you are quite something.

March 14, 2011 @ 12:55 pm | Comment

@everything to do with their perceived political power, and more importantly still, their perceived threat to the CCP’s political power.

Wrong, again. The words “their course” which is a summarization of the sentences before [which is the meat of their argument of why religious sects like Zhong Gong, Falun Gong, Cibei Gong shouldn't exist] (Zhong Gong organization is a kind of feudal secret society or reactionary superstition sect, which takes Qigong as its carrier and such profit-making economic entities, including enterprises, training schools, etc., as a source of income. It is a group of pseudo-science and pseudo-Qigong with reactionary colors and fraudulent acts). That being said, it continues that it must be stopped at all costs because this kind of religious faction on qigong will tamper CCP’s views on qigong and what CCP perception on people’s views.

@After the crowds and the display of inciting them, that’s when the CCP acted.

Zhong Gong, Cebei Gong, and other various qigong sects were being banned and also being persecuted and propagandized before, even without amassing crowds.

@He fact that other groups “don’t need to protest” is irrelevant. What you’ve done here is agreed that those other groups could protest against whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted, wherever they wanted, and they’d be fine to do so simply because they are teaching qigong in a manner approved by the CCP.

Ah, I see it now but my answer would be it depends. If CCP felt that qigong groups are changing to something that CCP don’t like again and some qigong doesn’t fit into their liking, it would be a deja vu.

March 14, 2011 @ 1:50 pm | Comment

“That being said, it continues that it must be stopped at all costs because this kind of religious faction on qigong will tamper CCP’s views on qigong and what CCP perception on people’s views.”
—-listen, you can continue to misconstrue what the Ccp said all you want. But what they said was ” the political power of the people’s democratic dictatorship may be further harmed “. There is no ” Ccp views on qigong”. There is no ” Ccp perception on people’s views”. They said what they said, and the CCP’S motivation is clear as the light of day. That you would try to ” interpret” what they said in your bizarre way is pathetic, and futile. If the Ccp wanted to say what you hoped they had said, they would have said it that way. Too bad for you that the CCP’S own words blow your ” argument” out of the water. And I take great pleasure in reminding you of this every time. The fact that you are the one who brought up the damning quote just makes it all the more hilarious.

“Zhong Gong, Cebei Gong, and other various qigong sects were being banned and also being persecuted and propagandized before, even without amassing crowds.”
—they were banned, sure. But persecuted and subject to propaganda? Not a chance. Certainly not in the way FLG was targeted.

“Ah, I see it now but my answer would be it depends. If CCP felt that qigong groups are changing to something that CCP don’t like again and some qigong doesn’t fit into their liking, it would be a deja vu.”
—-ummm, no it doesn’t. What you stipulated was that, if groups teach qigong the Ccp way they can protest to their heart’s content. There is no ” it depends”. If qigong teaching methods is the only criterion for Ccp approval, as long as groups teach qigong the ” right way”, everything else must be ok, including protesting as they please. If there is some other criteria for ” something that Ccp don’t like”, then clearly qigong teaching methods would not be the only criterion for approval. But you already said it is. Sadly, you can’t have it both ways. It looks like you’re trying to back peddle from your crazy assertion…and really, who can blame you? I wouldn’t want to be stuck arguing your position either. But that’s the position you chose, and you reap what you sow. And it is an extremely hilarious thing to watch.

Besides, let’s take your new logic for a moment. If Ccp can dislike a group even though they’re teaching qigong the right way, then clearly there re other factors that determine if a group is liked by the Ccp or not. For instance, their desire and ability to mount protests come to mind. Or their potential to disturb or challenge the political power of the people’s democratic dictatorship also might seem like a metric of interest to the Ccp. Let’s face it, from a logic standpoint, you’re screwed. Thanks for the laughs.

March 14, 2011 @ 2:24 pm | Comment

@ But what they said was ” the political power of the people’s democratic dictatorship may be further harmed “. There is no ” Ccp views on qigong”. There is no ” Ccp perception on people’s views”.

That is not what they said. CCP views on qigong is what “run it’s own (sect’s) course” means. So what is the sect’s course? Looking at the previous sentences, the answer would be “a group of pseudo-science and pseudo-Qigong with reactionary colors and fraudulent acts.” If the previous sentence provide of why qigong sects makes them politically squeamish rather than squeamish about religious factors in qigong, then you have a valid point.

@ If Ccp can dislike a group even though they’re teaching qigong the right way, then clearly there re other factors that determine if a group is liked by the Ccp or not. For instance, their desire and ability to mount protests come to mind.

It depends on what the context of the protest is.

@But persecuted and subject to propaganda?

Same propaganda: “triad of Qigong, religion and contemporary enterprises”; “a new religion”. (1993)

group of pseudo-science and pseudo-Qigong with reactionary colors and fraudulent acts. (1997)

Same persecution: More than 3000 organizations were banned by force; business certificates confiscated; disciples dispersed; staff members beaten and arrested after Lishui County People’s Government issued an Announcement Banning Zhong Gong’s Qigong Activities on Apr 14, 1999. (that’s 11 days before April 25th where FLG protested in Tianjin.)

March 15, 2011 @ 1:48 am | Comment

“That is not what they said.”
—dude, I’m taking a direct quote, directly from their own statement. You’re the one who’s making all the bizarre interpretations of what they actually said, in order to try to shoe-horn it to fit your ridiculous argument.

“So what is the sect’s course? Looking at the previous sentences, the answer would be “a group of pseudo-science and pseudo-Qigong with reactionary colors and fraudulent acts.””
—again, basic English, man. The descriptions about pseudo this-and-that are what the CCP thinks they are; it is not “their course”.

“If the previous sentence provide of why qigong sects makes them politically squeamish rather than squeamish about religious factors in qigong, then you have a valid point.”
—yet again, basic English. After all their pseudo this-and-that, their thinking CULMINATES in the statement that follows: “the political power of people’s democratic dictatorship may further be harmed”. So regardless of what their actual beef is with the FLG, the reason they are concerned is because of a possible threat to their POLITICAL POWER. Therefore, any act they undertake to protect and safeguard their political power is by definition motivated politically. Simple as that.

“It depends on what the context of the protest is.”
—wrong. You had stipulated earlier that, as long as they teach qigong the CCP way, they can do whatever they want, and protest whatever they want. That was incredibly stupid of you to stipulate to that, but you did, and now you find yourself in a bit of a logical mess. That should not surprise you, since you have no grasp of logic to begin with.

“Same propaganda: “triad of Qigong, religion and contemporary enterprises”; “a new religion”.”
—that’s just a generic labelling of all qigong religions. I’m talking specific targeting against the FLG, which the others have yet to experience. Not surprising, since the others did not pose the perceived political threat as the FLG did.

“Same persecution: More than 3000 organizations were banned by force”
—we already agreed they were all banned. It’s the other stuff for which there is no parallel. You can keep talking “banned” all you want, and I’ll happily keep reminding you that that is not the relevant metric. Relevance. Logic. Some pretty significant shortcomings you have. Time to head back to the training center, it would appear.

March 15, 2011 @ 2:22 am | Comment

@—dude, I’m taking a direct quote

You are taking a direct quote but you are not taking consideration of the before sentences that answers to what “run it’s own course” is, hence that “political power of people’s democratic dictatorship” meant that CCP’s views of qigong will be harmed and not be forced.

@The descriptions about pseudo this-and-that are what the CCP thinks they are; it is not “their course”.

“Their course” is summarization of the before sentences. If the description says “Zhong Gong is” and the sentence is in a different paragraph, then you have a valid point.

@you had stipulated earlier that, as long as they teach qigong the CCP way, they can do whatever they want, and protest whatever they want.

I didn’t stipulate anything. I took this “if statement” and put in the past. In 1999, there was no protest from qigong groups that CCP views them as un-cult-like.

Since you clarified your statement of what if qigong group(s) were to protest no matter what in the future, then what and what, then I changed my point from your clarification.

@. I’m talking specific targeting against the FLG, which the others have yet to experience.

FLG is one of the category that CCP put in as “fake qigong.” Zhong Gong has been harshly propagandized by CCP than FLG before 1999. CCP hardly backtracked on the criticisms of Zhong Gong but did so against FLG when they sacked it’s reporter of interviewing a critic.

@we already agreed they were all banned. It’s the other stuff for which there is no parallel.

I did say others were beaten and detained.

March 15, 2011 @ 5:35 am | Comment

“hence that “political power of people’s democratic dictatorship” meant that CCP’s views of qigong will be harmed and not be forced.”
—in what schizophrenic world does “political power” equate to “views of qigong”? That is beyond crazy…in fact, it is just as crazy as FLG religious ideas are. I guess CCP apologists don’t mind sounding crazy just to salvage their ‘argument’.

““Their course” is summarization of the before sentences.”
—you need to go back to English as a Second Language school, buddy. “run its own course” was not, is not, and will never be, a phrase used for the purposes of “summarization”. You are literally trying to reinvent the English language just so the CCP words fit your bizarre theory. And it’s not working very well, for the myriad reasons I have repeatedly pointed out to you.

“I didn’t stipulate anything.”
—do you know what ‘stipulate’ means? Check this out:
“By your logic, all they had to do is get recertified in how to teach qigong, then the Ccp would happily let them protest anything they want, whenever they want, wherever they want.” (SKC #254)
“Yes and …” (you in #255).
See, typing on a blog can be a bitch. You can’t just turn around and deny what you said when it’s in black and white. Of course, that doesn’t stop principled folks like you from trying. Ahh, CCP apologist, such a noble profession.

“there was no protest from qigong groups that CCP views them as un-cult-like.”
—irrelevant, as I explained several times earlier. It seems you folks don’t read, can’t understand what you read, or simply ignore the things that you read when it doesn’t fit your predetermined narrative.

“then I changed my point from your clarification.”
—and your “new” point is still logically meaningless, as i again explained earlier. If CCP certified qigong groups CAN’T freely protest despite having qigong certification, then clearly “protest” and “qigong” are treated separately by the CCP. If they are treated separately, then clamping down on protest is SEPARATE from any CCP distaste for qigong practice. So the CCP crackdown on FLG was on her protest activities, and need not have anything to do with their qigong/religious practice, as I have said all along. The sound you hear is the swooshing sound of your argument as it is flushed down the drain.

“FLG is one of the category that CCP put in as “fake qigong.” ”
—sure. But their treatment has been uniquely different from the treatment to other fake qigong organizations. And the reason is because they were more effective at mobilizing the masses.

“I did say others were beaten and detained.”
—here and there, sure. But nothing as systematic as employed against FLG, which is what i’ve been saying all along.

March 15, 2011 @ 6:35 am | Comment

@—in what schizophrenic world does “political power” equate to “views of qigong”? That is beyond crazy…in fact, it is just as crazy as FLG religious ideas are. I guess CCP apologists don’t mind sounding crazy just to salvage their ‘argument’.

I made no such claims. I did NOT state that “political power” alone meant “CCP views of qigong.” I pointed out what is harmful to their views which is “a group of pseudo-science and pseudo-Qigong with reactionary colors and fraudulent acts” (summarized to the words “run it’s course”).

@run its own course” was not, is not, and will never be, a phrase used for the purposes of “summarization”.

In this context, it is. What makes Zhong Gong continue through its cycle of existence? The before sentence answer that with pseudo-science and pseudo-Qigong with reactionary colors and fraudulent acts. The whole paragraph is connected with the idea of a qigong threat but never a new idea of political threat being pointed out. They are all parallel to each other, nothing else.

@But their treatment has been uniquely different from the treatment to other fake qigong organizations. And the reason is because they were more effective at mobilizing the masses.

As I stated, the “fake qigong” rhetorics has always been the staple attack on qigong sects that were not approve by the State. There’s no extra ‘umphs’ rhetoric on FLG whatsoever in 1993-1999.

@”nothing as systematic”

Gave me specifics. This is too vague.

@irrelevant, as I explained several times each…

Actually it is relevant. The fact that certified qigong groups didn’t protest after 1996 but non-certified like FLG did makes the protest religious rather than political.

@If CCP certified qigong groups CAN’T freely protest despite having qigong certification, then clearly “protest” and “qigong” are treated separately by the CCP.

You can’t say that protest anything makes CCP squimish. There’s many instances that protests which made CCP change it’s policies without any arrests made. FLG protested about CCP’s disapproval of their religion, a context that CCP made it clear that they want to get rid all qigong sects which made clear that “protest” and “fake qigong” were treated equally.

March 15, 2011 @ 11:16 am | Comment

“I did NOT state that “political power” alone meant “CCP views of qigong.”
—let’s go to the tape, shall we?
“hence that “political power of people’s democratic dictatorship” meant that CCP’s views of qigong will be harmed and not be forced.” (you, in #261). Can we equate “people’s democratic dictatorship” to “CCP”? So the first phrase equates to “CCP’s political power”. So then what you’re saying is ” “CCP’s political power” meant that CCP’s views of qigong etc etc”. Therefore, “political power” = “views of qigong”. You didn’t STATE it, and I never said you did; but that’s where your crazy logic leads…to a crazy schizophrenic statement. You’re not claiming it, because your grasp of logic is so weak that you didn’t even realize it. I’m telling you that’s where your logic leads you, and your logic is crazy.

“I pointed out what is harmful to their views which is “a group of pseudo-science and pseudo-Qigong with reactionary colors and fraudulent acts”
—and if that’s the case, then you’ve completely ignored “the political power of the people’s democratic dictatorship”. You can’t ignore that, however, because that precisely tells you the political motivation for the CCP doing what she did to the FLG.

“They are all parallel to each other, nothing else.”
—then you tell me how a “parallel” is supposed to serve as a “summarization”. Like I said, you need to go back to ESL class. It shouldn’t surprise me that someone with as poor a grasp of the English language would misunderstand a simple statement of the CCP, as you have obviously tried to do here.

“but never a new idea of political threat being pointed out.”
—ummm, that’s precisely what this is: “the public order will be jeopardized AND the political power of people’s democratic dictatorship may further be harmed.” How much more clearly do you need a “political threat being pointed out” than the CCP saying her “political power…may further be harmed”? Like I said, you can dance all you want, misread and misunderstand all you want, make up stuff all you want, but at the end of the day, the CCP’s intent is spelled out in black and white, straight from the horse’s mouth. Tough to get away from that…though you should be credited for trying…with hilarious results.

“There’s no extra ‘umphs’ rhetoric on FLG whatsoever in 1993-1999.”
—we’re not just talking about “rhetoric”. And we’re also not just talking about pre 1999. Those, as I’ve said before, would be where the differences reside.

“The fact that certified qigong groups didn’t protest after 1996 but non-certified like FLG did makes the protest religious rather than political.”
—that’s ridiculous. Here are 2 reasons why: 1. Their protests were NOT religious. They were not protesting to regain qigong certification or something ridiculous like that. They were protesting against their critics, and for the release of imprisoned members. That is not a protest about religion; 2. your whole point is irrelevant yet again, as I’ve already pointed out. Why the FLG was protesting is inconsequential, and irrelevant. The point is why the CCP cracked down on them. THe CCP cracked down on them because of the protest…AND the protest was not about FLG as a religion. At no point have you established any religious basis for the CCP cracking down on the FLG. On the other hand, the CCP has in their own words told you that the reason was political. Yet again, end of story. But you are either too dense, too slow, or too indoctrinated in your CCP apologist role to grasp those concepts.

“There’s many instances that protests which made CCP change it’s policies without any arrests made.”
—as I’ve also said before, sure there are some protests the CCP will condone…when it suits her. Obviously, something about the way the FLG staged their protests didn’t suit the CCP, which is why she clamped down on FLG the way she did. FLG wasn’t protesting CCP disapproval; she was protesting her vocal critics.

And here, we come upon yet another of your logical fallacies. For one guy, you have a lot of logical fallacies. You’re saying: ““protest” and “FAKE qigong” were treated equally.” That’s fine. But earlier, you said that, even with CCP certified qigong groups, when it came to protest, “it depends”. Which is why I already said: “If CCP certified qigong groups CAN’T freely protest despite having qigong certification, then clearly “protest” and “qigong” are treated separately by the CCP.” You never addressed this.

Here’s the other thing: if “protest” and “fake qigong” are treated equally, and FLG had been “fake qigong” for some time, why did the CCP not crack down on her when she was simply “fake qigong”, but waited until the “protest” to unleash the assault? Simple. Because FLG was just “fake qigong”, she wasn’t seen as a political threat. But after the “protest”, she was seen as a political threat, and dealt with accordingly.

March 15, 2011 @ 1:23 pm | Comment

Let’s review again:

(It was also mentioned in the document that “In consideration of the fact that Zhong Gong organization is a kind of feudal secret society or reactionary superstition sect, which takes Qigong as its carrier and such profit-making economic entities, including enterprises, training schools, etc., as a source of income. It is a group of pseudo-science and pseudo-Qigong with reactionary colors and fraudulent acts.) If we let it run its own course, the public order will be jeopardized and the political power of people’s democratic dictatorship may further be harmed.

“run its own course”= So what makes Zhong Gong continue through its cycle of existence? = Their pseudo-science and pseudo-Qigong with reactionary colors and fraudulent acts.

“public order” = CCP’s perception of their citizen’s views of what are shared norms, social values, and customs. But how it would be jeopardized? Pseudo-science and pseudo-Qigong

“the political power of people’s democratic dictatorship”=CCP But how it would be harmed? pseudo-science and pseudo-Qigong

@And we’re also not just talking about pre 1999.

Why not?

@Their protests were NOT religious. They were protesting against their critics, and for the release of imprisoned members.//she was protesting her vocal critics.

Just to make sure, they were protesting against their critics in 1996, 1998 (demonstration in front of newspaper companies and media, I believe there were 4-5 times that FLG did that) and 1999 (not the protest around Zhongnanhai)- all these which CCP didn’t ban the entire religion. But in Zhongnanhai, they protested the release of imprisoned members as well as a place to “cultivate” and as well as to print FLG publications in 1999. The last two weren’t viewed favorably since they are challenging the quasi-qigong views of CCP that were laid out 1996-1997.

@why did the CCP not crack down on her when she was simply “fake qigong”, but waited until the “protest” to unleash the assault?

See above.

March 16, 2011 @ 2:24 pm | Comment

““the political power of people’s democratic dictatorship”=CCP But how it would be harmed?”
—once again, your comprehension of basic English blows chunks. Let’s even go with your assumptions, and still show that your argument is ridiculous. How will “it” be harmed (where “it”=CCP=”political power of people’s democratic dictatorship”)? Let’s even stipulate that it is due to pseudo this-and-that. Why would CCP care? Guesses, anyone? Oh, that’s right…because “it” will be the one that is harmed (where, once again, “it”=CCP= political power). So WHY did CCP have to clamp down on FLG? Because of “it”. So yet again, the REASON WHY CCP cares is because of the threat to her political power. One wonders where your problems lie that prevent you from grasping such a basic concept even when it has been explained so thoroughly and repeatedly. But CCP apologist reflexes die hard, evidently.

“Why not? ”
—because I said so. Stupid question. I couldn’t give a flying fig what you’re talking about, since you don’t know what you’re talking about anyway.

“they protested the release of imprisoned members as well as a place to “cultivate” and as well as to print FLG publications in 1999.”
—what the heck does “cultivate” mean in this case? So you’re saying that they protested for release of prisoners, “cultivate”, and a place for a print shop, and from that, the “cultivate” and the print shop requests were the things that caused the CCP to go from NOT persecuting them to persecuting them? How silly/ridiculous/gullible are you? Even as an excuse for the CCP’s actions, that is lame. To offer that as the real reason for their actions, even more so.

“See above.”
—yeah right. THe CCP is ok with all kinds of protests even by groups she doesn’t approve of, but when such groups ask for a place to “cultivate” and start a print shop, that’s when they come down with the persecution and ongoing propaganda assault lasting more than 10 years. And if you believe that, then I’ve got some bridges I would like to sell you. You seem like just the kind of guy who would buy them too, your perception of reality being what it is.

March 17, 2011 @ 3:39 am | Comment

@So WHY did CCP have to clamp down on FLG? Because of “it”.

You are still saying CCP (political power of people’s democratic dictatorship) is threatened by Pseudo-science and pseudo-Qigong.

CCP clamp down on FLG because of CCP (political power of people’s democratic dictatorship) which doesn’t even make sense.

@—because I said so. Stupid question. I couldn’t give a flying fig what you’re talking about, since you don’t know what you’re talking about anyway.

Since we already discuss the post-1999 propaganda due to FLG popularity overseas and the soft power they got, I don’t see how is it relevant to other banned qigong sects that doesn’t have that power.You need a chill pill.

@—what the heck does “cultivate” mean in this case?

Go look it up. hint: it’s associated with qigong. Since CCP associated FLG as “fake qigong” they are not allowed to cultivate.

@”excuse”

If it is an excuse, CCP would not drawn out outlines of how to deal with these types of qigong 3 years ago from 1999

March 18, 2011 @ 2:26 am | Comment

@Jason
political power of people’s democratic dictatorship

It’s amazing that at this age, there are still morons who buy this kind of crap.

March 18, 2011 @ 2:37 am | Comment

@Jason
Since CCP associated FLG as “fake qigong” they are not allowed to cultivate.

There are zillion of fake things in China that if CCP banned them on that basis, the country will stand still.

March 18, 2011 @ 2:39 am | Comment

“You are still saying CCP (political power of people’s democratic dictatorship) is threatened by Pseudo-science and pseudo-Qigong.”
—that is not what I said, nor have I ever even suggested it. I don’t know IF, or WHY, the CCP may be threatened by pseudo this-and-that. It may simply be your feverish imagination. What I did say was that, REGARDLESS of what they felt threatened by, THE REASON WHY they acted against FLG was for preserving the “political power of people’s democratic dictatorship”. At some point, you will need to start processing the English language as it was intended to be processed. Cuz whatever you’re doing right now isn’t it.

“CCP clamp down on FLG because of CCP (political power of people’s democratic dictatorship) which doesn’t even make sense.”
—please don’t attribute your atrociously crappy English to me. Your statement doesn’t make sense. Not surprisingly, my statement differs from yours in important aspects. Try this:
“CCP clamp down on FLG because CCP (political power of people’s democratic dictatorship) felt threatened/ felt that she may be harmed if she didn’t”. You might want to compare to the words from the horse’s mouth to find similarities: ” the political power of people’s democratic dictatorship may further be harmed” (from your famous #231). You see, what I’m saying is just what the CCP said herself. As for what you’re trying pathetically to argue, who knows where you’re getting that garbage from. You should check with your handlers.

“Since we already discuss the post-1999 propaganda due to FLG popularity overseas and the soft power they got”
—umm, that’s your hallucinogen-afflicted mind talking. The FLG got foreign media interest BECAUSE of the CCP crackdown. THe CCP did not crackdown because of foreign media interest. As I said previously, you’ve got it ass-backwards. The ongoing propaganda is relevant as it further and continues to distinguish FLG treatment from that of other banned religions, once again owing to the fact that FLG had the temerity to stage protests and pose a political threat, whereas the others didn’t.

“Since CCP associated FLG as “fake qigong” they are not allowed to cultivate.”
—you still haven’t answered the question. Is your English so lousy that you think you’ve answered a simple question when you haven’t? Define “cultivate” (and not just from a dictionary; what do you mean in this context?). Oh, and btw, CCP associated FLG with “fake qigong” before the protests. So an organtization of fake qigong is OK, but a call to “cultivate” is supposed to serve as the trigger for suddenly persecuting it? As usual, your logic and common sense is ridiculously lacking.

“CCP would not drawn out outlines of how to deal with these types of qigong 3 years ago from 1999″
—oh, so they had a plan in place. So what triggered them to put the plan into action? Oh, that’s right, an EXCUSE. Which is what I said in #266. Your “arguments”, for what they’re worth, end up agreeing with my points moreso than yours. You’re a funny guy. I’m going to go and draw up some contracts for those bridges you’ll obviously be wanting to buy from me shortly.

March 18, 2011 @ 4:29 am | Comment

@THE REASON WHY they acted against FLG was for preserving the “political power of people’s democratic dictatorship”.

No, the reason why the subject (CCP, “they”, and political power of people’s democratic dictatorship) is against FLG is Pseudo-science and pseudo-Qigong.

“run its own course”= So what makes Zhong Gong continue through its cycle of existence? = Their pseudo-science and pseudo-Qigong with reactionary colors and fraudulent acts.

@The FLG got foreign media interest BECAUSE of the CCP crackdown.

If other cults who were banned by not protesting and they have their divisions in other place of the world, they would have foreign media interest.

@Oh, and btw, CCP associated FLG with “fake qigong” before the protests. So an organization of fake qigong is OK, but a call to “cultivate” is supposed to serve as the trigger for suddenly persecuting it?

You meant “not ok.” A call to cultivate qigong (also the religious part as well) from a group, that is being associated with “fake qigong,” was challenging the CCP’s views on qigong hence the distaste of the protesters of that context.

@So what triggered them to put the plan into action? Oh, that’s right, an EXCUSE.

The fact FLG protested against media such as TV; newspapers, etc didn’t warrant an entire ban on FLG speaks volumes when they protested and challenged CCP’s views on qigong by calling for cultivation of their OWN (quasi-religious) qigong cultivation and also to print FLG publications.

March 19, 2011 @ 5:41 am | Comment

“No, the reason why the subject (CCP, “they”, and political power of people’s democratic dictatorship) is against FLG is Pseudo-science and pseudo-Qigong.”
—where do you acquire such an incredible inability to read. I didn’t say “why they are against FLG”. I said THE REASON WHY THEY ACTED. Who knows and who cares why they are ‘against’ them. But the CCP statement speaks to the bottom line: CCP political power might be harmed, CONSEQUENTLY the FLG is to be cracked down upon. For once, try reading.

“If other cults who were banned by not protesting and they have their divisions in other place of the world, they would have foreign media interest.”
—says you. But we already know that you know not of what you speak, and can’t understand basic English. What we do know is that all those other sects you speak of do not have nearly the same foreign media coverage, and that’s because they haven’t been cracked down upon like the FLG have.

“You meant “not ok.” ”
—wrong again. The point was that the CCP already labelled them as “fake qigong”, yet did nothing. But you would have us believe that when FLG asked to “cultivate”, that’s what unleashed the crackdown. It goes to show the ridiculous nature of your argument.

“challenging the CCP’s views on qigong hence the distaste of the protesters of that context.”
—and the CCP is supposed to act on her views of qigong moreso than her views of unsanctioned protesters in general, or of her views on protesters calling for the release of political prisoners? That would be an excellent joke, if you were trying to be funny. What makes that even more hilarious is that you’re trying to be serious.

“The fact FLG protested against media such as TV; newspapers, etc didn’t warrant an entire ban on FLG speaks volumes when they protested and challenged CCP’s views on qigong by calling for cultivation of their OWN (quasi-religious) qigong cultivation and also to print FLG publications.”
—again, this might explain what pissed off the CCP. But ultimately, WHY did the CCP act when she did, and not before? Oh, that’s right, because “the public order will be jeopardized and the political power of people’s democratic dictatorship may further be harmed.” Regardless of what EXCUSE the CCP would like gullible people like you to believe, the REASON she acted was entirely POLITICAL…and she said so herself. I really must thank you for posting that quote. It makes most of what you say irrelevant, not that they weren’t irrelevant prior to that. And yet you’re still trying. Your handlers must be so proud.

March 19, 2011 @ 6:38 am | Comment

@Who knows and who cares why they are ‘against’ them.

I care and for those people who are curious why CCP are against FLG due to their distaste of how qigong has becsme over the years.

@But the CCP statement speaks to the bottom line: CCP political power might be harmed, CONSEQUENTLY the FLG is to be cracked down upon. For once, try reading.

The actual statement is: CCP might be harmed by Pseudo-science and pseudo-Qigong because they challenge CCP views on qigong.

@What we do know is that all those other sects you speak of do not have nearly the same foreign media coverage, and that’s because they haven’t been cracked down upon like the FLG have.

What we also know is Zhong Gong and Cebei Gong doesn’t have divisions in other place of the world and if they protest or not protest in this context, they would not have the same foreign media coverage that FLG had received who has other divisions in the world.

@—wrong again. The point was that the CCP already labelled them as “fake qigong”, yet did nothing. But you would have us believe that when FLG asked to “cultivate”, that’s what unleashed the crackdown. It goes to show the ridiculous nature of your argument.

CCP actually did a quite of number of things by kicking FLG out of China Qigong Scientific Research Association in 1996 and arresting FLG leaders of teaching their own quas- religious qigong to people. So when practitioners calls for CCP to regain their practices, CCP felt that the practitioners was threatening their own views hence the crackdown. Whereas when FLG protested against critics from media to individuals, they were not being crackdown entirely.

@—and the CCP is supposed to act on her views of qigong moreso than her views of unsanctioned protesters in genera

The 4-5 “unsanctioned” protests in 1998 and 1999 (pre-Zhongnanhai) against the media and the critics, CCP didn’t crackdown entirely on FLG.

But when “unsanctioned” protest against CCP views on qigong in Zhongnanhai, CCP crackdown entirely on FLG.

The “context” of the protest distinguished when CCP acted not the “unsanctioned” protest.

@But ultimately, WHY did the CCP act when she did, and not before? Oh, that’s right, because “the public order will be jeopardized and the political power of people’s democratic dictatorship may further be harmed.”

The context, the context, the context of the protest.

@I really must thank you for posting that quote. It makes most of what you say irrelevant, not that they weren’t irrelevant prior to that.

Ha. The quote strengthens my argument that it was religious and obliterate your argument of being political by a mile.

March 20, 2011 @ 3:00 am | Comment

“I care…”
—who cares about that? And once again, it’s irrelevant anyway. We’re talking about THE REASON WHY the CCP cracked down on FLG. We’re not talking about what you may or may not “care” about.

“The actual statement is…”
—it is ridiculous that you would even be desperate enough to try to assert this. Here is the statement, straight from the horse’s mouth, about which there can be no dispute (from your #231 again): “If we let it run its own course, the public order will be jeopardized and the political power of people’s democratic dictatorship may further be harmed.” THat is the ACTUAL statement. Your’s is just your crazy misinterpretation of a simple English sentence. That your point can only be supported using crazy English speaks volumes about your “point”.

“What we also know is Zhong Gong and Cebei Gong doesn’t have divisions in other place of the world”
—that may be true. So, common sense question: do “foreign media” focus on FLG merely because they have representation in foreign countries? Or because of CCP persecution and ongoing propaganda against FLG. The common sense answer is simple. But I recognize you’re not endowed with much common sense.

“CCP actually did a quite of number of things by kicking FLG out of China Qigong Scientific Research Association in 1996″
—wow, scary stuff…

“Whereas when FLG protested against critics from media to individuals, they were not being crackdown entirely. ”
—”not being crackdown entirely”. Nice euphemism. The CCP was just kinda sorta cracking down on them before…but it was just for fun at that time. Only when they asked to “cultivate” and open a print shop did the need suddenly arise to crack down on them full on, big time. Like I said, if you believe that, I’ve got some bridges you can buy.

“The context, the context, the context of the protest.”
—what was threatened? What was threatened? Well, according to the CCP’s own words, “the political power of the people’s democratic dictatorship”, that’s what.

“The quote strengthens my argument…”
—if you actually believed that, you really need to go back to ESL. The CCP should really hire someone who is more fluent in English if they’re going to hang around English language blogs.

March 20, 2011 @ 3:39 am | Comment

@We’re talking about THE REASON WHY the CCP cracked down on FLG. We’re not talking about what you may or may not “care” about.

Again the reason why the political power of people’s democratic dictatorship (aka CCP) will be harmed is Pseudo-science and pseudo-Qigong from that group.

@THat is the ACTUAL statement.

No doubt about that. But what you failed to do again is not acknowledging what “If we let it run its own course…” means. So what makes Zhong Gong continue through its cycle of existence? = Their pseudo-science and pseudo-Qigong with reactionary colors and fraudulent acts.

So “if we let Zhong Gong (it) run it’s (course: pseudo-science and pseudo-Qigong with reactionary colors and fraudulent acts), the public order will be jeopardized and the political power of people’s democratic dictatorship may further be harmed.

@do “foreign media” focus on FLG merely because they have representation in foreign countries? Or because of CCP persecution and ongoing propaganda against FLG.

Have you ever heard a term “word of mouth?”- that’s where the foreign media get FLG persecution from. If Cibei Gong and Zhong Gong had divisions outside of the world, they would also had a word of mouth on their own persecutions (even though they did not protest) which will then get picked up by the foreign media. That’s why Zhong Gong and Cebei Gong coverage from the foreign media is minuscule.

@what was threatened? What was threatened? Well, according to the CCP’s own words, “the political power of the people’s democratic dictatorship”, that’s what.

Finally you got it. If you said why, I disagree.

@The CCP was just kinda sorta cracking down on them before…but it was just for fun at that time. Only when they asked to “cultivate” and open a print shop did the need suddenly arise to crack down on them full on, big time.

Before Zhongnanhai protest, CCP put FLG leaders in jail and had a restricted policy on banning on publications (which CCP would think that it was a strategy to extinguish FLG) but lax on most practitioners even though they protested against the critics and media who are critical of FLG) without knowing that there will be dissent which lead to Zhongnanhai protest of “that” nature. That is when CCP lead to the large crackdown on the dissent because it was the first time that the protests out of 6 were challenging CCP views on qigong and not just critics and media who were vocal on FLG.

March 21, 2011 @ 5:18 am | Comment

“Again the reason why the political power of people’s democratic dictatorship (aka CCP) will be harmed is Pseudo-science and pseudo-Qigong from that group.”
—sure. And THE REASON WHY the CCP had to act is to preserve “the political power”. They said: “…the political power of people’s democratic dictatorship will be harmed. CONSEQUENTLY…”, they had to take them down. The crack-down occurs as a CONSEQUNCE of this threat to their political power. Therefore, if there was NO threat to their political power, they wouldn’t have needed to act. Therefore, they acted BECAUSE of this threat to their political power. And once again, that answers the question. How many ways do you need it said before it permeates your thick skull?

“If we let it run its own course…” means.”
—it could mean many things. It could mean “if we let these people gather popular momentum so that they are in a position to wield people power against the CCP”. But’s let’s say it means what you say it means. All it does is serve as an excuse for the CCP to act in preservation of their political power, which is their ultimate and bottom-line motivation. Always is, always has been. And “public order” is just the CCP way of saying unsanctioned protests.

““word of mouth?”
—what does that have to do with anything? Just because there is “word of mouth” doesn’t make something worth covering, as far as media is concerned. Ahhh, but throw in some CCP persecution and propaganda, and now you’re talking. Yours is a ridiculous suggestion…and you’re full of those.

“it was the first time that the protests out of 6 were challenging CCP views on qigong and not just critics and media who were vocal on FLG.”
—they protested for the release of those earlier prisoners, for a print shop, and to “cultivate”. So the CCP decides to launch a full-on crackdown, + a 12 year long ongoing propaganda campaign, because a bunch of people disagree with them on “qigong”? Like I said, how gullible are you? Try this. The CCP “allowed” several protests without “fully cracking down”, hoping that these poor sops would learn. But they kept coming back and protesting. Now they were asking for release of political prisoners, which we all know is a no-no. And the CCp saw that minor punishment was not adequately deterring these people. And she feared that ongoing growth of these protests might disturb her “public order” and harm her “political power”. So she decided to throw down the hammer. That would be the common sense answer. Yours would be the answer distributed to the more gullible folks.

March 21, 2011 @ 5:57 am | Comment

Again the reason why the political power of people’s democratic dictatorship (aka CCP) will be harmed is Pseudo-science and pseudo-Qigong from that group.

Totally, 100 percent false. I can’t believe we’re approaching 300 comments and still haven’t got past square one. The CCP could give a flying f*ck about people practicing pseudo-qigong. It only cares this much when it’s power is threatened. Period, full stop end of discussion. They only got this flood of compassion toward pseudo-qigong practitioners after they proved they could assemble the masses overnight. Period. And that is a fact.

March 21, 2011 @ 6:24 am | Comment

#THE REASON WHY the CCP had to act is to preserve “the political power”. //CCP to act in preservation of their political power,

No. CCP is the political power of people’s democratic dictatorship. You can’t use it twice. The what is being harmed? CCP or political power of people’s democratic dictatorship. The why is being harmed? Pseudo-science and pseudo-Qigong

@—it could mean many things.

It has one meaning only. The before sentences answer all that.

@And “public order” is just the CCP way of saying unsanctioned protests.

Jeopardized the public order in an authoritarian state means the public will hold contrary views of norms, social values, and customs from the State.

So why will public order be jeopardized? Because of pseudo-science and pseudo-qigong from the state.

@Just because there is “word of mouth” doesn’t make something worth covering, as far as media is concerned.

Yes it does. If Zhong Gong and Cebei Gong had oversea divisions, they would have word of mouth on their own persecution and propagandized by the CCP from their non-protest.

@Now they were asking for release of political prisoners, which we all know is a no-no.

They were RELIGIOUS prisoners. None of the protesters arrested were challenging CCP political system.

@And she feared that ongoing growth of these protests might disturb her “public order” and harm her “political power”.

It’s nothing about “growth.” It’s about the context of the protest (protest against critics and media v protest against the State position of qigong without religious overtones) that distinguish the approach (soft line v hard line) of the crackdowns.

March 22, 2011 @ 8:04 am | Comment

“No. CCP is the political power of people’s democratic dictatorship. You can’t use it twice. The what is being harmed? CCP or political power of people’s democratic dictatorship.”
—again, what is your problem with English? Can the CCP not find someone with a slightly better grasp of the language than you to do their bidding?
Absolutely, the “CCP” is synonymous with “the political power of people’s democratic dictatorship”. So when you ask “what is being harmed?”, the answer is NOT “CCP” OR “political power of people’s democratic dictatorship”, since you already acknowledged that they are the same thing about 3 seconds earlier.

Hence ergo therefore, when I say “THE REASON WHY the CCP had to act is to preserve “the political power””, you can correctly infer that the REASON WHY the CCP had to act is to preserve ITSELF. And that would be synonymous with what I’ve been saying all along. The CCP does whatever is required for its own self-interest, first and foremost. Always have, always will. Once again, your “point” simply reinforces mine. You’re not very good at much, but you’re pretty good at making my points for me (without realizing it, of course).

“It has one meaning only.”
—to you, perhaps. But we already know your grasp of English blows, and you lack logic and common sense. So I wouldn’t take your “meaning” to the bank by any stretch.

“So why will public order be jeopardized? Because of pseudo-science and pseudo-qigong from the state.”
—and why will the CCP care? Oh, that’s right, because the CCP/”political power of the people’s democratic dictatorship” will be harmed. Back to square one again for you, as Richard says.

“word of mouth on their own persecution and propagandized by the CCP from their non-protest.”
—That’s laughable, especially in this day and age. You don’t need to be situated in a “foreign land” to have “word of mouth”, even if one subscribes to your ridiculous theory. Listen, those sects didn’t spread overseas, AND they weren’t persecuted or propagandized against nearly to the extent of FLG. So you can suggest that the reason for their lack of foreign coverage is one or the other, or both. From a logic standpoint, any of the three would work. From a common sense standpoint, your position is for wingnuts.

“They were RELIGIOUS prisoners. None of the protesters arrested were challenging CCP political system.”
—hey, what is the CCP track record for dealing with protesters who want the release of NON-RELIGIOUS protesters? Do you think the CCP only takes a dim view of people protesting for the release of RELIGIOUS prisoners? Or do you think the CCP takes a dim view of people protesting for the release of any prisoners, period? Again, common sense is at stake here for you, however little of it you have in your possession.

“It’s nothing about “growth.” ”
—and you know this how? Recognizing that you are apparently unusually gullible, what do you think the CCP would be fearful of that might harm the CCP/political power of the people’s democratic dictatorship? My guess is the growing of the protests in size and scope. Your’s would be about qigong, I suppose. Common sense can be so elusive to people who lack it, like you.

March 22, 2011 @ 9:27 am | Comment

@what is being harmed?”, the answer is NOT “CCP” OR “political power of people’s democratic dictatorship”, since you already acknowledged that they are the same thing about 3 seconds earlier.

“What” is: “CCP” OR “political power of people’s democratic dictatorship. “Why” is Pseudo-science and pseudo-Qigong There’s no pronouns in either of the 2 questions.

@CCP had to act is to preserve ITSELF.

…by stopping Zhong Gong’s Pseudo-science and pseudo-Qigong.

@to you, perhaps. But we already know your grasp of English blows, and you lack logic and common sense. So I wouldn’t take your “meaning” to the bank by any stretch.

You can ridicule my English all you want but the fact is that you are ridiculing your own self.

@Oh, that’s right, because the CCP/”political power of the people’s democratic dictatorship” will be harmed. Back to square one again for you, as Richard says.

Again what is being harmed: CCP/”political power of the people’s democratic dictatorship” and Why is being harmed: pseudo-science and pseudo-qigong

@you don’t need to be situated in a “foreign land” to have “word of mouth”

Yes you do especially for Communist countries that are tight lipped about these kinds of situations. If Zhong Gong and Cebei Gong had gone to overseas and start to talk about the situation they were in same as FLG, they would also had the lovefest from the foreign media to counter the communist countries tight-lipped rhetoric.

@Listen, those sects didn’t spread overseas, AND they weren’t persecuted or propagandized against nearly to the extent of FLG.

They WERE persecuted or propagandized the same way or worst than FLG before FLG protested in Zhongnanhai.

@Or do you think the CCP takes a dim view of people protesting for the release of any prisoners, period?

No (although some few exceptions) but your adjective of the prisoners of protesting is wrong and needs to be corrected since they were not protesting anything about politics or CCP.

@—and you know this how?

From a timeline of 5 demonstrations in 1998-1999 that were protesting against media and critics (CCP did not banned FLG) and 1 protest against CCP’s view on qigong from their demands in 1999. (CCP did banned FLG)

March 23, 2011 @ 5:53 am | Comment

” “What” is: “CCP” OR “political power of people’s democratic dictatorship.”
—you are certifiably crazy. You just finished saying that Ccp IS political power of people’s democratic dictatorship, in #279. Now that I’ve shown you how that again makes my argument, you go back and try to suggest they are not the same thing. What is it with Ccp apologists that make them so incapable of a consistent argument?

So what is being harmed? The Ccp. The political power of people’s democratic dictatorship. Same thing. Why might it be harmed? Because FLG showed a capacity for rallying the masses, and the Ccp was scared they might turn people against the Ccp en masse.

“@CCP had to act is to preserve ITSELF.
…by stopping Zhong Gong’s Pseudo-science and pseudo-Qigong.”
—ahhh, once again you agree with me but are too stupid to realize it. “why” is Ccp cracking down? To preserve itself ( my point all along). How is it doing so? By stopping pseudo this and that. I wonder how you’ll change your tune again now that I’ve pointed out yet another of your stupid mistakes.

“You can ridicule my English all you want but the fact is that you are ridiculing your own self.”
—I will continue to call you out when you willfully ignore basic English language norms in trying to justify your foolish argument. Not sure how that has anything to do with me. Which is why I also ridicule your lack of logic with some regularity.

“Again what is being harmed: CCP/”political power of the people’s democratic dictatorship” and Why is being harmed: pseudo-science and pseudo-qigong”
— maybe some day you’ll finally ” get” it. The question is ” why did they act against FLG?”. The answer is because of the fact that Ccp/ political power etc will be harmed. Turn the question around. Would they have acted if Ccp/ political power etc would NOT be harmed? Nope. Pseudo qigong or not has nothing to do with it.

” If Zhong Gong and Cebei Gong had gone to overseas and start to talk about the situation they were in same as FLG, they would also had the lovefest from the foreign media to counter the communist countries tight-lipped rhetoric.”
— earth to Jason: that’s the point. They were NOT in the same situation as FLG. And their situation was different because they hadn’t shown the capacity to incite crowds.

“They WERE persecuted or propagandized the same way or worst than FLG before FLG protested in ”
— gimme a break. Nice revisionist history by a Ccp apologist. We’ve seen that before. Like I said from a common sense perspective, you are a wingnut.

“”No (although some few exceptions) but your adjective of the prisoners of protesting is wrong and needs to be corrected since they were not protesting anything about politics or CCP.”
— the Ccp imprisoned them for political reasons, because they were a threat to the POLITICAL power of the Ccp. Hence ergo therefore, they were political prisoners. It’s not what they were protesting; it’s why they were imprisoned ( political reasons).

“From a timeline of 5 demonstrations…”
— like I said, gullible is you. They protested. Some of them got arrested. Did that stop them? Nope. They not only went out and protested some more, but had the temerity to ask for the release of political prisoners, and pushing the Ccp further on something the Ccp had already banned. So the Ccp realized and decided that these guys weren’t going to stop, and might escalate to directing crowds not only in support of FLG, but maybe even directly against Ccp. The Ccp/ political power could be harmed. ” consequently”, these guys had to be forcefully eliminated, and we saw what happened.

March 23, 2011 @ 2:16 pm | Comment

@you go back and try to suggest they are not the same thing.

Oops. ‘AND’

@Why might it be harmed? Because FLG showed a capacity for rallying the masses, and the Ccp was scared they might turn people against the Ccp en masse.

Wrong again. The why has always be pseudo-science and pseudo-qigong from that actual quote.

@“why” is Ccp cracking down? To preserve itself ( my point all along). How is it doing so? By stopping pseudo this and that.

Wrong again. What? is itself. Why? pseudo-science and pseudo-qigong

@Would they have acted if Ccp/ political power etc would NOT be harmed?

The correct question is Would they have acted if CCP/political power’s views of qigong were not challenged would not be harmed? The answer is simply no.

@And their situation was different because they hadn’t shown the capacity to incite crowds.

Zhong Gong and Cebei Gong doesn’t have to protest…banned. Has no divisions overseas…no one heard of them. FLG protest in the context of challenging CCP’s views of qigong…banned. Has divisions…has foreign media support hence CCP continued propaganda.

Qigong and protest in the context of challenging CCP views of qigong are very similar but to continue CCP’s propaganda from post 1999 to present, Zhong Gong and Cebei Gong has to have divisions overseas before 1999 to have support from the foreign media.

@Nice revisionist history by a Ccp apologist.

Try accuse Zhong Gong people for writing that history. Don’t blame the messenger.

@— the Ccp imprisoned them for political reasons, because they were a threat to the POLITICAL power of the Ccp. Hence ergo therefore, they were political prisoners. It’s not what they were protesting; it’s why they were imprisoned ( political reasons). //temerity to ask for the release of political prisoners

The actual quote says otherwise. The reason is always have been CCP’s view of qigong which is contrary to Zhong Gong; Cebei Gong; Falun Gong’s pseudo-science and pseudo-Qigong.

@The Ccp/ political power could be harmed…

…by pseudo-science and pseudo-qigong ” consequently”, these guys had to be forcefully eliminated, and we saw what happened.

March 24, 2011 @ 3:43 am | Comment

This “debate” was over weeeeeeeeks ago. Just like in paintball, Jason, when you’ve been blown away, you have to sit down.

March 24, 2011 @ 4:02 am | Comment

The thread that keeps on giving.

March 24, 2011 @ 11:20 am | Comment

“Wrong again. The why has always be pseudo-science and pseudo-qigong from that actual quote.”
—you should really read and understand the quote for once. Sure, they talked about pseudo this and that. But when it ” runs it’s course”, that’s when it becomes about what the FLG could potentially do with a bunch of devout followers. I mean really, how does pseudo qigong ” harm” the Ccp and it’s political power? It is the potential of people being mobilized against the Ccp that could conceivably be construed as a threat to the Ccp. To believe you is to believe that the Ccp would feel politically threatened because some people disagree with her, about qigong. That is beyond ridiculous.

“Wrong again. What? is itself. Why? pseudo-science and pseudo-qigong”
—since you are hopelessly dense, I’ll draw it out for you. Instead of asking ” why is Ccp cracking down”, let’s make it ” the Ccp is cracking down, for what?”. It’s the same question, but you have been very thick about it. For what? For the Ccp, AND the political power of the peoples democratic dictatorship.

“The correct question is Would they have acted if CCP/political power’s views of qigong were not challenged would not be harmed?”
— umm, that is not English. Try again.
Also, we’re talking Ccp and political power of the peoples democratic dictatorship. We are NOT talking about ” political power’s views of qigong”. Nice try.

“Zhong Gong and Cebei Gong doesn’t have to protest…banned. Has no divisions overseas…no one heard of them. FLG protest in the context of challenging CCP’s views of qigong…banned. Has divisions…has foreign media support hence CCP continued propaganda.”
— once again, that’s not English. Time for more lessons from your trainers. Also, it’s NOT whether zhong

March 24, 2011 @ 11:27 am | Comment

Sorry, thick fingers.

It is not whether zhong gong has to protest or not. The point is what happens when they do protest. The reason why the other sects weren’t persecuted is because they DIDN’T protest. Because of this lack of protest, they weren’t persecuted. Because of this lack of persecution, they don’t have international attention.
Foreign media doesn’t cover something just because they’ve heard of them. You need a better reason, like Ccp persecution and propaganda, a la FLG.

“Qigong and protest in the context of challenging CCP views of qigong are very similar but to continue CCP’s propaganda from post 1999 to present, Zhong Gong and Cebei Gong has to have divisions overseas before 1999 to have support from the foreign media.”
— once again, cart before horse. Ongoing media coverage is due to ongoing propaganda, not the other way around.

“Try accuse Zhong Gong people for writing that history. Don’t blame the messenger.”
— yours is the Ccp version of that history. And you are most definitely their messenger, though I would have thought they could do better.

“The actual quote says otherwise. The reason is always have been CCP’s view of qigong which is contrary to Zhong Gong; Cebei Gong; Falun Gong’s pseudo-science and pseudo-Qigong.”
— nice try at creative reading. The quote is silent on their imprisonment. The quote doesn’t even say they need to be imprisoned.

“@The Ccp/ political power could be harmed…
…by pseudo-science and pseudo-qigong ” consequently”, these guys had to be forcefully eliminated, and we saw what happened.”
— it is somewhat sad to see a simpleton like you getting spun around like a top. And you once again don’t even realize it. Your modification of my statement does NOT change the core meaning of that statement. The power could be harmed by pseudo this and that, but for what reason did FLG have to be forcefully eliminated? It is still for the reason that Ccp/ political power could be harmed. Which is what I’ve been saying all along. So since you made the modified statement, you must agree with this modified statement, right? Do you know what that means? LOL. You’ve just agreed with me again without knowing it. You are, once again, really quite something.

March 24, 2011 @ 11:46 am | Comment

@how does pseudo qigong ” harm” the Ccp?

Since CCP has control over the belief of qigong hence the China Qigong Scientific Research Association was established in 1960s, the views of qigong must be matched by the State. If a qigong group that has pseudo-science and pseudo-qigong, the State will felt threatened by the belief since CCP isn’t accepting any other beliefs that is contrary to theirs.

@let’s make it ” the Ccp is cracking down, for what?”.

what: CCP/political power of people’s democratic dictatorship

why: pseudo-science and pseudo-qigong

@We are NOT talking about ” political power’s views of qigong”. Nice try.

The quote you pulled out is directly talking about ” political power’s views of qigong.”

@The reason why the other sects weren’t persecuted is because they DIDN’T protest.

Zhong Gong people would tell you a different side that they were being persecuted and banned in 1999 even though they didn’t protest.

@Ongoing media coverage is due to ongoing propaganda, not the other way around.

True but that’s not what I said. To get the ongoing propaganda is to have the other qigong sects to have divisions overseas. Then they get the support of foreign media. Without that, the reality of Zhong Gong and Cebei Gong is not hard to see for the lack of support from the foreign media of their own religious suppression.

@yours is the Ccp version of that history. And you are most definitely their messenger, though I would have thought they could do better.

Zhong Gong’s words not mine nor CCP. None of your accusations are true. More pathetic and easy way out ad hominem attacks.-classic MOs for your kind to label individuals into a stereotypical group that challenges their viewpoints that they think is “normal” and not debatable.

@The quote doesn’t even say they need to be imprisoned.

You’re right. But this does: “Consequently, the organs of public security at all levels should heighten their understanding of staff, adopt powerful measures and conscientiously enhance the mastering and restricting Zhong Gong organizations.”

And the quote you use answered the why? Because of pseudo-science and pseudo-qigong.

@It is still for the reason that Ccp/ political power could be harmed

No it’s not. It is still pseudo-science and pseudo-qigong.

March 25, 2011 @ 7:31 am | Comment

” If a qigong group that has pseudo-science and pseudo-qigong, the State will felt threatened by the belief since CCP isn’t accepting any other beliefs that is contrary to theirs.”
—-even if you believe that, at best, the Ccp would feel their qigong views are being threatened. But the reason they acted was because their political power was being threatened. Those are NOT the same thing.

“@let’s make it ” the Ccp is cracking down, for what?”.
…what: CCP/political power of people’s democratic dictatorship”
—-it’s becoming comical how you agree with me without realizing it. I asked ” for what?”. You’re reiterating that ” what”= Ccp / political power. So you’ve yet again stipulated that the Ccp is cracking down for the Ccp/ political power of the peoples democratic dictatorship. That’s again what I said all along. Congratulations.

“The quote you pulled out is directly talking about ” political power’s views of qigong.””
— ummm, the quote talks about qigong, and the political power of the peoples democratic dictatorship. ” political power’s views of qigong” is a figment of your imagination, a byproduct of your terrible grasp of basic English, or both.

” Zhong Gong people would tell you a different side that they were being persecuted and banned in 1999 even though they didn’t protest.”
— oh they would would they? And you would know this how, exactly? Besides, they were banned, but their treatment was much less severe than what was afforded the FLG.

“@Ongoing media coverage is due to ongoing propaganda, not the other way around.
…True but that’s not what I said. To get the ongoing propaganda is to have the other qigong sects to have divisions overseas.”
—- you are so clueless and confused that you don’t even know what you’re saying anymore. First, you agree with my statement. Wise choice. Then you suggest that your own statement is different than my statement. Then you try to argue against my statement, the same one you had agreed with two seconds earlier. Are all Ccp apologists as hopelessly confused and illogical as you?
And as I said ( and you felt was ” true”), you don’t need ” foreign divisions” to get ongoing propaganda. You just need to have pissed off the Ccp enough with threats to their political power, like the FLG did.

“You’re right. But this does: “Consequently, the organs of public security at all levels should heighten their understanding of staff, adopt powerful measures and conscientiously enhance the mastering and restricting Zhong Gong organizations.”
— maybe you could help yourself out and identify where it talks about imprisonment. Cuz I don’t see it. You’re once again engaged in creative reading.

“No it’s not. It is still pseudo-science and pseudo-qigong.”
— if you want to be incorrigible with your terrible comprehension of the English language, despite my attempts to show you the light, that’s not my problem. But the CCP’S statement, and her motivations, should be very clear to anyone with even a rudimentary grasp of the language. Which is why I’ve long suggested that you go back tp Ccp language school if you have any aspirations of being a Ccp apologist on an English language blog. And if the logic still befuddles you, just go back to the second point of this post, where I show you how you’ve yet again agreed with me without realizing it. You are on world record pace.

March 25, 2011 @ 10:53 am | Comment

@But the reason they acted was because their political power was being threatened. Those are NOT the same thing.

This is your opinion. Not directly from that quote. The reason why the (what) political power of people’s democratic dictatorship may further be harmed is Zhong Gong continuing to run it’s course (pseudo-science and pseudo-qigong).

That alone makes it political power of people’s democratic dictatorship’s views of qigong. Not political power of people’s democratic dictatorship’s political views.

@That’s again what I said all along. Congratulations.

Ok? I’m debating your “why” not your “what” You need to stop being giddy like a schoolgirl over nothing.

@And as I said ( and you felt was ” true”), you don’t need ” foreign divisions” to get ongoing propaganda. You just need to have pissed off the Ccp enough with threats to their political power, like the FLG did.

You never said you “don’t need ” foreign divisions” to get ongoing propaganda.’ in Comment #287. You just said Ongoing propaganda–>Ongoing foreign media reports. I agree with that but FLG had divisions overseas so Zhong Gong and Cebei Gong (same predicament of being persecuted and propagandized needs that as well to have the ongoing propaganda. So for banned gigong case:

Have contrary qigong views that doesn’t match CCP–>Crackdown–>Headed to overseas divisions which was already in place before the crackdown–>soft power like their own media from newspapers to TV to online websites to performances–>Ongoing propaganda–>Ongoing foreign media reports.

@maybe you could help yourself out and identify where it talks about imprisonment. Cuz I don’t see it.

“adopt powerful measures” The words “powerful measures” seems to me like a indication of imprisonment for the leaders of Zhong Gong which CCP did just that.

#— if you want to be incorrigible with your terrible comprehension of the English language, despite my attempts to show you the light, that’s not my problem.

It IS your problem. Your failure to acknowledge the reason why the political power of people’s democratic dictatorship (what) could be further be harmed is due to pseudo-science and pseudo-qigong (run it’s course) is your own downfall.

March 26, 2011 @ 3:00 am | Comment

“This is your opinion. Not directly from that quote. The reason why the (what) political power of people’s democratic dictatorship may further be harmed is Zhong Gong continuing to run it’s course (pseudo-science and pseudo-qigong).”
— you have a pathological inability to listen. Even at face value, this is what the Ccp said: why did the Ccp have to act? Because the political power may be harmed. Why did they feel the political power may be harmed? Apparently from pseudo this and that. But our discussion is on why the Ccp acted. So even in their own words, the direct reason is because of political expedience. At best, the indirect reason would be qigong. In other words, they would act if their political power was threatened, regardless of what was threatening it. On the other hand, since qigong is NOT the direct reason, if pseudo this and that was NOT felt to have threatened their political power, they would not have acted either. Bottom line, the PRIMARY reason for their action was to preserve their political power, which is what I’ve said all along. Furthermore, to suggest that they even felt their poplitical power to be threatened by pseudo whatever is a ridiculous idea. If there is something that made the ccp feel threatened, it was the flg’s capacity to mobilize the masses without ccp consent. Based on the ccp track record, that is something that the ccp could conceivably feel threatened by. So your argument ignores basic English norms, has no logical grasp of proximate cause, and is intellectually ridiculous. Is that the best the Ccp can do?

” Ok? I’m debating your “why” not your “what”.”
— you were being incredibly stupid with the ” why”, so I changed it to ” for what” to maintain the same concept, using your limited capacity for phrasing. Clearly, you are too stupid, stubborn, or dense to even grasp that. You really need to go back to ESL.

“You never said you “don’t need ” foreign divisions” to get ongoing propaganda.’ in comment #287″
— but remember what I said as recently as #280: (” You don’t need to be situated in a “foreign land” to have “word of mouth”). Part of the same conversation, remember? Are you so challenged that I need to repeat everything I’ve said each and every time? I’m patient with those who have challenges, but even I am not that patient.

“Have contrary qigong views that doesn’t match CCP–>Crackdown–>Headed to overseas divisions which was already in place before the crackdown–>soft power like their own media from newspapers to TV to online websites to performances–>Ongoing propaganda–>Ongoing foreign media reports.”
— you’ve agreed with me again without realizing it. You really have a gift, and you have given me the gift of entertainment. Look at your own sequence. ” crackdown” precedes everything else in resulting in foreign media coverage. And ongoing propaganda is the immediate cause of said coverage. So what is most responsible for foreign media attention? That’s CCP’S ongoing propaganda. What is the root cause for all this attention? That’s right, the crackdown. You make it too easy, yet you are too blind to realize it.

““adopt powerful measures” The words “powerful measures” seems to me like a indication of imprisonment for the leaders of Zhong Gong which CCP did just that.”
— oh it ” seems to you”, does it. Just like I called it, creative reading.

“It IS your problem. Your failure to acknowledge the reason why the political power of people’s democratic dictatorship (what) could be further be harmed is due to pseudo-science and pseudo-qigong (run it’s course) is your own downfall.”
— like I said above, the reason for not acknowledging your explanation is because it is patently ridiculous, and no sane person would ever suggest it, let alone accept it. And also as mentioned, the topic of discussion is why the Ccp ultimately acted, not merely what she may or may not have felt threatened by. The reason why she acted, regardless of the nature or substance of her fears, is because of the threat to the Ccp/ political power of the peoples democratic dictatorship. You can only address why she felt threatened ( by giving a ridiculous explanation) but have been completely incapable of answering why she acted, which is the actual topic of discussion. Why is that? Because you have no answer, but as befits any Ccp apologist, you don’t have the depth of character or quality of upbringing to admit it.

March 26, 2011 @ 3:59 pm | Comment

@why did the Ccp have to act? Because the political power may be harmed.

CCP (political power) had to act because Zhong Gong challenged CCP’s qigong viewpoints. Your answer only answers “Who is acting the crackdown?”

@At best, the indirect reason would be qigong.

The full direct reason from the statement alone is CCP (political power of people’s democratic dictatorship)’s views of qigong. There’s no indirect speech when talking about how Zhong Gong’s views of qigong may harm CCP/political power of people’s democratic dictatorship.

@If there is something that made the ccp feel threatened, it was the flg’s capacity to mobilize the masses without ccp consent.

That is a outrageous claim you believe in. If that is the case, CCP would have banned the entire religion in 1996 when FLG mobilized crowds to protest against critics that CCP allowed on state media. Or if you feel that CCP ignore on the protesters for the first time, CCP could have banned the entire religion in 1998 when there’s 4-5 demonstrations outside the media companies that were critical of FLG. But they did not. CCP only crackdown when the protest was about revitalize the religion that CCP disagreed upon.

Protest doesn’t automatically make CCP ban on a group. Some protest overturns CCP’s views on the arrested or views on economics, politics, domestic or environment.

@— you were being incredibly stupid with the ” why”, so I changed it to ” for what” to maintain the same concept, using your limited capacity for phrasing.

Ignorance is a bliss. From that statement, your “for what” is CCP’s views of qigong.

@— but remember what I said as recently as #280: (” You don’t need to be situated in a “foreign land” to have “word of mouth”). Part of the same conversation, remember? Are you so challenged that I need to repeat everything I’ve said each and every time? I’m patient with those who have challenges, but even I am not that patient.

I do remember but it doesn’t justify of what you comment #287 which you accused me of putting ongoing foreign media reports first and ongoing propaganda comes after, which I didn’t. So I preceded to map out others things that comes before this “Ongoing propaganda–>Ongoing foreign media reports.”

@Look at your own sequence. ” crackdown” precedes everything else in resulting in foreign media coverage.

What you failed to acknowledge again is that Zhong Gong and Cebei Gong had also had the crackdown: Apr 14, 1999, Lishui County People’s Government issued an Announcement Banning Zhong Gong’s Qigong Activities within the Boundaries of our County in Accordance with Law. “In accordance with laws, all the Zhong Gong’s activities of teaching Qigong within the boundaries of our county are prohibited.” “Revoke the certificates of temporary residence of the ‘Qigong teachers’ from another place; Order them to leave the county within a time limit.” “Those, who refuse advice and persist in Qigong teaching activities, will be treated by suspension of retirement pay for retired persons or discharged from their post (from comment #259)—-that is a crackdown.

That crackdown of Zhong Gong was not caused by protest and resulted in no media attention from outside.

@— oh it ” seems to you”, does it. Just like I called it, creative reading.

This is not a wild assumption. This is looking at statements like “powerful measures” or statements like “those refuse..or else” (from above) which it resulted (according to Zhong Gong data): More than 3000 organizations were banned by force; business certificates confiscated; disciples dispersed; staff members beaten and arrested; about 600 persons in Zhong Gong’s organizations had been arrested and detained.

Too bad these things doesn’t mean anything to you because it doesn’t fit into your narrative.

@the topic of discussion is why the Ccp ultimately acted, not merely what she may or may not have felt threatened by. The reason why she acted, regardless of the nature or substance of her fears, is because of the threat to the Ccp/ political power of the peoples democratic dictatorship. You can only address why she felt threatened ( by giving a ridiculous explanation) but have been completely incapable of answering why she acted, which is the actual topic of discussion. Why is that? Because you have no answer, but as befits any Ccp apologist, you don’t have the depth of character or quality of upbringing to admit it.

You are not discussing “why the Ccp ultimately acted?” but you are discussing Who is cracking down on FLG or other qigong sects? You are not paralleling your questions to the selected statement that you picked.

March 28, 2011 @ 6:16 am | Comment

“CCP (political power) had to act because Zhong Gong challenged CCP’s qigong viewpoints.”
—once again, it’s basic English. If the Ccp had to act because of qigong, then their purpose would simply be to preserve their qigong views. But it’s already been stipulated by you ( ie. The ” what”) that the purpose was to preserve her political power. Therefore, basic logic and English norms stipulate that she acted to preserve her power, which once again is what I’ve said all along. It’s still something you have no answer for, and that is not going to change.

Your answer only answers “Who is acting the crackdown?”
—ummm, once again, that is not English.

“The full direct reason from the statement alone is CCP (political power of people’s democratic dictatorship)’s views of qigong. There’s no indirect speech when talking about how Zhong Gong’s views of qigong may harm CCP/political power of people’s democratic dictatorship.”
— you seem to not know the difference between direct and indirect. The direct reason that the Ccp felt threat ( well for the extremely gullible like you) was qigong. But the direct reason why she acted was because this threat would harm the Ccp/ political power. Therefore, the DIRECT reason for acting was to preserve political power. The indirect ( at best if you are gullible) reason is qigong. Much more likely, the indirect reason based on common sense is the threat posed by the FLG ability to amass crowds.

“That is a outrageous claim you believe in. If that is the case, CCP would have banned the entire religion in 1996 when FLG mobilized…”
— they were banned. But the persecution and propaganda intensified with successive displays by the FLG to organize crowds.

“Protest doesn’t automatically make CCP ban on a group”
— sure, when the Protest serves the CCP’S purpose, like anti japan demonstrations. Those are usually welcome, except maybe right now when the party line is to show sympathy after the quake.

“Ignorance is a bliss. From that statement, your “for what” is CCP’s views of qigong.”
— you don’t have to tell me that you’re ignorant. I knew that a very long time ago. Btw, Einstein, if ” what” = ” political power”, the ” FOR what”= ” FOR political power”. That’s how logic works.

“I do remember but it doesn’t justify of what you comment #287 which you accused me of putting ongoing foreign media reports first and ongoing propaganda comes after, which I didn’t.”
— I didn’t accuse you of anything. Why would I care about what you said, since it makes no sense anyway. I was TELLING you that “ongoing propaganda leads to ongoing media coverage, not the other way around.”

“What you failed to acknowledge again is that Zhong Gong and Cebei Gong had also had the crackdown: Apr 14, 1999, Lishui County People’s Government issued an Announcement Banning Zhong Gong’s Qigong Activities…”
—why do all you guys have to compare apples and oranges. You’re talking about ” banning”. That’s not the ” crackdown ” I’m talking about. I’m talking about persecution and ongoing propaganda, remember? Taking away teaching certificates and withholding pay are not anywhere near the same thing.

“This is not a wild assumption. This is looking at statements like “powerful measures” or statements like “those refuse..or else” (from above) which it resulted…”
—” those who refuse” might get suspended, lose pay or even fired. Not nothing. Maybe even powerful in some ways. But hardly comparable to what the FLG got. Again, apples and oranges. It means nothing to me because it’s completely irrelevant to what is being discussed. Too bad the things that fit your narrative are irrelevant things.

“You are not discussing “why the Ccp ultimately acted?” but you are discussing Who is cracking down on FLG or other qigong sects? You are not paralleling your questions to the selected statement that you picked.”
— that is pathetic. Have you been comatose for the duration of this discussion? ” why the Ccp ultimately acted” is exactly what I’ve been talking about the entire time ( for preserving the Ccp and the political power of the peoples democratic dictatorship, remember?). Your suggestion is beyond pathetically weak. Your handlers cannot be pleased with that effort. Besides, the ” who” part is not a big mystery even for you, is it? Like I’ve said, the statement speaks for itself except for those who don’t understand English and / or choose to be willfully blind to what they’re reading. You may be one of those, or both.

March 28, 2011 @ 8:38 am | Comment

@But it’s already been stipulated by you ( ie. The ” what”) that the purpose was to preserve her political power.

CCP/political power’s (the what) purpose was to preserve her CCP/political power’s views of qigong.

@But the direct reason why she acted was because this threat would harm the Ccp/ political power.

Since you already stipulated that “the threat” is qigong, fake qigong I should add and that “threat” may (direct) harm the CCP/political power, what’s there to argue since you already reiterate my point that it would harm or having contrary views of qigong than CCP.

@I was TELLING you that “ongoing propaganda leads to ongoing media coverage, not the other way around.”

You just reiterate what I just said that you believe I said ongoing media coverage–>ongoing propaganda which I did not. And then I followed up there’s more events than just “ongoing propaganda–>ongoing media coverage.”"

@knew that a very long time ago. Btw, Einstein, if ” what” = ” political power”, the ” FOR what”= ” FOR political power”. That’s how logic works.

I have made it clear that “what”: CCP/political power of people’s democratic dictatorship is only the tip of the iceberg and with “if they run it’s course” (pseudo-science and pseudo-qigong), the views and the reason and the why CCP acted is their fake qigong not politics, politically, political views.

@But hardly comparable to what the FLG got.//I’m talking about persecution and ongoing propaganda

You ignore this completely: “staff members beaten and arrested; about 600 persons in Zhong Gong’s organizations had been arrested and detained.”–this looks like a crackdown and persecution instead of simply banning the organization.

@sure, when the Protest serves the CCP’S purpose, like anti japan demonstrations.

But there’s also protests that makes CCP equally squeamish and CCP would overturn her act to calm the anger. Like sacking a reporter that was interviewing a FLG critic due to FLG protest from pre-1999.

@why the Ccp ultimately acted” is exactly what I’ve been talking about the entire time ( for preserving the Ccp and the political power of the peoples democratic dictatorship, remember?).

Based on the statement, you are still answering who is stopping Zhong Gong to run it’s course (pseudo-science and pseduo-qigong)?
–political power of the peoples democratic dictatorship

but that answer does not answer the question why the Ccp/political power of the peoples democratic dictatorship ultimately acted?” That answer would be to stop Zhong Gong to run it’s course (pseudo-science and pseduo-qigong).

March 30, 2011 @ 12:57 am | Comment

“CCP/political power’s (the what) purpose was to preserve her CCP/political power’s views of qigong.”
—oh great, now it’s onto circular reasoning. CCP apologists just have no shame.

“that “threat” may (direct) harm the CCP/political power,”
—yes, and the reason to act is to preserve that exact CCP/political power, since it was this political power that was at risk of being harmed. That’s what I’ve been saying all along. CCP apologists have no shame, and possess little capacity for logic to boot.

“I followed up there’s more events than just “ongoing propaganda–>ongoing media coverage.””
—and CCP apologists don’t understand cause and effect. Ongoing propaganda caused ongoing media coverage, which is what I said all along (the arrows are like the direction of causation). You listed some stuff that came before the propaganda. You can rightfully infer that those things in some direct or indirect way caused the propaganda. Jeez, it’s like I’m teaching a Logic 101 class here. And you’re not a particularly sharp student.

“only the tip of the iceberg”
—LOL, tip of what iceberg? Did you see references to icebergs in that famous quote of yours? What is this, the Titanic? CCP apologists also like to engage in creative reading, it appears. And of course, no answer for the flaws in your logic. And naturally, no acknowledgment thereof. You guys are all alike, and very predictable.

“staff members beaten and arrested”
—perhaps some of them were. So maybe it’s a teensy little tiny bit like FLG. But certainly not the same as FLG treatment.

“But there’s also protests that makes CCP equally squeamish”
—yeah, like repeated protests by FLG, for instance. That’s why the CCP had to crackdown before the CCP got harmed.

“Based on the statement, you are still answering who is stopping Zhong Gong to run it’s course (pseudo-science and pseduo-qigong)?”
—listen, am I being tasked with tutoring you on logic, and English? This has nothing to do with “who”. Oh wait, maybe you’re working your way through your 5 W’s, since the “what” and the “why” have left you high and dry. Are we going to discuss the “where” and the “when” next? I think we’ve come full circle back to CCP apologists have no shame.

“That answer would be to stop Zhong Gong to run it’s course (pseudo-science and pseduo-qigong).”
—and why did the CCP have to stop it from running its course? Umm, going back to that quote…oh, that’s right, because she feared that the CCP/political power of the people’s democratic dictatorship might be harmed. Logic. English. Such basic skills that people take for granted, until confronted by someone who obviously has little to none of either.

March 30, 2011 @ 5:13 pm | Comment

@SKC

I have a fractured clavicle on my right shoulder while riding my bike downhill just today. I’m in extensive pain. If I regain to my health, I would gave a response.

March 31, 2011 @ 7:56 am | Comment

@—oh great, now it’s onto circular reasoning.

You are crazy mad. How’s THAT circular reasoning?

CCP/political power is NOT similar to (CCP)’s views of qigong or (political power)’s views of qigong.

@That’s what I’ve been saying all along.

I don’t think so. What you being saying all along is that FLG, solely, forgetting all the things of what the state-owned China Qigong Scientific Research Association of throwing bad apples (not just FLG) out of their organization for religious purposes, you took the statement from Zhong Gong of “political power” AND “run its own course” (pseudo-science and pseudo-Qigong with reactionary colors and fraudulent acts) to mean political purposes or politically, which clearly is not what the statement says.

@You can rightfully infer that those things in some direct or indirect way caused the propaganda.

Great, we finally clear this up.

@—LOL, tip of what iceberg?

“Political Power” is the only the beginning of a larger problem which this large problem is their views on qigong which the statement explicitly says.

@perhaps some of them were. So maybe it’s a teensy little tiny bit like FLG. But certainly not the same as FLG treatment.

That doesn’t diminish CCP’s agenda to kick out the bad apples from China Qigong Scientific Research Association for religious purposes.

@why did the CCP have to stop it from running its course?

The quote you are referring does not answer this question but the sentence before your referred quote directly answers this question: “pseudo-science and pseudo-Qigong with reactionary colors and fraudulent acts.”

May 22, 2011 @ 1:11 am | Comment

I can’t believe your resuscitating this long-dead thread. Is there really anything that hasn’t been said at this point?

May 22, 2011 @ 1:18 am | Comment

Nearly two months later, and Jason’s English comprehension still sucks like it did back then. And his grasp of logic hasn’t improved either. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Listen, Jason, you go ahead and believe what your CCP training and rudimentary English capacity allow you to believe. Thankfully, I am not encumbered by your limitations. As Richard says, there’s not much new on this front. If you believe that “political power” is but a small motivation for the CCP compared to the motivation it derives from their views on qigong, then I have a bridge to sell to you; you probably believe in the tooth fairy, Easter bunny, and Santa Claus; and you are probably waiting for your lottery winnings to arrive from Nigeria after giving out your personal and banking information. All I can say is that it sucks to be you, and thankfully that is not my problem.

May 22, 2011 @ 2:03 am | Comment

Wow. I especially like your last post for explicitly detailing your own self on this debate for not having any shred of resources that banning pseudo-science qigong organizations (underground Protestants as well as they were banned in that year as well) is for political purposes. *applause*

May 22, 2011 @ 3:35 am | Comment

Could you repeat that in English please? I understand your difficulty with English, your lack of comprehension of which seems to have initiated this back-and-forth to begin with. Like I said, you believe what you want, English language (and common sense) notwithstanding.

May 22, 2011 @ 4:50 am | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.